Empiree:
don't waste my time please. Isn't obvious you have no idea what you talking about?. You are asking me which sharia? shows that you didn't even read to understand what this thread is about. You already made up your mind to attack sufis. Goodluck buddy.

When your read and grasp the msg, then come back to refute. You have a good day. And don't forget to provide evidence that sharia law (Islamic) has always been implemented from day one according to you

Islaamic Studies of Nigerian Universities dey worry you!

Hibrahym:

It is upon u to provide evidence of abrogation

# Obviously, you really don't know the flaws in your manhaj's submission about Rajam (stoning).


# Let's start from this athar documented by Imam Bukhari:

Narrated Ash Shaibani:

I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa, 'Did Allah's Messenger (s) carry out the Rajam penalty ( i.e., stoning to death)?' He said, "Yes." I said, "Before the revelation of Surat-an-Nur or after it?" He replied, "I don't Know."

Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 6813 
In-book reference  : Book 86, Hadith 43 
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 804 
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/86

# The above athar clearly suggest there was a question mark on the "punishment of adulterer by stoning" for a simple fact that it clearly contradict the ruling of Allah in the below noble ayah:

[24:2] Al-Nur 
(As for) az-Zaniyatu and az-Zaniy, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.


# Quran is crystal clear. It does not distinguish whether the culprit is single or married. Zina is Zina. Whoever commit Zina should be flogged.

# Unfortunately, some scholars choose to argue that the above verse only address "fornicators" (singles -male or female- that have sexual intercourse). And that married if guilty of the same crime should be stoned to death because ahadith established it. Can Hadith overruled the command of the Qur'an? Never, because Nabi will not contradict his Lord.



# AYAT AR-RAJM (verse of stoning)

Imam ibn Majah documents:

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“ The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” 

Grade : Hasan (Darussalam)  

English reference  : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1944 
Arabic reference  : Book 9, Hadith 2020 
http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9

# According to Aisha, the alleged verse of stoning was very much in her custody at the time our Prophet died. Unfortunately, it was lost.



# Years after the demise of Nabi, Caliph Umar gave his own account of the "verse of stoning":

Imam Bukhari documents:

Ibn Abbas reported Umar ibn al-Khattab to have made the following long sermon:


"...Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Messenger (s) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession...

Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 6830 
In-book reference  : Book 86, Hadith 57 
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817 
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/86


# So, according to Umar ibn al-Khattab, the "verse of stoning" was still very much part of the Qur'an during his reign as Khalifah but he feared it will disappear. Truly, where's the "verse of stoning" in the Qur'an today? Nowhere. Does these ahadith suggest some verses were removed from the Qur'an?


# Sunni/Salafi thought they have suitable answer to the above ahadith. Here's the Salafi's understanding and interpretation of the hadith:


{[1: These verses (of stoning and breastfeeding) were abrogated in recitation but not ruling. Other ahadith establish the number for fosterage to be 5.]} (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

* That is those verses were erased out of the Qur'an (abrogated) therefore you cannot see them again, but their command remain intact. Is this not laughable?


# KNOCKOUT BY THE QUR'AN
Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 106:

Whatever ayat (verse) We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

* So, we ask our Salafists and whoever believes in "stoning" and the wishwack explanation in defence of the "verse of stoning": which verse did Allah revealed to replace the abrogated " verse of stoning "?

Hibrahym:

Islaamic Studies of Nigerian Universities dey worry you!

IRRELEVANT

AlBaqir:


# Obviously, you really don't know the flaws in your manhaj's submission about Rajam (stoning).


# Let's start from this athar documented by Imam Bukhari:

Narrated Ash Shaibani:

I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa, 'Did Allah's Messenger (s) carry out the Rajam penalty ( i.e., stoning to death)?' He said, "Yes." I said, "Before the revelation of Surat-an-Nur or after it?" He replied, "I don't Know."

Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 6813 
In-book reference  : Book 86, Hadith 43 
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 804 
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/86

# The above athar clearly suggest there was a question mark on the "punishment of adulterer by stoning" for a simple fact that it clearly contradict the ruling of Allah in the below noble ayah:

[24:2] Al-Nur 
(As for) az-Zaniyatu and az-Zaniy, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.


