Regarding ῾Aā᾽ishah’s ḥadīth, this narration has been reported in several versions, including both authentic and less authentic sources. Imam ᾽Aḥmad narrated it in his Musnad, saying: “Ya῾qūb told us, my father told us, from Ibn ᾽Isḥāq who said: ῾Abdullāh ibn Abī Bakr ibn ῾Amr ibn Ḥazm told me, from ῾Amrah bint ῾Abd al-Raḥmān, from ῾Aā᾽ishah, the wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him), who said: ‘The verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed and was written on a paper under my bed. When the Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) became ill, we were preoccupied with his situation, and a domestic animal entered and ate it.’” [Musnad ᾽Aḥmad: 18/188-189, Ḥadīth No. 26194]. It was also narrated by Ibn Mājah with a similar wording and chain of narration, except it states: “a domesticated animal entered and ate it.” [Sunan Ibn Mājah: Ḥadīth No. 1944].
In the narrations of ᾽Aḥmad and Ibn Mājah, the ḥadīth was reported by Muḥammad ibn ᾽Isḥāq, the famous narrator of the Prophet’s Biography, whose reliability has been a subject of considerable debate. Some scholars highly regard him, while others have criticized him to the extent of rejecting his narrations altogether. Ibn Sayyid al-Nās al-Ya῾marī thoroughly examined all opinions on Ibn ᾽Isḥāq in his book ‘῾Uyūn al-᾽Athar‘, providing a detailed biography about him [see ‘῾Uyun al-᾽Athar: 1/54 and beyond].
Therefore, this narration has two main defects (῾illah): first, the disagreement regarding the reliability of Muḥammad ibn ᾽Isḥāq, as the narration revolves around him (madār al-riwāyah ῾alay); second, it contradicts more reliable narrations found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and others. The narration in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, reported by Yaḥyā ibn Yaḥyā from Mālik, from ῾Abdullāh ibn Abī Bakr, from ῾Amrah, from ῾Aā᾽ishah, states: “Among what was revealed of the Qur᾽ān were ten clear breastfeeding times that make the breastfed a maḥram, then it was abrogated to five clear [breastfeeding] times. The Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) died while this was still recited as part of the Qur᾽ān.” [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: Ḥadīth No. 1452]. Mālik also narrated it in his Muwaṭṭa᾽, and his student Yaḥyā bin Yaḥyā commented: “Mālik said: This has no practical effect.” [see Al-Muwaṭṭa᾽: 608].
Thus, the addition by Ibn ᾽Isḥāq contradicts the narrations of Mālik and Muslim, whose narrators are more reliable than Ibn ᾽Isḥāq’s narration. Hence, his addition, which suggests the loss of some Quranic text, should not be considered. When we refer back to the narration in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Muwaṭṭa᾽ and others, another issue arises: “then it was abrogated to five clear times, and the Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) died while they were still recited as part of the Qur᾽ān.” If we examine the Qur᾽ān in our possession, we do not find any mention of the five breastfeeding times or similar numerical verses. So where did the text go?
The possible explanations are that the text, as described by ῾Aā᾽ishah in the previous narration, was also abrogated. However, this raises questions: Where is the abrogating text? And why would the text be abrogated from recitation while its ruling remains? There are no satisfactory answers to these questions.
Does it make sense to abrogate the recitation while retaining the ruling in matters related to personal honor, legality, and morality? Can the recitation be abrogated while the ruling remains in cases concerning human life, such as the verse of stoning? What wisdom is there in that other than causing doubt? Is it conceivable that the recitation remains for less severe punishments like flogging and amputation, while it is abrogated for matters of life and death? Imam al-Ṭaḥāwī commented on this issue after examining all the narrations: “If what was narrated by ῾Abdullāh ibn Abī Bakr, upon whom the narration revolves (῾aly madār al-ḥadīth), was true, it would have been included in the Qur᾽ān and recited in prayers, as the rest of the Qur᾽ān is, and the Companions of the Prophet would not have left out some parts of the Qur᾽ān. May Allāh forbid that they did so, or that anything remained of the Qur᾽ān other than what the rightly guided Caliphs compiled. For if it were so, it would imply that what they wrote might be abrogated, and what they left out might be the abrogating, invalidating the obligation of practice, and we seek refuge in Allāh from this belief and those who hold it.” [Sharḥ Mushkil al-᾽Aāthār 11/491].
Therefore, even if the chain of narration is authentic, it should not contradict the agreed upon and well-established facts. If that is the case, the options are either to interpret the narration in an acceptable way that does not conflict with the mutawātir and established texts, or to consider it anomalous and reject it. Hence, we find an Imam like Imam Mālik, who narrated the ḥadīth, saying: “This has no practical effect.” This is a clear rejection of the content of the narration.
As for your second question about the statement of ῾Umar regarding stoning, this statement you referred to appears in a narration reported by Ibn Mājah in his Sunan from the ḥadīth of Ibn ῾Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with him), who said that ῾Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said: “I feared that after a long time has passed, someone might say, ‘I do not find the verse of stoning in the Book of Allāh,’ and thereby they would go astray by abandoning one of the obligations ordained by Allāh. Verily, stoning is a truth if a man is married and evidence is established, or there is pregnancy, or a confession. I have indeed recited it: (The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively). The Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) stoned and we stoned after him.”
Similarly, Ibn Ḥibbān narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ from the ḥadīth of ᾽Ubayy ibn Ka῾b (may Allāh be pleased with him), who said: “Surah Al-᾽Aḥzāb used to be equal to Surah Al-Baqarah in length, and it contained the verse: (The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively).”
