A book denied the ruling of stoning for the married fornicator; what is the response to it?

The questioner : There is a book recently published titled "The Correct Opinion on the Abrogated in the Book." Naturally, its author is not among those who carry Islamic knowledge. In what he wrote in this book regarding the issue of stoning the married fornicator, he tried his utmost to abrogate this ruling and to refute a hadith in Imam Muslim’s collection, which is the hadith concerning the verse in the Women. He also tried his utmost to establish that Surat al-Nur was revealed in the ninth year of the Hijrah, so that the revelation of the surah would have come after the incidents of stoning that occurred during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). In truth, the exegetes have opinions on these verses, but in the end, to the best of my knowledge, they do not establish the stoning. Do we need to...

The Shaykh : Excuse me, they do not establish the refutation? Refutation of what?

The questioner : Stoning.

The Shaykh : The stoning?

The questioner : Yes, the stoning.

The Shaykh : How do they not establish the stoning? You did not say that it is in the hadith?

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh: All right.

The questioner : By the hadith, I mean, my intention regarding the response to this author is that we need to establish incidents or some narrations after the revelation of Surat al-Nur. Naturally, in a book, a university thesis at the Islamic University, to the best of my knowledge in Saudi Arabia, there are narrations of the Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq, and it establishes that the stronger opinion regarding Surat al-Nur is that it was revealed in the fifth year of the Hijrah. Consequently, the stoning occurred after that: the stoning of al-Ghamidiyyah and Ma'iz. We need, therefore, to establish or find some narrations that prove some incidents, incidents of stoning after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). If you have any knowledge of this, it would benefit us, and may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : Before I answer you, why did you take an interest in this man when you yourself described him as not being among the people of knowledge? Why did you take an interest in him?

The questioner : You want an answer.

The Shaykh : Naturally, I ask you, why do you ask?

The questioner : Certainly.

The Shaykh : Why do you ask?

The questioner : So that I can get an answer.

The Shaykh : And I am like you.

The questioner : In truth, because of the much that has circulated around it in some responses published in some newspapers, including the newspaper al-Liwaa, and also at the university, the College of Sharia, they addressed this topic. Yes.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you, you should mention the argument of the one who denies stoning so that we can refute it. But since you have mentioned with your own tongue the argument of the one who establishes stoning in the authentic hadith, then what do you want from me?

The questioner : I only want some narrations about incidents of stoning.

The Shaykh : No problem, why?

The questioner : In truth, only for a scholarly response to him. Some of the claims in the book are not based on evidence.