# Quran is crystal clear. It does not distinguish whether the culprit is single or married. Zina is Zina. Whoever commit Zina should be flogged.

# Unfortunately, some scholars choose to argue that the above verse only address "fornicators" (singles -male or female- that have sexual intercourse). And that married if guilty of the same crime should be stoned to death because ahadith established it. Can Hadith overruled the command of the Qur'an? Never, because Nabi will not contradict his Lord.

Rajm abrogated by hundred lashes punishment?

There are some from amongst the opponents of rajm who argue that it was abrogated by punishment of hundred lashes mentioned in Surah al-Nur. In other words they try to convey that rajm was an earlier practice of the Blessed Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- and Surah al-Nur was revealed after that, therefore owing to its general import it abrogated rajm.

Although they claim the above but they have absolutely no evidence for it. At the most they can refer to the following hadith narration;
Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked 'Abdullah bin Abi 'Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, "The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam," I asked, "Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?" He replied, "I do not know."

But as one can see there is no evidence that Messenger of Allah carried out rajm before Surah al-Nur was revealed. It only shows Abdullah bin Abi Aufa –may Allah be pleased with him- did not know about it.

The fact however remains that most if not all of the incidents of rajm practiced by the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- took place after the revelation of surah al-Nur. Consider the following points;

1- Surah al-Nur was revealed after a false charge was made against Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah Aisha, which happened immediately after Battle (ghazwah) of Bani Mastaliq.

2-Historians differ as to the date of this Battle. According to Ibn Ishaq it was in the year 6 A.H. According to al-Waqidi and Ibn Sa’d it took place in the year 5 A.H. According to one report attributed to Musa bin ‘Uqbah it happened in the year 4 A.H., however, more authentic reports from him also put it in the year 5 A.H. Hafiz Ibn Hajr considering various narrations and facts has said that most preferable opinion is that of 5 A.H.
Therefore we can say, the latest battle took place in the year 6 A.H. though according to the most authentic view it took place in the year 5 A.H. and immediately after it the Surah al-Nur was revealed. Most accounts say it was the month of Sha’ban.

3- There is evidence of rajm carried out by the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- after year 6 A.H.
The incident of stoning to death of the Jewish adulterers is reported by the blessed companion Abdullah bin al-Harith, and he said, “I was among those who stoned the two.”

And Abdullah bin al-Harith along with his father came to the Holy Prophet after the conquest of Makkah. So his presence at the event means it happened in or after 8 A.H. i.e. long after the revelation of Surah al-Nur.

Regarding the same incident in a narration recorded by Al-Tabari, another companion Abu Hurayrah said,“I was sitting with the Messenger of Allah …”

And it is well known fact that Abu Hurayrah accepted Islam in the year 7 A.H. i.e. at least a couple of years after the revelation of Surah al-Nur.
Some people have objected to this saying how could the Jewish adulterers be punished after the conquest of Makkah while their tribes were routed from Madina well before. However this is not really a valid objection because even after the main Jewish tribes were expelled from Madina there remained many Jews in the city.

As recorded in Sahih Bukhari, Abu Hurayrah who- as stated above- embraced Islam in the year 7 A.H. said:

“While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, and otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Messenger.”

This proves even after 7 A.H. there were some Jews in Madina. In fact we know there was a Jew in Madina even at the time of the death of the Messenger of Allah- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- (i.e. 11 A.H.) to whom his armor was mortgaged.

4- Other incidents of rajm date later than the episode of the stoning of the Jews as we find Abu Hurayrah saying that first ones to be stoned to death by the Messenger of Allah were a couple from amongst the Jews.

Narrations about rajm of Ghamdia (woman from the tribe of Ghamid) tell us that Khalid bin Walid threw stones at her. And Khalid bin Walid- may Allah be pleased with him- himself said: “We reached the Messenger of Allah at Madina on the first day of Safar in the eighth year [after Hijrah].”

All these days make it absolutely clear that the Noble Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- carried out stoning (rajm) after the revelation of surah al-Nur and there is no question of rajm being abrogated.

...Continuation

The punishment for illicit relations given in Surah al-Nur is general?

Another argument is about the general import of the hundred lashes punishment given in surah al-Nur verse 2. They say rajm is, therefore, a contradiction to the Qur’anic instruction.