Ibn Ḥibbān also narrated in his Ṣaḥīḥ from Al-῾Ajmā᾽ Al-᾽Anṣāriyyah: (The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively for the pleasure they have had). In another narration: (The Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) recited to us the verse of stoning: The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively for the pleasure they have had).
There are other similar narrations, and we have some comments here:
First: When examining this text from the perspective of transmission, we find that the narrations differ in determining the exact text of the verse. Some say: (The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively because they have fulfilled their desire as a punishment from Allāh. Allāh is All-Knowing, All-Wise).
Others say: (The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively as a punishment from Allāh. Allāh is All-Knowing, All-Wise).
Others: (The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively for the pleasure they have had).
And another: (The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively because they have fulfilled their desire as a recompense for what they earned as a punishment from Allāh. Allāh is All-Knowing, All-Wise).
This indicates there is no consensus on the text, unlike the Quranic text which people do not dispute, as seen in similar legal texts such as: “The female adulterer and the male adulterer, flog each one of them with a hundred lashes.” [An-Nūr: 2]. And His saying: “The male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands as a recompense for what they committed, as a deterrent from Allāh. Allāh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.” [Al-Mā᾽idah: 38].
Second: From the perspective of transmission from ῾Umar, we find that the narration of Ibn Mājah and Al-Nasā᾽ī and others revolves around (tadūr ῾alā) the narration of Sufyān from Al-Zuhrī from ῾Ubaydullāh ibn ῾Abdullāh from Ibn ῾Abbās who said: I heard ῾Umar say: …
Sufyān is Sufyān Ibn ῾Uyaynah, one of the companions of Al-Zuhrī, but he alone (infarada) added the text of the stoning verse contrary to eight other companions of Al-Zuhrī. They are:
- Ṣāliḥ ibn Kaysān; as in Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī No. 6830.
- Yūnus ibn ῾Abd al-᾽A῾lā; as in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim No. 1691, and Sunan Al-Nasā᾽ī Al-Kubrā No. 7158-4/247.
- Hushaym; as in Musnad ᾽Aḥmad 1/29, and Sunan Abī Dāwūd No. 4418.
- Ma῾mar; as in Muṣannaf ῾Abd al-Razzāq No. 13329, and Musnad Al-Ḥumaydī 1/15,16, ᾽Aḥmad in his Musnad 1/47, and Al-Tirmidhī in his Jāmi῾ No. 1432.
- Mālik; as in his Muwaṭṭa᾽ p.823, and Al-Shāfi῾ī in Al-᾽Umm 5/154, ᾽Aḥmad in his Musnad 1/40, Al-Dārimī in his Musnad 2/179, and Al-Nasā᾽ī in Al-Kubrā No. 7158 – 4/274.
- ῾Abdullāh ibn Abī Bakr ibn Ḥazm; as in Sunan Al-Kubrā by Al-Nasā᾽ī, No. 7159 – 4/274 with an authentic chain to him.
- ῾Aqīl; as in Sunan Al-Kubrā by Al-Nasā᾽ī 7160 – 4/274.
- Sa῾d ibn ᾽Ibrāhīm; as in Musnad ᾽Aḥmad 1/50, and Sunan Al-Nasā᾽ī Al-Kubrā 7151 – 4/272 with an authentic chain to him.
Thus, it is clear that the verse: (The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively) is not preserved in the ḥadīth of ῾Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allāh be pleased with him) as mentioned in the previous narration.
Therefore, Al-Nasā᾽ī (may Allāh have mercy on him) said in his Sunan Al-Kubrā 2/273: I do not know anyone who mentioned in this ḥadīth: (The old man and the old woman, if they commit adultery, stone them definitively) except Sufyān, and it seems he made a mistake, and Allāh knows best.
Third: In terms of structure, we find that this alleged verse does not follow the Quranic structure, but rather it is strange to the Quranic style.
The words (the old man and the old woman) have no equivalent in the Qur᾽ān, and their meaning is unclear. Does it mean an elderly person, as the poet said: You thought me an old man, but I am not old *** An old man is one who crawls
Or does it mean the married person (muḥṣan) as opposed to the unmarried?
If it is the first: then the ruling has no connection to being married but rather to the age of the perpetrator, which none of the jurists who advocate for stoning have stated.
If it is the second: then the term “muḥṣan” is not known to mean “old man” or “old woman,” as the married person could be old or young, or a youth, and age has no bearing on being married.
It would be more appropriate to use the term “married man (muḥṣan) and married woman (muḥṣanah).”
Additionally, the word “definitively” (al-battah) is a strange term in the Qur᾽ān and its meaning is unclear. Does it mean quickly and decisively, or with determination without appeal, or does it mean equality between man and woman, all of which are possible meanings for this strange word to the tongue and ear.
Fourth: If we accept the existence of a verse called the stoning verse, then we must ask:
Why was a verse of such importance, involving a person’s life and death, and not just any death but one involving torture, abrogated? This does not align with the spirit of Islamic Sharī῾āh.
And if it was abrogated, where is the abrogating text? For every abrogated text, there is an abrogating one.
Our conclusion and belief are that:
The ruling of stoning was not revealed in an Islamic text, and there is no single verse supporting it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) stoned based on the Jewish law, as the punishment for adultery among them was stoning. The Prophet (peace be upon him) initially affirmed this until the verses of Surah An-Nūr were revealed, which abrogated his action and made the punishment flogging. This is consistent with the Islamic penal system, which prohibits torture and mutilation of the deceased.
The previous narrations do not stand up to scrutiny either in their chains of transmission or their texts as we have demonstrated.
After all, Allāh knows best.
Fatwā issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr
