living islam _ Islamic tradition

Subject: Response to Tomasz on Stoning

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 04:37:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: anjumj@_____ (Anjum)

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

Which interpretation to accept?

The companions -- Allah (swt) bless them all -- who experienced Truth
first hand, who stood next to Rasulullah (saw) willing to sacrifice
everything out of love for him (saw) and Allah (swt), and who after
the Prophet (saw)'s death blessed us by passing down the Qur'an and
sunnah to succeeding generations...

Or the modern day, western educated Muslims, who spend hours of
Internet debate declaring all the companions to have been wrong and
that after 1,400 years they have the correct answer...

My Response:

We would accept the interpretation of the Companions if:

1. It can be proven that it is in fact their interpretation beyond the
shadow of a doubt, and

2. It can be proven that they meant that interpretation to be a
timeless Law of the Shari'ah.

In the case of rajm, to a lot of people, both of the above are far
from conclusive. Hence, their ruling against rajm being part of the
Islamic Law. If they were convinced of the two points above, they
would have been in favor of rajm.

Therefore, those who accept rajm and those who do not accept rajm
agree with your defined principle.

However, it is very unfair, unjust, as well as untrue that the
"Western educated Muslims, who spend hours of Internet debate" DECLARE
that all the Companions have been wrong and that after 1,400 years
they have the correct answer.

You have simply misrepresented these Muslims, which clearly shows that
you did not bother to understand their argument; rather, you read your
own thoughts into their statements.

These "Western educated Muslims, who spend hours of Internet debate"
are NOT declaring that ALL the Companions have been wrong. Rather,
they are challenging the traditionalists in their belief that the
companions understood rajm to be part of the timeless Islamic Law.

There is a huge difference between what you have stated about those
who reject rajm and what I have stated above.

No one is suggesting that the Companions misunderstood the Prophet!

Tomasz then states in another post:

Unfortunately it's not that simple. As Shaykh G.F. Haddad pointed out:

"Stoning for adultery is mass-transmitted from the Prophet, upon him
peace ...

My Response:

The onus is on those who attribute something to the Prophet and
present it as Islamic Law to prove their case.

Why is it that the stoning is no where to be found in the Qur`an?

Moreover, for a slave it is HALF the penalty.

How in the world do you HALF-STONE-KILL a slave adulterer?

Tomasz states:

If you are willing to cast doubt -- and even reject -- something that
is Mutawatir by word and deed then it is possible to reject the
authenticity of Quran and other Sunnah, since they are based on
similar evidence.

My Response:

The traditionalists like to hide behind the word "mutawatir" a lot,
instead of paying attention to other people's arguments and then
present their case in a logical, rational manner.

We have already agreed that the Qur`an is the most authentic source of
Islam.

We have also agreed that Islam is "based" on the Qur`an.

Do we not agree that the sources other-than-the-Qur`an are not as
authentic as the Qur`an?

Do we not agree that the Qur`an has been preserved by none other than
God Himself while no such guarantee has been given to sources
other-than-the-Qur`an?

So why won't you START from the Qur`an and examine other source IN
LIGHT of the Qur`an, instead of examining the more authentic source of
Islam in light of the less authentic sources of Islam, which were
compiled by non-Prophets?

Rajm is no where to be found in the Qur`an, which has very clearly
stated what the penalty is. And this is my argument.

Tomasz states:

And the explanation was given by Shaykh G.F. Haddad:
------------
There are three types of abrogated Qur'anic verses:

(1) recitation-abrogated and ruling-abrogated
(2) recitation-established and ruling-abrogated
(3) recitation-abrogated and ruling-established

The verses that concern stoning as the punishment for a married
person's adultery are of type (3) cf. al-Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `Ulum
al-Qur'an (Type 47 of the Qur'anic Sciences, 2:718 of the Mustafa
al-Bugha 1993 2nd edition, Dar Ibn Kathir).

My Response:

You also like to hide behind scholars rather than present a logical
and rational argument of your own.

Do you know that a great scholar Maududi rejects the notion that there
was once a verse in the Qur`an on rajm?

Do you know that there are other scholars who reject that there was
once a verse of rajm in the Qur`an?

So by bringing up names of scholars, what does it prove?

Why would the verse that commands a more severe penalty be removed
from the Qur`an and not the one that commands a less severe penalty?
Does it seem logical and rational to you?