This argument is flawed for a number of reasons;

i) The verse with hundred lashes punishment cannot be general and Qur’an itself testifies to it. In Qur’an 4:25 the punishment of female adulterer is specified to be half of free female fornicator. With this fact known the idea of the totally generic implication of surah al-Nur ayah 2 is laid to proven wrong. Strictly considering the word “zani” used in Surah al-Nur verse 2, it does not differentiate between a slave and a free like it does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise. So to say that it is absolutely universal in application contradicts Qur’an itself.

ii) The context of the hundred lashes verse itself proves it is for fornicators (un-married people) and not adulterers (married people). While the opponents of Rajm are convinced that this verse proves their stance in the light of logic and reason they fail to look at verse number three. How could it be that if the people refereed to in this verse included both married and unmarried the following verse said that the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator or a polytheist? In the case of a man one could say that he can marry more than once, but in the case of the woman it does not make sense, as she can only marry one husband which shows that verse number two talks about unmarried people.

For references and access to the whole article, please go Here

The rest of the issues raised had already been discussed....

^^ sino,

This epistle still has implications. If a verse of Quran is abrogared as we know it, abrogated verse remains in the Quran just like many other alleged abrogated verses.

Like for instance, Q2:62 is said to have been abrogated by Q3:85. So both verses remain the in Book. Why is rajm an exception? . This is hanky panky. It means you believe in the very same thing shia are accused of, that Quran is incomplete. If you submit to the story that verse of rajm was abrogated or missing, you are insulting Quran. That's the implication.


Stories can not sit in judgement over Quran. Hukm of Rajm is for yahud and nasara. Not Muslims

Empiree:
^^ sino,

This epistle still has implications. If a verse of Quran is abrogared as we know it, abrogated verse remains in the Quran just like many other alleged abrogated verses.

Like for instance, Q2:62 is said to have been abrogated by Q3:85. So both verses remain the in Book. Why is rajm an exception? . This is hanky panky. It means you believe in the very same thing shia are accused of, that Quran is incomplete. That's the implication

Stories can not sit in judgement over Quran. Hukm of Rajm is for yahud and nasara. Not Muslims

Brother, the argument of the author isn't that the verse was abrogated, rather, it is still in the Qur'an in Al Maidah 5:43, although implied. Please don't confuse my submissions with what the Shi'as believe, they are far apart.

Is it the hadiths of the Prophet (SAW) that you are referring to as stories?! Hope you know that what the Prophet (SAW) did is also part of the Shari'ah?!

sino:


Brother, the argument of the author isn't that the verse was abrogated, rather, it is still in the Qur'an in Al Maidah 5:43, although implied. Please don't confuse my submissions with what the Shi'as believe, they are far apart.

Ha, brother, this ayah you quoted clearly refers to the time when the Jews came to the prophet (saw) to pass judgement on the two adulterers. Remember the incident?.

This ayah said that the judgment of Allah is in their torah, why is the need for them to come to nabi?. They simply wanted to set him up and test his prophethood too like they did to nabi Isa (as). So nabi enforced Allah's hukm in their book on them.

If a sunni also believes there is a hidden ayah of Quran somewhere, he's no different from shia's

sino:


But as one can see there is no evidence that Messenger of Allah carried out rajm before Surah al-Nur was revealed. It only shows Abdullah bin Abi Aufa –may Allah be pleased with him- did not know about it.

The fact however remains that most if not all of the incidents of rajm practiced by the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- took place after the revelation of surah al-Nur. Consider the following points;

# It seems you misunderstood my position. Clearly there are some ahadith that indicate "stoning".

# When Nabi, salallahu alayhi wa ahli, allegedly stoned or commanded stoning is not my submission or argument here o. I absolutely have NOTHING to do with those ahadith (whether in Sunni or Shia documents).

# My concern is:

1. On the command of Sura Nur which is generic. Your author proves nothing to restrict surah Nur: 2 to particular individuals (single).

2. The claim of "Ayat rajm" which (both) Sunni (and Shia) documented. I am of firm position that "Ayat of rajm" might probably be revealed as those ahadith suggested but obviously it was abrogated for there's nothing like it in the Qur'an. Here we split into 2:

A. We argue based on sura Baqarah:106 that "verse of stoning" was ERASED and substituted with something BETTER in Surah Nur: 2.