The Shaykh : That is the point, my brother. I advise you, or anyone else, not to take an interest in responding to every babbler. This is a vast door with no end. Today, knowledge has become chaos. Whoever feels that he is good at writing a phrase, even if it is broken in terms of Arabic grammar, he writes and does not care, because there is no supervisor and no guardian. Therefore, it is not of knowledge or wisdom in any way for people to take an interest in writing by any writer who has no standing, I do not say established, he has no standing in knowledge, let alone that I say he has no established standing in knowledge. As for the answer to your question, I say that there is in the Sahih a report from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that he combined upon a fornicating woman both her flogging and her stoning; he combined the two punishments in her case. This hadith fights your opponent, the one who invalidates, with two swords, because he denies the original stoning and will deny, a fortiori, the combination of the two punishments. Our master Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) stoned a woman after he had flogged her and said: "I flogged her by the Book of Allah and stoned her by the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family)." This was after the death of the Messenger for a period of time. This is one thing. The second thing is that it is authentic from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that a time will come when the Muslims will be warned, a time will come when a group will deny the stoning. And we have read it in the Book of Allah, and it is what is called by the scholars "abrogated in recitation." We read:The Shaykh : AndThe Shaykh : If they commit unlawful sexual intercourse, stone them as an example from Allah. This is 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, and it is as if he knew the unseen, but no one knows the unseen except Allah. However, there are hadiths in which scholars of hadith say, "This is a mawquf hadith, but it is treated as marfu' because it is not said from the perspective of personal opinion." In reality, people appeared after the spread of the Mu'tazilah, whom you know denied the rational goodness and ugliness of actions, and they denied stoning entirely. They followed this denial with another denial: that there are no verses whose recitation was abrogated. Why do they deny it? It does not fit in their minds that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) tests His servants with whatever He wills. Their minds, which they made a standard for judging Allah, say: "What the mind finds good is good in the sight of Allah, and what the mind finds ugly is ugly in the sight of Allah." These people deny such authentic, established texts with their limited minds. So when 'Umar said, "People will come who deny this verse, and we used to recite it in the Book of Allah, so it is one of those whose recitation was abrogated," there are other hadiths, not few, in which it is also stated that it was among what was recited. For example, the breastfeeding that was forbidden was ten times, and it was among what was recited, then it was abrogated and the ruling was made that five breastfeedings are the ones that create prohibition. This is what comes to my mind now from some texts, in verification and as an answer to your request. Then, before I finish answering this question, I draw your attention to the fact that many writers today invert the facts of the Shari'ah. They reject hadiths narrated with authentic chains, and they treat histories narrated with broken chains as a foundation. So he cannot establish the date of this event or any other unless it is said, "So-and-so, the historian, said it happened in such-and-such." And whoever has studied the Sirah will find a great deal of disagreement in determining many events and incidents, especially the battles. They find a great deal of disagreement. Therefore, the student of knowledge must be alert to this detail. If there is a date that specifies an event, and there is a hadith that appears to contradict the date of the event, do not give weight to the date, because it was not narrated with a chain. Rather, give weight to the hadith that was narrated with a chain. And I have an example of this in mind now. There is a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: "While we were praying behind the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) the 'Asr prayer, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said the taslim after two rak'ahs, although 'Asr is four. He prayed two rak'ahs, then moved to a side of the mosque until the narrator describes the Messenger (peace be upon him) placing one foot on the other to rest. A man known as Dhu al-Yadayn said: 'O Messenger of Allah, did the prayer become shorter, or did you forget?' He (peace be upon him) said: He said: 'Yes, O Messenger of Allah, it did happen.' The Companions looked, and among them were Abu Bakr and 'Umar: They said: 'Yes.' He returned to his place of prayer, and I do not say to his mihrab, because there was no mihrab in his mosque, and this is a benefit for the one who walks. He returned to his place of prayer, came back with the two rak'ahs, said the taslim, and prostrated two prostrations of forgetfulness, then said the taslim. The story ends. In this story, there is a disagreement among the jurists, both old and new. Dhu al-Yadayn spoke to the Messenger, and the Messenger spoke to the Companions: 'Is Dhu al-Yadayn truthful?' They said: 'Yes.' How, with this hadith, did they return and pray two more rak'ahs with the Messenger? Peace be upon you, and the prayer ended with the prostrations of forgetfulness. If this hadith is taken into account, it shows that speech does not invalidate the prayer. No. All scholars agreed that intentional, deliberate speech invalidates it. Intentional, deliberate speech in prayer invalidates it. They differed if the speaker spoke while ignorant, and they differed if the speaker spoke in prayer while forgetting, or being ignorant, or correcting the prayer. The Shafi'i school says that the prayer is not invalidated by such speech. The Hanafi school says it is invalidated. What is the point here? What do the Hanafis say about this hadith of Abu Hurayrah? They say this was before the abrogation of speech in prayer. They say this event was before the abrogation of the permissibility of speech in prayer. The evidence is that this Dhu al-Yadayn died in the Battle of Badr. Here is the point. And Abu Hurayrah embraced Islam in the Battle of Khaybar. So the Battle of Khaybar is later than him. On what did they rely that Dhu al-Yadayn died in the Battle of Badr? On a history. Here you will find some historians saying: No, this statement was narrated by al-Zuhri thus, as a mursal and mu'dal report. That is, the statement that Dhu al-Yadayn died in the Battle of Badr was narrated by al-Zuhri without a chain. And Abu Hurayrah says explicitly, 'While I was praying behind the Messenger,' and Abu Hurayrah embraced Islam after the event or in Khaybar. So this event is later than the prohibition of speech. Therefore, the prohibition of speech refers to speech that is not due to an excuse of ignorance, or an excuse of forgetting, or an excuse of correcting the prayer. If the speech is for one of these three reasons, it does not invalidate the prayer. But speech like 'bring the book' and 'take the object' and so on while you are praying, that is what invalidates the prayer. This is an example of the difference between a narration with an authentic chain and a mursal, mu'dal history. Is it clear? Therefore, when you read such a research, you must be alert that this date, my brother, is not narrated with authentic chains. Is there a contradiction between the history and a hadith with an authentic chain? In summary, stoning is established first by the Qur'an, whose recitation was abrogated but whose ruling remained, and it is established by the practical Sunnah that the Companions implemented after the death of the Messenger (peace be upon him). The practice also continued among the Muslims who apply the rulings of the Shari'ah to this day. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says: Therefore, this writer and those like him, a Muslim should never read their books, because they are not scholars, but rather people of desires. They find something good and then gather everything that falls under their hands that they think supports their desires, without knowing the difference between authentic and weak narrations. Shall we suffice with this amount?