Don't you think that since rajm would have been more controversial
after the Prophet, it would have been clearly stated in the Qur`an for
generations to come, and not the much less penalty of 100 lashes?

If this makes sense to you then it's fine! Be happy with it!

As stated before, if you feel comfortable following a scholar, then
good for you! Allah looks at our inner intentions and He will clear up
our differences on the Day of Judgment.

Also, where does the Qur`an say that we have removed that verse of
rajm, but go ahead, continue to follow it? Why was it removed from it
then? What is the rationale behind removing it?

If it was removed, then does it not prove that Allah's WILL was NOT to
continue that penalty of rajm?

If it seems logical to you and makes sense to you, then good for you!
It does not make sense to me!

Tomasz states:

This explanation is more logical than dismissing the Prophet(saw)'s
action, suggesting he (saw) went against the Qur'an (Astafigurallah!),
declaring all the companions to be in error, and blaming the righteous
generations and Khaliphs for spreading this error.

My Response:

Again, you misrepresented me, proving that you did not pay attention
to what I stated!

I never dismissed the Prophet's action!

I never suggested that he (p) went against the Qur`an!

Far from it!

What I suggested was that he COULD NOT have gone against the Qur`an!!

That is, since the Qur`anic penalty IS NOT rajm, he could not have
commanded it, unless there was some other explanation of his action!

Once again, it is the Qur`an that provides an outline of the Islamic
Law. Other sources of Islam must be examined within the Qur`anic
parameters.

If you disagree with me on this principle, then that is fine; I am not
here to convince you!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Response to Viqar on Stoning

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 04:37:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: anjumj@_____

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

Mistake in recording something that the prophet(SAW) taught, may be
understandable. But mistakes in recording events which thousands of
people must have seen, does not stand up to scrutiny.

My Response:

The fact that you used the word "must" indicates that you are merely
speculating!

If there was no possibility of humans making mistakes, then there
would have been no need for God to take it upon Himself to preserve
the Qur`an forever.

We all know how humans can make serious mistakes from the fact that
humans have misinterpreted -- and even lost -- God's revelations in
the past.

Also, if there was no possibility of any mistakes, then we would not
have seen the invention of the Hadith methodology that was mainly
invented because people were fabricating ahadith and it became
necessary to devise methodologies to authenticate them.

Viqar stated:

.... that the prophet(SAW) himself explained that the punishment of
lashes, in the Qur'an, is for unmarried muslims, and that the
punishment for a married muslim comitting zina, is rajm. This, too, is
recorded.

My Response:

This "explanation of the Prophet" itself needs to be authenticated.

Moreover, the penalty for a slave is HALF. How do you HALF-STONE-KILL
a slave? If this seems logical to you, then that is fine; it's your
business; but I find it rather difficult to half-stone-kill a person.

Viqar stated:

The question of superseding only arises where there is a conflict. But
there is none. We are talking about two different punishments for two
different transgressions, as explained above.

My Response:

If you do not see a conflict then good for you! Hang on to it! Follow
it and be happy!

I see a conflict, and so do others!

To us, the Qur`an makes it crystal clear that zani (that encompasses
both married and unmarried person) is to be given 100 lashes.

Rajm conflicts and contradicts that Qur`anic Law, to me!

I then invited Viqar to read an article by a Muslim jurist: "Fawariq
-- The Distinctive Character of Tradition" at
http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/fawariq.htm

to which he said:

If my own father taught me something that, in my judgement, went
against the established teaching from the Islamic sources, I would not
be able to accept it.

My Response:

And what makes you think that I consider myself to be going against
the Islamic sources?

I go from Qur`an --> Sunnah --> Hadith --> Rulings of Muslim jurists
over the past 1400 years.

Some people go from Rulings of Muslim jurists over the past 1400 years
--> Hadith --> Sunnah --> Qur`an, or

Rulings ... --> Sunnah --> Hadith --> Qur`an.

All I have been saying is that it is the Qur`an, which is a revelation
from God and is the most authentic source of Islam, and provides the
outline of the Law. Details of this law from other sources must fit
within these outlines and parameters.

To me, rajm does not fit the Qur`anic parameters.

If it fits in your judgment, then be happy with it! I am willing to
accept the notion that you have good intentions, but are wrong. And
vice versa.

