By Mujlisul Ulama
WHO ORDERED RAJM?
There is consensus of the followers of the THREE religions — Islam, Judaism and Christianity — that the Promulgator of the Law of stoning adulterers to death is Allah Azza Wa Jal. The Tauraah and the Injeel corroborate the Shariah of Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the Law of Rajm.
Kuffaar and Muslims alike agree that Rajm was ordered by Allah Ta’ala. This command exists to this day in the scriptures of the Yahood and Nasaaraa.
If Rajm is ‘barbaric’, the charge is directed by the accusers to Allah Azza Wa Jal. The attempt to shift the ‘blame’ of Rajm to the ‘Maulanas’ of the Indo-Pak subcontinent is to display rational bankruptcy.
The insane desire of the modernist heretics and atheists to appease their western intellectual masters does not detract from the conclusively proven truth that Rajm is by the Command of Allah Azza Wa Jal.
The recent feverish attempts by modernists to negate the Islamic validity of Rajm (Stoning to death for adultery), ensuing in the wake of the adverse kuffaar media publicity centering around the Rajm sentence decreed by a Nigerian Shariah court, was motivated solely by the mad desire to placate their western intellectual masters who were all screaming from the rooftops that Rajm is barbaric.
For the sake of appeasing the western masters, the modernist zindeeqs, mulhids and munaafiqs masquerading as Muslims, embarked on their usual exercises of baseless interpretation of the Qur’aan and flagrant rejection of the sacred Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They have failed to realize, in fact, they cannot be concerned, that rejection of the Ahaadith is tantamount to rejection of the Qur’aan. Without the Ahaadith, there is no Qur’aan, no Islam.
The mental derangement of some of these modernists has constrained them to label the Ahaadith — all the Ahaadith — of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) an ‘evil spirit’. There can be no doubt in the kufr of these agents of shaitaan.
Since unwary Muslims and those who lack sound Deeni Ilm have been thrown into doubt by these evil modernists, a need developed to respond to the drivel and kufr which the ignoramuses have presented in substantiation of their claim that Rajm is not an Islamic punishment. By such denial they hoped to curry favour with the western kuffaar. They have chosen to abase themselves to the West by depicting Islam in a mould which assuages the palates of the kuffaar. In this exercise they conspicuously exposed themselves by revealing the kufr hidden in their hearts. Emergence from the restrictive confines of the Shar’iah to enter into the domain of unbridled interpretation which is beyond the bounds of the principles of the Shariah gives rise to kufr. This is precisely what the modernist deniers of Rajm are guilty of.
RAJM — THE COMMAND OF ALLAH
In the intense desire to appease the western kuffaar, Munaafiqeen (Hypocrites) hibernating in the folds of the Ummah, were compelled by the Nigerian episode to reveal their true colours of nifaaq (hypocrisy) by overtly decrying the Rajm command of Allah Ta’ala. The western intellectual masters had indoctrinated these hypocrites during their secular educational period with the atheist cult of ‘enlightment’ and liberalism. It is this cult of ‘enlightened’ kufr which has constrained the modernist munaafiqeen to flagrantly brand the Law of Allah Ta’ala as being ‘barbaric’. In so doing, they were loyally and dutifully mimicking and aping their masters from whom they have inherited the mental disease of intellectual paralysis.
As an imperative corollary of this mental aberration, the brains of the modernist munaafiqeen operate under extreme duress in the straitjacket of western kuffaar mentalism. It is this chronic mental disease which compels them to eternally and baselessly interpret the Ahkaam of Allah Ta’ala to accord His Immutable Shariah accommodation within the confines of the concepts of life fabricated by the western kuffaar. But this accommodation can be effected only at the expense of jettisoning Imaan right out from the heart. Kuffaar can be placated only by means of kufr. Hence, the product of any interpretation offered by the modernist munaafiqeen has to necessarily be kufr.
The pleasure of the kuffaar cannot be attained without submission to kufr. Thus the Qur’aan Majeed warning the Mu’mineen, states:
“Never will the Yahood and Nasaaraa be pleased with you as long as you do not follow their cult.”
But following the cult and culture of the kuffaar leads inevitably to kufr and everlasting disaster, loss and failure. Sounding this Warning, the Qur’aan Majeed says:
“O People of Imaan! If you follow those who have embraced kufr, they will turn you on your heels (to abandon Islam). You will then become the (everlasting) losers (in this world and the Aakhirah). (Don’t appease them because) in actual fact, Allah is your Friend (and Protector), and He is the best of helpers.”
THE NIGERIAN EPISODE
When the Nigerian Shariah Court handed down the sentence of Rajm the world of the kuffaar braying like asses shouted that the sentence was ’barbaric’. In the noise they kicked up, there is nothing of surprise. This reaction was entirely expected. It is indeed a futile exercise to even comment on the reaction of aliens. But there is a need to expose the munaafiqeen who masquerade as Muslims. From within the fold they feverishly labour to undermine Islam. Their strategy for achieving this nefarious goal is to ostensibly present Qur’aanic proof in substantiation of the cries of the western critics of Islam.
The kuffaar claim that the Immutable Law of Rajm is ’barbaric’. It logically devolves on their vassals, namely, the modernist munaafiqen, to fabricate ‘enlightened’ interpretation of the Qur’aan to confirm the decree of ‘barbarism’ which the enemies of Islam have levelled against the Law of Allah Ta’ala. In the desperate attempt to denounce and refute Rajm the modernist munaafiqeen have surfaced with two of the flimsiest arguments — arguments devoid of the slightest vestige of Shar’i substance. These two ridiculous grounds advanced to corroborate the ‘enlightened’ view of the aliens are:
(1) Rajm is barbaric, hence it cannot be a law of Islam
(2) There is no Qur’aanic substantion for Rajm.
These are two stupidities, the fallacy of which should be conspicuous to every Muslim who had enjoyed a basic Madrassah ta’leem at primary level. There is absolutely no valid ground for the refutation of Rajm. In fact, the modernist munaafiqeen languishing in intellectual paralysis have been unable to add even a third stupidity in their attempt to justify their kufr denial of a Shar’i Hukm which is based on the highest category of Shar’i evidence, viz., Ahaadith Mutawaatarah, which have the force of Qur’aanic aayaat.
Before presenting the evidence of the Shariah to conclusively substantiate the validity and immutability of Allah’s Law of Rajm, we shall examine and demolish the arguments of the modernist munaafiqeen — their arguments which are in fact devoid of any Shar’i substance.
Their first flimsy argument which may have deceived people of shallow understanding and those who lack in basic or primary Madrassah education, is the charge of ‘barbarism’ which the kuffaar level at Islam. Since the west believes that the punishment of Rajm is ‘barbaric’, it has become imperative for their vassals whose intellectual vessels are deranged by the mental slavery of their educational indoctrination, to echo the same theme.
In taking up the defence of the kuffaar on this issue, the modernist munaafiqeen are tacitly proclaiming that Allah Azza Wa Jal and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have commanded an act of barbarism — Nauthubillaah!
Since there is not the slightest loophole for assaulting the validity of the Law of Rajm, the logical conclusion in terms of the view propounded by the modernist munaafiqeen is that the entire Penal Code of Islam is barbaric.
In fact, there is no need for anyone to arrive at this conclusion by deduction because the western kuffaar do believe and have made no secret of it that the Hudood (Prescribed Punishments) as well as Ta’zeer (Discretionary Punishment) of Islam are barbaric. In fact, their hatred for Islam is not restricted to criticism of the Islamic Penal System. They direct their invective against even the loftiest concept of Monothiesm, i.e. the doctrine of Tauheed, which inspite of its uncompromising stand of Allah’s Unity and the total denunciation and rejection of the slightest vestige of idolatry, even photographs — they brand this doctrine of Tauheed, idolatry. The Qur’aan Majeed has stated the truth:
“Verily, hatred (for Islam and Muslims) has spewed from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is worse.”
Therefore, by aligning themselves with the kuffaar on the issue of Rajm, the modernist munaafiqeen imply their concurrence as far as all Shar’i punishments are concerned. The further implication is their total rejection of the Islam which was presented, interpreted and taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his noble Sahaabah.
There is no intelligent reason for restricting the notion of ‘barbarism’ to the punishment to Rajm. While the kuffaar conception of ‘barbarism’ of Islamic punishments and its penal code is uniform, the modernist munaafiqeen and other mulhideen are in a quandary. They are at a loss in their selection. Which punishment of the Shariah is ’barbaric’ and which is ’humane’? In the view of the kuffaar every Shar’i punishment is ’barbaric’. The modernist mulhids and zindeeqs are at pains to convince Muslims and the kuffaar critics that the Islamic punishment for adultery is 100 lashes, not Rajm. Since the 100 lashes are stated by a Qur’aanic Aayat too explicit and emphatic for interpretation and rejection, at least at this stage in the progress towards kufr, they have no alternative other than to concur with the 100 lash Hadd. But according to the very same shayaateen who brand Rajm as barbaric, the 100 lash Hadd is also barbaric. Their mental quandary and frustration have thus become grounded in incongruity and terrible confusion on this score.
The Qur’aan decrees a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, 100 lashes for fornication committed by unmarried persons, cutting the hands of thieves, impaling dacoits and cutting off their hands and feet at opposite sides, etc. None of these punishments is acceptable to the kuffaar since all these Hudood are ‘barbaric’ in the conception of the ‘enlightened’ kuffaar who have sanctified and legalized infanticide, homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution and other immoral crimes of debauchery.
While the modernist munaafiqeen have hitherto been constrained to maintain silence on the ‘barbarism’ of the aforementioned constituents of Islam’s Penal Code on account of explicit Qur’aanic references, they believe that they have sufficient scope for manouvreing on at least the Rajm question to soothe and placate their western intellectual and cultural masters. This false belief based on their nifaaq has now been overtly proclaimed because there is no explicit reference to Rajm in the Qur’aan Majeed. But in the attempt to trade their belief of kufr (viz. the refutation of Rajm), the modernist munaafiqeen have no option other than to bare their kufr and nifaaq by denying the validity of the ordinances and teachings of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In so doing they are in diametric conflict with the Qur’aan which they cite as the Book in which they believe. But every Muslim of true Imaan can understand the worth of their claim of belief in the Qur’aan.
In rejecting the validity of Rajm, the logical consequence is so glaring that it is incorrect to say that these modernist munaafiqeen imply or indirectly reject the Qur’aan. The only conclusion is that they directly reject the Qur’aan. If, for example, a zindeeq or a munaafiq claims that Islam does not have as its fundamental belief performance of Five Salaat daily and then he backs up his kufr by claiming that there is no Qur’aanic reference for this practice, we shall not be in error for declaring that this criminal has overtly, directly and outrightly rejected the Qur’aan. It is the Qur’aan which commands obedience to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Qur’aan is replete with such commands to follow and obey the Nabi of Allah Ta’ala. Insha’Allah, this angle will be presented later when discussing the second baseless argument of the modernist munaafiqeen.
Let us revert to their claim that Rajm is ‘barbaric’ The very people who put up a howl against Islam’s Penal Code, freely, flagrantly and without the slightest pang of conscience subject thousands of civilians to brutal bombing from the skies. People who are not involved in hostilities —men, women, children, the old, the sick — hospitals and orphanages, are all pummeled and brutalized with thousands of tons of bombs, poisonous and other sophisticated incendiary devices which not only kill, but horribly maim, deform and disfigure human beings. But this is not barbaric!!!
The brutal torture camps in Guantanamo Bay, the numerous prisons of torture operated by kuffaar governments in which countless thousands are hideously and horribly subjected to the most inhuman types of physical torture, the punishment of horrible hangings, the electric chair and death by poison are all supposedly humane acts which are no secrets. In the conception of the kuffaar these acts of torture and death are ‘humane’ while in the understanding of Muslims all these acts are truly barbaric.
While execution with the sword is the most humane form of killing ordained by Allah Ta’ala, it is ‘barbaric’ in the western conception. From these few examples it should be clear that an act which is barbaric to kuffaar is valid and humane to Muslims and vice versa. In view of the Penal Code of Islam being divine, being the product of Wahi (Revelation) from Allah Ta’ala, it is the best and the most humane system. On the contrary, the system of punishment of the kuffaar is the product of the human mind, hence it cannot be termed humane in comparison to the Divine Code. The charge of barbarism rebounds directly on the very people who level it against Islam.
It is quite obvious that there is no uniform definition for the term ’barbaric’ nor does the word have the same meaning for people of different cultures. Inspite of the differences of concepts, Muslims can claim with emphasis that the Islamic system is best since it is the Code revealed by Allah Ta’ala and was implemented by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Any Muslim who denies this reality has the obligation of producing his Shar’i evidence, not the figments of his opinion and instincts which have been corrupted by kuffaar indoctrination and culture. In the words of the Qur’aan: “Bring forth your proof if indeed you are truthful.” So far, not a single one of the modernist munaafiqeen has surfaced with Shar’i evidence to bolster the kuffaar claim which the miscreants in our midst are echoing and mimicking. They simply bandy figments of their opinion which cannot be taken seriously and which definitely have no semblance whatsoever with what could be termed evidence of the Shariah.
It is not difficult to fathom the reason for the attitude of the modernist munaafiqeen. Years of indoctrination in the educational institutions of the western kuffaar have impregnated their hearts, with sceptism, agnosticism, hereticism and hypocrisy — kufr and nifaaq. Like Siamese twins, their brains have become conjoined with the brains of their intellectual masters. They are therefore wholly incapable of independent and rational thinking. Their mental procedures are inextricably interwoven with the conceptual attitudes of the so-called enlightened western kuffaar. But at the same time the pressure of the society in which they thrive does not permit them to proclaim their hidden ideology acquired from the tutors of kufr. They thus profess themselves to be Muslims while they are immersed in a cauldron of kufr.
In this mental imbroglio in which they happen to discover themselves, they feel obliged to satisfy irreconcilable opposites — Muslims and Kuffaar. The attempt to placate both groups is motivated by worldly and nafsaani aims. There is nothing of altruism in the stupid, ridiculous and impossible endeavour to tread two divergent paths at the same time.
When there is absolutely no latitude for mental gymnastics and manoeuvring on account of explicit evidence or entrenched acceptance by the community, the munaafiqeen exercise restraint and sulk in silence because of their inability to overtly support their intellectual masters. Thus, on the issue of cutting off the hand of the thief, the modernist munaafiqeen are compelled to suffer in silence and feel that at least at this juncture in history, they may not join the chorus which dins into the ears the charge of ‘barbarism’ because even the Muslim in the street knows what the Qur’aan Majeed declares most explicitly on this issue.
However, on the issue of Rajm they have become audacious and openly denounce this immutable law of Allah Ta’ala because there is no explicit Qur’aanic textual reference. This point will, Insha’Allah, be discussed later.
The Islamic system of Thabah (Slaughtering) is ’barbaric’ to the west, but to us it is the most humane system. The kuffaar systems of killing animals such as shocking, pithing, shooting, scalding, hammering, etc., are barbaric according to Islam, but ’humane’ according to the kuffaar. Hanging and all other methods of execution are barbaric for Muslims, but humane for the kuffaar. Islam permits execution by only the sword and nothing else. For the kuffaar this is barbaric while for us it is humane.
The overt support which the modernist munaafiqeen are offering the kuffaar on the question of Rajm is their agreement and acceptance of the charge of ‘barbarism’ which has been hurled at Islam. But this charge does not negate the validity of the Law. It is not evidence to substantiate the claim that Rajm has not been ordained by Allah Azza Wa Jal. In order to dismiss the validity of Rajm it is necessary for the modernist munaafiqeen to substantiate their claim with proofs of the Shariah. Their personal ideas, attitudes, interpretation and opinion are not evidence of the Shariah.
Furthermore, it is essential for sustaining the charge of barbarism to prove that at no stage in the world’s history did Allah Ta’ala ordain Rajm for fornicators. The charge of Rajm being ‘barbaric’ falls flat and has absolutely no substance if at any time in man’s history Rajm had been a Divine Punishment. Any claim of barbarism would then be tantamount to saying that Allah Ta’ala Himself is ‘barbaric’ — Nauthubillaah! Insha’Allah, we shall revert to this point later.
Suffice to observe here that besides the charge of barbarism being false, and even if we had to momentarily assume that in the understanding of human beings it is ’barbaric’, then too, it is not a ground for the averment that there is no Rajm in Islam. Should it be argued that ritual ablutions (wudhu) five times a day and Salaat five times a day are an excessive imposition and burden, hence it is not a tenet of Islam, then everyone will understand the absurdity of this line of argument and the falsity of the claim. Similarly, the argument that Rajm is not Islamic because it is ‘barbaric’ is absurd, emotional and irrational even if it is momentarily assumed that it is ’barbaric’.
The summary of our negation of first semblance of an argument presented by the followers of the ’enlightened’ kuffaar is:
(1) There is no consensus of mankind on the definition and conception of barbarism.
(2) Even if there is unanimity on the conception or meaning of barbarism, it is not a ground for refuting a properly substantiated Law of Allah Ta’ala. A refutation has to be based on facts and evidence, not on emotional attitudes.
(3) The Ummah of Islam rejects with contempt the charge that Rajm is barbaric.
(4) The aim of the anti-Rajm protagonists is nothing but to appease the kuffaar with apologies and personal opinion presented by way of baseless interpretation.
(5) The claim that Rajm is not an Islamic injunction is kufr which expels such a believer from the fold of Islam.
(6) Numerous practices, laws and rituals of both western kuffaar and eastern kuffaar despite their acceptance, are regarded as barbaric by Islam. (7) The exercise to appease the ‘enlightened’ west is the direct consequence of the kuffaar educational system which breeds kufr in Aqaaid (Beliefs) and immodesty in Akhlaaq (moral character).
RAJM IS NOT IN THE QUR’AAN The next claim which they posit as an argument in negation of Rajm is that the Qur’aan is silent in this regard.
The Shariah of Islam is Immutable. This Shariah is the product of Wahi (Divine Revelation). It is not the consequence of man’s opinion. Affirming this transcendental Truth, the Qur’aan Majeed proclaims:
“Then, We established you on a Shariah. Therefore, follow it, and do not follow the vain desires of those who do not know.”
This Aayat of the Qur’aan confirms that the Shariah is Divine and Immutable. That the Qur’aan is the Fountainhead of this Divine Shariah is an incontestable axiomatic fact stemming from the irrefutable Qur’aanic assertion that Allah Ta’ala handed Islam to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah in the Completed and Perfected Form which tolerates no change, no diversion and no interpretation which conflicts with the fundamental basis of the Shariah’s Immutability due to its Divine origin. Beautifully and emphatically expressing this fact of Islam, the Qur’aan declares:
“This Day have I (Allah) perfected for you your Deen, and (on this Day) have I completed for you My Ni’mat (Bounty), and I have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.”
Another axiomatic fact arising from the claim that Islam has been divinely completed, perfected and chosen for the Ummah until the Day of Qiyaamah, is the sustainment and endurance of its authenticity throughout the ages, from its inception until the time of the world’s demise is ushered in with the disappearance of the last Muslim who recites the Name of Allah Ta’ala. Confirming this reality, the Qur’aan Shareef states:
“Verily, We have revealed the Thikr and, verily, We are its Protectors.”
“They (the kuffaar and munaafiqeen) intend to extinguish the Noor (Shariah) of Allah, but Allah will complete His Noor even though the kaafiroon abhor it.”
Further elucidating the Divine Protection decreed for Islam, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“This Knowledge (of the Deen) will remain by the Pious of every generation. They will eliminate from it the interpolation of the deviates, the falsehood of the people of baatil, and the baseless interpretation of the ignoramuses.” [Mishkaat]
Thus, the assurance of the Immutability of the Shariah is given by the Qur’aan and by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) further added that the noblest of ages are the Khairul Quroon — the Age of the Sahaabah, the Age of the Taabieen and the Age of the Tab-e-Taabieen. It was in this glorious epoch of Islam which adjoined the Age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that all the illustrious Authorities of Islam — the Fuqaha, Muhadditheen and Mufassireen — had flourished. It is inconceivable that Islam had been distorted, mutilated and interpolated beyond recognition by the very first generations of Islam for whose reliability and uprighteousness Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Qur’aan Majeed testifies.