B. You claimed "verse of stoning" was ERASED and abrogated but you FAILED woefully to point out which verse substituted it in both qira'at and hukm.


# So, the challenge is still widely open.

Empiree:
Ha, brother, this ayah you quoted clearly refers to the time when the Jews came to the prophet (saw) to pass judgement on the two adulterers. Remember the incident?.

This ayah said that the judgment of Allah is in their torah, why is the need for them to come to nabi?. They simply wanted to set him up and test his prophethood too like they did to nabi Isa (as). So nabi enforced Allah's hukm in their book on them.

If a sunni also believes there is a hidden ayah of Quran somewhere, he's no different from shia's

Please stop muddling things up! I tried to present excerpts from a research, I posted a link so you can read further and get the full picture, but it seems your mind is made up, and not that I really want to change it, I just wanted to present an academic view, which I find convincing. The author did not claim there is an hidden ayah, but based on other corroborating evidences, the Prophet (SAW) enforced the hadd of rajm as already revealed in the Torah. That verse establishes the fact that rajm is Allah's Hadd for adultery. So when I said it is implied, I do not mean hidden verse or abrogated verse!

Please go to the link and read the full article.

sino:



1- Surah al-Nur was revealed after a false charge was made against Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah Aisha, which happened immediately after Battle (ghazwah) of Bani Mastaliq.

# No doubt Sura Nur was revealed in al-Madinah. But was the whole surah revealed at once or part by part?

# When was verse 2 of surah Nur revealed?

# NOTE: The numbering system of Ayat and suwar we have today were NEVER the way Allah revealed His book. There is no argument on this. This collapse the analogy your author submitted to narrow down the "verse 2" of surah Nur to a specific date/period.

* Sura Maidah was the last sura revealed according a Sunni authentic Hadith. It not only occupied chapter 5 today but also "verse of command of ablution" was inside it and absolutely Muslims had been performing ablution (wudu) 23 years before the "sura maidah" was revealed.

* This is the danger that await your author unless he can prove authentically that verse 2 of Nur was revealed at certain date.

AlBaqir:


# It seems you misunderstood my position. Clearly there are some ahadith that indicate "stoning".

# When Nabi, salallahu alayhi wa ahli, allegedly stoned or commanded stoning is not my submission or argument here o. I absolutely have NOTHING to do with those ahadith (whether in Sunni or Shia documents).

# My concern is:

1. On the command of Sura Nur which is generic. Your author proves nothing to restrict surah Nur: 2 to particular individuals (single).

Bro, I had already tackled this, the fact that the verse 3 in the same surah is talking about singles, because Allah (SWT) said, "the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator or a polytheist", shows that it is directed at unmarried individuals.

AlBaqir:

2. The claim of "Ayat rajm" which (both) Sunni (and Shia) documented. I am of firm position that "Ayat of rajm" might probably be revealed as those ahadith suggested but obviously it was abrogated for there's nothing like it in the Qur'an. Here we split into 2:

A. We argue based on sura Baqarah:106 that "verse of stoning" was ERASED and substituted with something BETTER in Surah Nur: 2.

B. You claimed "verse of stoning" was ERASED and abrogated but you FAILED woefully to point out which verse substituted it in both qira'at and hukm.


# So, the challenge is still widely open.

I would state again, the author of the article did not argue based on abrogation, so your challenge is useless!

sino:


Is it the hadiths of the Prophet (SAW) that you are referring to as stories?! Hope you know that what the Prophet (SAW) did is also part of the Shari'ah?!

Yes, what he did is part of sharia too. But here it is a different argument. He faced Jerusalem too as his Qibla when he came to medina before Allah turned his face towards Makkah.

Turning of his face to Makkah abrogates former Qibla i:e Jerusalem. This is the same argument with rajm

sino:


I just wanted to present an academic view, which I find convincing. The author did not claim there is an hidden ayah, but based on other corroborating evidences, the Prophet (SAW) enforced the hadd of rajm as already revealed in the Torah. That verse establishes the fact that rajm is Allah's Hadd for adultery. So when I said it is implied, I do not mean hidden verse or abrogated verse!