However, if you and were ever in a situation where we were part of a
council to draw up the constitution of an Islamic state, I will
campaign against rajm, and against anyone who would then call me a
pseudo-Muslim because of this.

Viqar then states:

Like I said earlier, Allah(SWT) Is More Deserving that we should be
conscious of His Guidance.

My Response:

Yes, God is More Deserving! Hence the need to understand and follow
the Qur`anic patterns and then examine other sources that were
transmitted by non-Prophet humans IN LIGHT of the Qur`an, sources that
are far less authentic than the Qur`an!

Viqar then makes a comment about the Sufis, which I am one of them:

Incidentally, some muslims in this forum would go to any length to
attribute to the prophet(SAW) things that he allegedly taught, but
never acted on them himself (e.g, group dhikr). It seems to me that we
like to run to the prophet when it suits us, and abandon him when it
doesn't. May Allah(SWT) Protect us all from such behavior.

My Response:

There is a huge difference between rajm and group dhikr!

While rajm falls within the category of Islamic Law and can have a
life-threatening impact on humans, group dhikr is not life-threatening
and, on the contrary, has a positive impact on the human self, as
experienced and reported by thousands of people throughout history.

We have to be very careful when it comes to taking someone's life!
Hence the need for the Qur`an to supersede other sources in the matter
of rajm.

Although Viqar refuses to read the above mentioned article, I invite
those who are open-minded to read it. Again, it's URL is:
http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/fawariq.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Stoning verses and Abrogation

Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:30:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: vminai@_____

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

G.Waleed@_____ (G. Waleed Kavalec) wrote:
> How on Earth have we gone from a 'maximum' punishment for public
> adultery of 100 floggings, to a barbaric and cruel penalty of death by
> stoning?

Apparently, "we" are not alone. The prophet(SAW), himself, did. There is
plenty of recorded evidence of instances of rajm, order by him(SAW).

In my view, the best argument we can make is to point out that the
prophet(SAW) himself would have preferred to be lenient where he could.
There is (at least) implied evidence of this (from hadith collection).

According to some reports, when ma'ez ibn malik Aslami was being stoned,
he became very agitated, tried to break free, and wanted to be taken back
to the prophet. Unfortunately the people stoned him, nevertheless. When
the prophet(SAW) heard about it, he was upset and said,"why did you not
bring him to me? May be he wiould have repented, and God(SWT) Might Have
Accepted his repentance".

In case of Ghamidiyya, who conceived as a result of zina, the prophet
sent her back TWICE, first until such time that she was deleivered of
the child, and a second time to have here suckle the baby until weaning
time. When she still returned after the weaning of the child, and insisted
on being purified of her sin, he reuctantly had her stoned. Would he(SAW)
have gone after her if she did not voluntarily come back? Personally, I
doubt it.

On another occasion when a person reported a married person's zina to
the prophet, he(SAW) was displeased, asking the reporter if he would have
incurred a loss by keeping his brother's (the sinner's) secret?

wasSalam

Viqar Ahmed Subject: Re: Stoning verses and Abrogation

Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 01:30:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: anjumj@_____ (Anjum)

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

What evidence from the Qur`an do we have of (3)? The proponents of
rajm (stoning death) hold the view that there once was a verse in the
Qur`an whose recitation has been abrogated but not its ruling, which
raises a lot of questions about the very authenticity of the Qur`an,
by the way.

Moreover, where does the Qur`an say: "Remember that verse about
stoning, well, it's no longer part of the Qur`anic text, but the
ruling still counts!"?

Why would the recitation be abrogated and not the ruling? It's the
ruling and application of it that makes a verse "live" and not just
its mere recitation.

So we are left with a less authentic source to prove something that
was in a more authentic source, the Qur`an.

Thank God that we have the Word of God preserved forever for us to go
back and correct the mistakes, for it is the Qur`an that provides the
outline (foundation, if you will) of the Law, while Hadith/Sunnah
provides a practical example of it.

This is one of the biggest pieces of evidence to support the view that
even the majority can be so utterly mistaken!

Even if there once was a verse in the Qur`an that commanded rajm, the
fact that it is no longer in it clearly means that the author of the
Qur`an did not wish to preserve it. So where did the idea that its
ruling is still applicable come from? Obviously from man! Not from
God!

