-
Why Ghamidi Sahab Is Against The Punishment Of Rajam?
Narrated 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.”
— Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:82:816 see also Sahih Muslim, 17:4194So the punishment of stoning is proved from the sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) then why do Ghamidi sahab reject this punishment in it’s entirety. It may not have been mentioned in the Quran but it is present in the sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). According to Ghamidi sahab himself Quran and Sunnah both are authentic sources of Islam. Does he only reject this punishment because it seems too harsh in the modern world ?
-
8 Replies
-
Why Ghamidi Sahab Is Against The Punishment Of Rajam?
updated 1 week, 3 days ago
4 Members
·
8
Replies
-
Hadith is not synonymous with sunnah.
Ghamid Sahab has discussed all the major narrations in this regard in the videos posted in the following thread:
-
To understand sunnah, please refer to:
-
@faisalharoon @UmerQureshi Can you please shed some light on the context and the chain of transmitters of this tradition? Thank you.
-
For a detailed commentary of Ghamidi Sahab on this narration, please refer to the video below from 17:36 to 36:00
-
-
Salam. Has Ghamidi Sahab talked about these two ahadith that mentions both apostasy and stoning for adultery together?
Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”
Abu Umamah bin Sahl bin Hunaif narrated that on the day of siege, ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan stood overlooking the people, and he said:“I swear to you by Allah! You know that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said: ‘The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful, except for one of three (cases):Illegitimate sexual relations after Ihsan (having been married), or apostasy after Islam, or taking a life without right, for which he is killed.’ By Allah! I have never committed illegitimate sexual relations, not during Jahiliyyah nor during Islam, and I have not committed apostasy since I gave my pledge to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w), and I have not taken a life that Allah had made unlawful. So for what do you fight me?”‘
From what I’ve seen, these two narrations are the strongest evidences used by the proponents of rajm and apostasy death penalty.
-
Wa’alikum Salam.
Ghamidi Sahab takes up this exact narration in Response to 23 Questions, Part 188 — Maut Ki Saza — and treats it as the most important report on the subject. The most prominent among them is the narration quoted from Umm al-Muminin Sayyidah Aishah in Sunan al-Nasai. That choice is the key, because the Aishah wording of this same hadith says openly what the Bukhari wording compresses.
Sunan an-Nasai 4743 — he cites it as no. 4053 from his printed edition; also Sunan Abi Dawud 4353 (Sahih):
لَا يَحِلُّ قَتْلُ مُسْلِمٍ إِلَّا فِي إِحْدَى ثَلَاثِ خِصَالٍ: زَانٍ مُحْصَنٍ فَيُرْجَمُ، وَرَجُلٌ يَقْتُلُ مُسْلِمًا مُتَعَمِّدًا، وَرَجُلٌ يَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْإِسْلَامِ فَيُحَارِبُ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَرَسُولَهُ فَيُقْتَلُ أَوْ يُصَلَّبُ أَوْ يُنْفَى مِنَ الْأَرْضِ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ … أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا … أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ
The Quran establishes only two grounds for taking a life — qisas for deliberate murder, and fasad fi al-ard / muharabah under 5:33. Aggravated zina is a sub-category of the second, not a third ground. The zina in question is awbashi (profligacy), qahbagari (prostitution), zina bil-jabr (rape) — not ordinary zina.
Please watch from 10:40 to 14:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTS7KKIRwIY&t=642s
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by
Umer.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks ago by
-
The english subtitles is very broken on this. It often reverts to urdu text, sometimes it shows “sorry you didn’t provide any urdu text”. I think the translator ran into problems regarding the script?
I don’t understand urdu so I need to rely on english subtitles.
(Regarding the translation problem, nowadays ai can translate very nicely and smoothly, so if you provide the entire urdu script to the ai with timestamps, it will provide a faithful English subtitle with timestamps)
-
-
And also, in his book Burhan Chapter 2 he wrote that word in the hadith doesn’t actually mean married adulterers. I found his book later and read the chapter with help of Chatgpt. It translates to
The third report is narrated in Sunan al-Nasa’i from the Mother of the Believers, Sayyidah ʿA’ishah, in these words:
“The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: ‘The blood of a Muslim person is not lawful except in one of three cases: a married adulterer, who is to be stoned; a man who kills another intentionally, who is to be killed in retaliation; or a man who leaves Islam and wages war against Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, and His Messenger, who is to be killed, crucified, or exiled from the land.’” (No. 4053)The second issue that emerges from these cases is that the Prophet’s investigation into whether the offender was married is also generally expressed with the same word “ihsan,” about which we have already explained that in Arabic it is not used solely for marriage. There is no doubt that in some reports the word “thayyib” is also used for this purpose, but since this difference itself shows that a strict word-for-word transmission was not followed in narrating the incident, we now have no way of knowing what word the Prophet himself used on that occasion. Therefore, stoning as punishment being given merely because the offender was married cannot be established definitively from these case accounts any more than from the reports of this chapter.
The third thing that becomes evident from these reports is that the style adopted in them for presenting a law as severe as stoning is extremely vague and very unclear. For example, in the first report the punishment is given for married with married and unmarried with unmarried adultery, but if an unmarried man commits adultery with a married woman, or a married man with an unmarried woman, what should the punishment be? There is no mention of this in the report. The opening sentence of the report also creates the impression that perhaps only the punishment of female adulterers is being mentioned. Then the words “al-bikr bil-bikr” and “al-thayyib bil-thayyib” that appear in this report are, in terms of Arabic usage, also questionable for the meaning commonly understood from them. Likewise, the words “ihsan” and “muhsan”, which are used in the second and third reports for “marriage” and “married,” are known to every Arabic speaker to be used in Arabic not only in the sense of marriage, but also in contrast to slavery as “freedom” and “free person,” and in contrast to “lack of chastity” as “chaste” and “a chaste person.” After the Prophet’s mission, lexicographers explicitly stated that these words were also used in the sense of “Islam” and “Muslim.” Arabic does have words that are used only for “marriage” and “married,” but it is strange that in presenting a law that would lead to a human being being subjected to the severe punishment of stoning, ambiguous words with multiple possible meanings were used without any contextual indication. So if someone, for example, interprets “zina after ihsan” to mean adultery after becoming free, what in the wording of the report would prevent this meaning? Such is the reality of these reports from which a change in the Qur’anic ruling is derived and a law of stoning for the married adulterer is extracted. Consider this ambiguity and contradiction, and then decide whether, for a human being, even if one were to formulate a law for slaughtering a mosquito in this manner, any rational person could accept it.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