Please go to the link and read the full article.

# Obviously to you it is convincing. To me its another usual cobweb that wind blew away.

# Why did your author ran far away from treating the Hadith of "Ayat rajm" and Sunni understanding of it?

sino:


Please stop muddling things up! I tried to present excerpts from a research, I posted a link so you can read further and get the full picture, but it seems your mind is made up, and not that I really want to change it, I just wanted to present an academic view, which I find convincing. The author did not claim there is an hidden ayah, but based on other corroborating evidences, the Prophet (SAW) enforced the hadd of rajm as already revealed in the Torah. That verse establishes the fact that rajm is Allah's Hadd for adultery. So when I said it is implied, I do not mean hidden verse or abrogated verse!

Please go to the link and read the full article.

wallah you are the one getting it wrong. Albaqir, did you get this?. My argument is not about rajam is not Allah's. I never said that. My argument is, it is no longer sharia of nabi(saw), it is sharia of the yahud and nasara and still there in their book.

AlBaqir:


# No doubt Sura Nur was revealed in al-Madinah. But was the whole surah revealed at once or part by part?

# When was verse 2 of surah Nur revealed?

# NOTE: The numbering system of Ayat and suwar we have today were NEVER the way Allah revealed His book. There is no argument on this. This collapse the analogy your author submitted to narrow down the "verse 2" of surah Nur to a specific date/period.

* Sura Maidah was the last sura revealed according a Sunni authentic Hadith. It not only occupied chapter 5 today but also "verse of command of ablution" was inside it and absolutely Muslims had been performing ablution (wudu) 23 years before the "sura maidah" was revealed.

* This is the danger that await your author unless he can prove authentically that verse 2 of Nur was revealed at certain date.

There is no danger anywhere, you cannot prove otherwise either, at least the author presented enough instances giving us an idea to when stoning were carried out during the life time of the Prophet (SAW). Except you want to give us a narration that clearly states verse 2 was the last verse that was revealed, your points holds no water!

sino:


Bro, I had already tackled this, the fact that the verse 3 in the same surah is talking about singles, because Allah (SWT) said, "the fornicator male does not marry except a fornicator woman or polytheist and that none marries the fornicator woman except a fornicator or a polytheist", shows that it is directed at unmarried individuals.

# Most couples found guilty of extramarital affairs usually got divorced or separated. If another marriage were to take place, it is to the likes of their likes (if they do not repent).

# Besides, the ayah is not even talking about "marriage" per se thereby cannot be restricted to "single/unmarried".

Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir states:

(3. The Zani marries not but a Zaniyah or a Mushrikah; and the Zaniyah, none marries her except a Zani or a Mushrik.

Such a thing is forbidden to the believers.) Here Allah tells
us that the Zani (male who is guilty of illegal sex) does not
have intercourse except with a Zaniyah (female who is
guilty of illegal sex) or a Mushrikah (female idolator),
meaning that no one would go along with him in this action except a sinful woman who is also guilty of Zina, or a Mushrikah who does not think it is unlawful. By the same token,

(and the Zaniyah, none marries her except a Zani) a sinful
man who is guilty of fornication,

(or a Mushrik) (a man) who does not think it is unlawful.

www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2446&Itemid=79



# Chapter: The Rajm of a married person

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (s) said, "The one who commits an illegal sexual intercourse is not a believer at the time of committing illegal sexual intercourse and a thief is not a believer at the time of committing theft and a drinker of alcoholic drink is not a believer at the time of drinking. Yet, (the gate of) repentance is open thereafter."

Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 6810 
In-book reference  : Book 86, Hadith 40 
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 801 

sino:

I would state again, the author of the article did not argue based on abrogation, so your challenge is useless!

# You see your life?! You are the one that challenged my comment with your usual copy-paste. So why is my challenge useless? Unfortunately, it is your challenge that is useless as it never address my submission. Such is the problem with copy-pasting in replying comment.

sino:


There is no danger anywhere, you cannot prove otherwise either, at least the author presented enough instances giving us an idea to when stoning were carried out during the life time of the Prophet (SAW). Except you want to give us a narration that clearly states verse 2 was the last verse that was revealed, your points holds no water!

# I did not make such cheap claim and analogy so I have nothing to prove. I only show you the canal your author's submission entered.

# Please look for another better copy-paste. In sha Allah we shall be here to destroy it.

Salam

Though I don't know but stoning to death is nowhere to be found in the Quran.

But It was carried on according to hadiths. But not a single person was caught and stoned. They all brought themselves willingly.

Even when they brought themselves the prophet (SAW) don't want it until they force themselves. It is meant to be a deterrent

FriendNG:
Though I don't know but stoning to death is nowhere to be found in the Quran.

# But your sahih Hadith as narrated by Umar and Aishah clearly claimed it was part of the Quran at least at the time of the Khilafah of Umar. Kindly read the previous post.

FriendNG:

But It was carried on according to hadiths. But not a single person was caught and stoned. They all brought themselves willingly.

Even when they brought themselves the prophet (SAW) don't want it until they force themselves. It is meant to be a deterrent

# The rational submission of those who believe in these ahadith is "probably those incidents" happened before the revelation of sura Nur:2 which command entirely something else.

AlBaqir:


# Obviously to you it is convincing. To me its another usual cobweb that wind blew away.

# Why did your author ran far away from treating the Hadith of "Ayat rajm" and Sunni understanding of it?

Lol, it doesn't matter, I am not here to convince you.

The author never did such, please you guys should read na, anyways, here is a snippet of what the author thinks...

Scholars' intake:

The idea that there was never any verse on stoning revealed to be a part of the Qur'an and then abrogated is not my brainchild. Infact the above is based on Shaykh Taqi Usmani's explanation (see Takmala Fath al-Mulhim vol.2 p.354-61).

Sayyid Maududi held the same view (see his answer to the question HERE -its in Urdu)

al-Alusi quotes Ibn Humam (d. 861 A.H.) to have argued for the same (See Ruh al-M'ani 9/278)

al-Baqilani (403 A.H.) also refused to accept the idea of its once being a part of the Qur'an and then getting abrogated in his al-Intisar. Shaykh Shu'aib Arnaut quoted it in his notes to Hadith 21636 of Musnad Ahmad and seemingly agreed to it.

Source

Empiree:
wallah you are the one getting it wrong. Albaqir, did you get this?. My argument is not about ram is not Allah's. I never said that. My argument is, it is no longer sharia of nabi(saw), it is sharia of the yahud and nasara and still there in their book.

Okay, I understand you, while your claim is plausible, the author disagreed, quoting relevant hadiths, which indicated that the Prophet (SAW) upheld this hadd found in the Torah and which had been hitherto neglected by the Jews and Christians.

sino:


Okay, I understand you, while your claim is plausible, the author disagreed, quoting relevant hadiths, which indicated that the Prophet (SAW) upheld this hadd found in the Torah and which had been hitherto neglected by the Jews and Christians.

They indeed neglected it but he(saw) enforced it on them when Jewish adulterers were brought to him. It was after that, when it was clear that Jews would not accept Islam and even attempted to kill him that their sharia ceased to exist. A new Law now came down(Flogging) which is Islamic sharia, and it is better than the former. But rajm stands in their law for as long as they remain judeo-Christian, they must enforce it.

Either way, both are Allah's hukm. Application is what we are arguing here. Both at meant to deter

AlBaqir:


# Most couples found guilty of extramarital affairs usually got divorced or separated. If another marriage were to take place, it is to the likes of their likes.

# Chapter: The Rajm of a married person

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (s) said, "The one who commits an illegal sexual intercourse is not a believer at the time of committing illegal sexual intercourse and a thief is not a believer at the time of committing theft and a drinker of alcoholic drink is not a believer at the time of drinking. Yet, (the gate of) repentance is open thereafter."