Interestingly, the report in which 'Umar is purported to have stated
that there once was a verse in the Qur`an that we used to recite and
is no longer in it, is interpreted by Maududi that when 'Umar when
said "the Book of Allah", he was actually referring to earlier
revelation and not the Qur`an.

Another argument against rajm is that the Qur`an prescribes HALF of
the penalty for "slaves". So how does one HALF-STONE-KILL a slave?

Rajm is one reason I feel secure about the constitution of an Islamic
state to be "based" upon the Qur`an so that the outline of it will not
have rajm in it, and we will take those ahadith that fit that outline.

So I use this issue as a litmus test to determine if someone claiming
to be implementing Islam in a part of the world is really implementing
it correctly. When I hear that somewhere Shari'ah law will be
institutionalized and then I hear that courts are decreeing rajm, my
alarm goes off.

I jokingly say this often: "God went through a lot trouble to preserve
His Revelation; yet, many do not pay attention to it!"

Alas!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Stoning verses and Abrogation

Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:11:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: vminai@_____

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

> So then, how do we explain the reports that indicate that the Prophet
> himself allowed or commanded rajm?
> Simple!
> Either these reports are fabricated, or someone simply made an honest
> mistake,

Mistake in recording something that the prophet(SAW)taught, may be
understandable. But mistakes in recording events which thousands of
people must have seen, does not stand up to scrutiny.

> or there is a logical explanation to reconcile the obvious
> contradiction between the Qur`an and a few ahadith.

Yes, there is. And it is that the prophet(SAW) himself explained that
the punishment of lashes, in the Qur'an, is for unmarried muslims, and
that the punishment for a married muslim comitting zina, is rajm. This,
too, is recorded.

Perhaps, a second mistake to compound the first?

> But it is the Qur`an that supersedes and abrogates Hadith and not the
> other way around.

The question of superseding only arises where there is a conflict. But
there is none. We are talking about two different punishments for two
different transgressions, as explained above.

> Why?
> Because it is logical that the more authentic source abrogates the
> less authentic one.

Again, this would only make sense if there is conflict over more than
one punishment for the same offence. This is not the case.

> It is kindergarten logic!

Agreed.

> We Muslims have made the same mistake that other Muslims (the
> followers of earlier revelations made) in that we abrogated the simple
> and clear injunction of the Revelation with other sources. And the
> Prophet himself warned us not to follow the path of the followers of
> earlier revelation.

Exactly. Like the jews in Madina stoned the poor offenders, but spared
those in their own social club. And the prophet himself had to expose
the corruption to them in a well recorded instance.

> This point has been explained more eloquently and scholarly in the
> following article I have made reference to in other posts:
>
> "Fawariq -- The Distinctive Character of Tradition"
>
> http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/fawariq.htm

If my own father taught me something that, in my judgement, went
against the established teaching from the Islamic sources, I would
not be able to accept it.

Like I said earlier, Allah(SWT) Is More Deserving that we should be
conscious of His Guidance.

> I understand the desire to obey the Messenger, but let's not forget
> God! And since the Messenger could not have disobeyed God, there must
> be a logical explanation of why the act of rajm has been attributed to
> the Messenger.

I am sorry. This is a baseless assumption.

Incidentally, some muslims in this forum would go to any length to
attribute to the prophet(SAW) things that he allegedly taught, but never
acted on them himself (e.g, group dhikr). It seems to me that we like to
run to the prophet when it suits us, and abandon him when it doesn't. May
Allah(SWT) Protect us all from such behavior.

wasSalam

Viqar Ahmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Stoning verses and Abrogation

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 20:37:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: vminai@_______

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

Is it really such a novel concept? After all a murderer's life could
ne spared if the victims family forgive him and accept blood money
instead.

> A thief repents, no sentence is carried out, and so do
> a murderer,
> an adulterer and a rapist.

Punishments for theft and murder are explicitly prescribed in the Qur'an,
and any mitigation has to occur within any limits set therein.

Punishment for married adulterer was prescribed by the prophet(SAW), and
it is possible that he could have supplicated to God(SWT) for some level
of leniency, or prescribed some latitude himself (with Divine Permission).

Plus, this is not an isolated instance of this concept in practice. At
the time of takeover of Mecca, one of the people that RasulAllah had
ordered killed, at all costs, was Abdullah bin abi Sarh. Yet, after
repeated intercession from Uthman ibn Affan(RA), the prophet(SAW)
accepted his renewed allegiance and spared his life. How do you explain
it?

Lastly, when ma'ez confessed, it was at the urging and advice of his
friends and family, and he was, likely, under the impression that the
prophet(SAW) would find some way for leniency. This is substantiated
by his recorded words in his state of agitation. Begging people to take
him back to the prophet, he is reported to have said,"the people of my
tribe have killed me".

> How easy and nice! No need for punishment law,
> since every
> person with half an inch of brain would prefer to repent and be spared
> from stoning, etc.

Well, then Ghamidiyya (may Allah Forgive her) did not have even half a
brain. Because she turned herself in not just once, but thrice.

> This is again a proof that this (Hadith) saying of the prophet could have
> never occured.

Hardly. But I am not preaching to the converted.

> Moreover, how could the prophet know or figure out, whether God had
> "accepted his
> repentance" or not, if they had brought the convict back to him? Would
> God send an angel
> to tell the prophet: "The man is forgiven, do not stone him"?

And why not? Are you familiar with the device of "wahi al-Khafi" (the
Revelations to the prophet which have not been recorded in the Qur'an)?

> "Purify" of a sin...Hmm, so someone could kill a thousand people, then be
> punished and have a
> smile on his face during the punishment since he knows that no more hell
> fire will catch him?
> "I killed, raped and stole, but they punished me and now all is fine
> again. I go to paradise..."

Apparently, you are not aware of the comments the prophet made in regard
to her stoning and repentance; nor with the fact that he, himself, led
her funeral prayer.

> > On another occasion when a person reported a married person's zina to
> > the prophet, he(SAW) was displeased, asking the reporter if he would
> > have incurred a loss by keeping his brother's (the sinner's) secret?
>
> This is nonsense, too. According to the Quran the one who complains about
> someone else
> has to bring up four witnesses. But how should four people witness
> someones sex actions
> without having offended his/her privacy sphere???

If I were to confide to someone about a third person's sinful action, am
I necessarily formally accusing that person of the sin? I do not know
whether the person reporting to the prophet was formally accusing the
culprit. But he did put the prophet(SAW) in a spot where he had no
choice but to investigate. Let us say for the sake of argument that, in
a fully Islamic society you witnessed a illicit sex act about which there
is no doubt whatsoever in you mind.

What would you do?

1. Ignore it and keep quiet about it (thus condoning illicit sexual
liaisons in the society)?
2. Report it to the authorities?
3. Keep the secret, but speak to one or both parties privately (this is
what I would do)?

Viqar Ahmed

-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Modern Islamic Stoning

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: anjumj@_____ (Anjum)

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

Incredibly the written words of Anjum, Vminai, Tomasz, thebit, and
Nima on
the topic of stoning provides a chilling image of modern Islam. That
8th
Century practices were barbaric, brutal, superstitious, and bloody
can't be
surprising but for educated people to entertain these practices as
thinkable, debatable legal issues for today is utterly stunning.
Would you
read what you are writing? Can you see what you say through my
horrified
eyes?

My Response:

The "8th century" barbaric practice of stoning goes back to the
religious law, which Islam abrogated with 100 lashes in the Qur`an!

It needs to be discussed and debated between the Muslims because the
majority of the Muslims are under the impression that this penalty
from the earlier revelations is still valid and part of the Islamic
Law. As you must have heard, wherever these "Islamists" take control,
one of the first things they implement as part of the Law of the Land
is this stoning death for adultery, which is then decreed on people,
and even carried out, despite what some of the stoners suggest.

Hence, the need to debate and educate other Muslims on this issue.

Many non-Muslims, such as yourself, have been telling us to
"moderanize" and "refine" Islam. So when some of us Muslims begin
discussing issues such as stoning, which many Muslims would like to be
part of the constitution of an Islamic state, you should not then turn
around and discourage such a debate, and even ridicule it.

There is no need to "moderanize" or "refine" Islam. What is needed are
healthy debates and discussions in which alternative interpretations
of some of the contentious issues are presented in a rational and
logical manner.

The matter is between Muslims and you need not interject and ridicule
us.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Modern Islamic Stoning

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:13:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Nima Rezai" <Nima@_____ >

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

No, it does not since Anjum and me, we are rejecting stoning and we have
pointed out that there is no stoning mentioned as punishment in the Quran,
Islams only authentic source.

Ahadith become ridiculous when they try to justify stoning by associating a
very improbably statement to Caliph Umar regarding the forgetting of the
verse about stoning.

Muslims who stick to stoning are people I do not understand.
You cannot on the one hand point at the Qurans miracle of being preserved
without manipulation (since Allah says he will protect the Quran) and on the
other hand try to revive the barbaric nonsense of stoning by inventing a
saying and associating it to a credible person like Caliph Umar.

Yes, Umar was a great man and believer and absolutely credible, but this is
no evidence for him having indeed said such a statement.

Why the hell (astaghfurillah) should just this so important verse be
forgotten among so much other verses?
Was no companion among those who edited the Quran under Uthman able to
remember that verse?

Nima
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Modern Islamic Stoning

Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:11:16 +0000 (UTC)
From: anjumj@_______ (Anjum)

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

This technical analysis of what a mutawatir HADITH is does not
alleviate the difficulty in answering some of the points I have raised
against the penalty of stoning being an integral part of the Islamic
Law.

It also does not answer the most fundamental question, which is as
follows:

IF THE PENALTY OF RAJM IS MUTAWATIR, THEN HOW COME THE OLDEST DOCUMENT
ON THE ISLAMIC LAW NOT ONLY DOES NOT MENTION IT, IT EXPLICITLY STATES
WHAT THE PENALTY IS?

Let's give the analogy of a chain: It has to have a BEGINNING! Now,
how come rajm is not mentioned in the oldest document on Islam,
Al-Qur`an, which was recited, memorized and then written "officially",
and then all of a sudden it appears in another document that was
written many generations later, which was neither recited, memorized
or written down by the Companions, nor was it written by someone who
claimed to be a Prophet of God and presented it as a Revelation from
God?

The fact that rajm is no where to be found in the Qur`an clearly
indicates that this chain of information BEGINS many generations after
the Prophet!

The chain of Islamic LAW Begins at the Qur`an, is what I am saying!

It's high time that we do a critical examination of Hadith and not be
discouraged by those who call us deviants, or pseudo-Muslims, or even
kaafir!

http://www.Islamicperspectives.com/HadithProject.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Historicity of Rajm (stoning)

Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:26:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: TomaszAntkowiak@______ (Tomasz Antkowiak)

Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam

"Greg Kavalec" <greg@_____ > wrote in message news:<000b01c3337d$e0877c50$d402a8c0@_____ >...

> Certainly evidence exists that it was practice prior to
> An-Noor. It was the already existing law from the prior
> scriptures.

Just curious, how is it known that the practice was prior to An Noor?
Is this an assumption based on the belief that An Noor abrogated rajm?

> > When did it come to existence?
> >
> > Where did it come into existence?
> >
> > Who brought it into existence?
> >
> > Which Muslims opposed the individual who brought it into existence?
> >
> > What were the opinions of the early scholars, and the scholars of the
> > Golden age of Islam?
>
> I am not suffiently school to answer your questions
> brother, I just know that a wrong turn was made and
> we have not corrected it in 1400 years.

Rahmatullah, thank you for your honesty. However it continues to
boggle my mind how something so blatant and so simple could escape the
very people who lived and heard Truth first hand, the most pious of
our generations. And if they can unanimously agree on something so
blatantly wrong that doesn't speak highly of the consensus on the
Uthmanic Qur'an being authentic, about prayer, etc.

I do not believe the Sahaba (Allah bless them all) were fools, they
experienced Truth first hand, their hearts were pure, and their ijma
(consensus) is binding.

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.816 Narrated by Ibn Abbas

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may
say, 'We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the
Holy Book,' and consequently they may go astray by leaving an
obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of
Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if
he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or
pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this
narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried
out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

There were two objections to the hadith. One claiming it was a forgery
simply because Umar is supporting rajm, another accepting its
authenticity although interpreting "Holy Book" as Torah. Read the
hadith in entirety and judge for yourself.

I suppose my questions are unanswerable simply because it require a
rejection of hadith, which forms the cornerstone of our history. But
if anyone would like to try, go right ahead.

Take care and salaam,
Tomasz Antkowiak
-------------------------------------------------------------------------