Reference  : Sahih al-Bukhari 6810 
In-book reference  : Book 86, Hadith 40 
USC-MSA web (English) reference  : Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 801 

Lol, ki la n so ki lo n so?! You should always try to read the Qur'an in Arabic, the verb used is in the present/future tense, so there is no where it is indicating that the zani is married, the only reasonable understanding is that they are still single. You also forgot the other point raised by the author:
"The verse with hundred lashes punishment cannot be general and Qur’an itself testifies to it. In Qur’an 4:25 the punishment of female adulterer is specified to be half of free female fornicator. With this fact known the idea of the totally generic implication of surah al-Nur ayah 2 is laid to proven wrong. Strictly considering the word “zani” used in Surah al-Nur verse 2, it does not differentiate between a slave and a free like it does not distinguish between a married one and otherwise. So to say that it is absolutely universal in application contradicts Qur’an itself"

AlBaqir:

# You see your life?! You are the one that challenged my comment with your usual copy-paste. So why is my challenge useless? Unfortunately, it is your challenge that is useless as it never address my submission. Such is the problem with copy-pasting in replying comment.

I'm really sorry you find it difficult to read, especially if it doesn't go well with you, I know your mo, I can only but laugh at the above....

sino:


I'm really sorry you find it difficult to read, especially if it doesn't go well with you, I know your mo, I can only but laugh at the above....

# Again kindly quote me when you copy-paste something else that is reasonable.

AlBaqir:




# I did not make such cheap claim and analogy so I have nothing to prove. I only show you the canal your author's submission entered.

Bros, you did not show anything, you were only speculating, while the author provided evidences to arrive at the fact that the Prophet (SAW) did carryout rajm after surah Nur was revealed. The author did an academic presentation, you on the other hand, are just making up conjectures.

AlBaqir:

# Please look for another better copy-paste. In sha Allah we shall be here to destroy it.

Salam

What have you destroyed?! That you are being parochial and afraid to read?! Well done, Mr AlBaqir the destroyer

Salam to you too.

sino:


al-Baqilani (403 A.H.) also refused to accept the idea of its once being a part of the Qur'an and then getting abrogated in his al-Intisar. Shaykh Shu'aib Arnaut quoted it in his notes to Hadith 21636 of Musnad Ahmad and seemingly agreed to it.

Source

# So, the sheik did not believe in those ahadith in sahih Bukhari (Umar's narration), and Abu Dawud (Aisha's narration)?!

# Obviously, the sheik knew the danger in believing those ahadith therefore made a fastest run by rejecting them. Poor him.

# Empiree, se una see world's eyes (oju aye)?

AlBaqir:


# So, the sheik did not believe in those ahadith in sahih Bukhari (Umar's narration), and Abu Dawud (Aisha's narration)?!

# Obviously, the sheik knew the danger in believing those ahadith therefore made a fastest run by rejecting them. Poor him.

# Emp.iree, se una see world's eyes (oju aye)?

FriendNG:
Though I don't know but stoning to death is nowhere to be found in the Quran.

But It was carried on according to hadiths. But not a single person was caught and stoned. They all brought themselves willingly.

Even when they brought themselves the prophet (SAW) don't want it until they force themselves. It is meant to be a deterrent

You will never caught adulterers and fornicators

They usually escape through the back door or window

Or hide under the bed or inside water container

Empiree:

Wallahi its hilarious to me. Obviously, Mr sino seem not to know what to copy-paste sometimes or he's very lazy to read and pinpoint the dangers some authors will create for him in the long run. Remember he once accused me of using derogatory term on Umar (in my thread about Umar's contributions in Battle) yet on that same thread he copy-pasted an author that used a more derogatory terms for Umar while defending him.

Empiree:
You will never caught adulterers and fornicators

They usually escape through the back door or window

Or hide under the bed or inside water container

The number of wittiness that they must see the facts in action made it so. If 4 people give witness and the 5 deny it that is all.


So how then can 5 pious people at same time witness such act? It is a deterrent.

Empiree:
You will never caught adulterers and fornicators

They usually escape through the back door or window

Or hide under the bed or inside water container

# And anyone wey original husband or wife caught will see beating of the century or get killed.

# On a more serious note, do you know how the process of stoning to death is usually carried out? A film titled "stoning of suraya" captured it. Its horrible and terrifying. The accused will be buried halfway to his/her waist, his/her hands will be bind and people will be furious stoning him/her until the last breathe. What a criminally punishment.

# Today, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and some other Muslim's countries have replaced "stoning" with imprisonment and some other form of punishment. The last case I read of, in either Qatar or Jordan, the woman was sentenced to imprisonment. Prison reformed her to the extent that she was released as Hafiz al-Qur'an. Indeed, Allah's door for repentance is widely OPEN.