The Shariah as it existed during the era of Khairul Quroon was the perfect and complete Shariah which Allah Ta’ala speaks of in the Qur’aan. From this we understand that the principle of authenticity of any act, tenet or injunction is its existence and acceptance by the illustrious Authorities of Islam during the Khairul Quroon era. It is perfidious and kufr to claim that an injunction which the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and Tab-e-aabieen upheld is baseless and a fabrication of the ‘Maulanas’ of the Indo-Pak subcontinent. This is a notorious crutch of the Ahl-e-baatil in general in the South African scenario of misinterpretation by the deviates, heretics, skeptics and modernist munaafiqeen.
To the best of the world’s knowledge, the era of the “Maulanas” of the Indo-Pak sub-continent had not yet dawned during the Khairul Quroon epoch. The era of the “Maulanas” began more than 11 centuries after the Khairul Quroon. Thus, the undermentioned claim made by one munaafiq and murtad so-called sheikh in appeasement of his western kuffaar masters, is manifest drivel displaying the jahaalat of the lost soul who asserts in his exposition of Jahaalat:
“If you, the reader, wish to find peace of mind and certainty of knowledge on this question, then come back to Allah’s pure unadulterated word. Only the Holy Quran is absolutely free of vexing, infuriating contradictions, whereas the hadith (on which the “maulanas” base all their so-called “arguments” in favour of stoning is full of elisions (sic), evasions and absurdities. May Allah save our souls from being entangled with the asphyxiating incubus of Hadith. The solution to ALL our problems lies ONLY in the Quran.”
Before we proceed to demolish the muck and the kufr which the zindeeq has gorged out here, it is necessary to furnish the definition of the word ‘incubus’ to enable readers to gain an insight into the mindset of this evil ‘sheikh’.
The dictionaries defining incubus, say: An evil spirit said to descend on people while they sleep and to have sexual intercourse with women.”
This is the vile epithet which the evil ‘sheikh’ has coined for the sacred words of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) — words which the Qur’aan describe as follows:
“He (Muhammad) does not speak of vain desire. It (his Hadith) is nothing but Wahi which is revealed (from Allah).”
The Hadith which is part of Divine Revelation except that it does not form part of the Qur’aanic text, is depicted by the vile ‘sheikh’ as “an evil (satanic) spirit which possesses women and indulges in sexual intercourse with them.” Can there be any doubt in the kufr of this man. The entire edifice of Hadith which represents the knowledge and the Deen which Allah Ta’ala inspired into the heart of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is labeled an incubus by the miserable soul in his satanic endeavour to negate Rajm in pursuance of the objective of appeasing the kuffaar masters.
Indeed, this unfortunate ‘sheikh’ has scraped the very bottom of the barrel of kufr. One cannot descend further into the pit of kufr than this evil ‘sheikh’ who has branded the ‘Revelation from Allah’ to be an incubus. The ‘Wahi’ which Allah Ta’ala inspired into the mubaarak heart of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and which emanated on his blessed tongue in the form we know as the Hadith is villified by the murtad with an expletive with which the sacred Hadith (Wahi Ghair Matluw) has hitherto never been maligned. Truly, this man is the evil spirit—the incubus — the human shaitaan from which we are instructed in Surah Naas to seek refuge in Allah.
“Say: I seek refuge in the Rabb of mankind, The King of mankind, The Deity of mankind from the evil of Waswaas, the Khannaas who whispers (his evil) into the breasts of people — (the Khannaas or the shaitaan) from among jinn and men.”
It is only a human khannaas who will revile the Wahi of Allah with the vile epithet, ‘incubus’ and shamelessly say that the entire sacred Edifice of Ahaadith-e-Nabawi is an evil spirit which descends on people during the night, possesses women and indulges in sexual intercourse with them. Intelligent discussion with such a khannaas cannot be possible.
The evidence which we shall present, Insha’Allah, will be acclaimed by all Muslims who lack bias in favour of kufr, kuffaar and their ‘enlightened’ cults and cultures. The evidence will show if Rajm came into effect with the advent of the era of the “maulanas” or had it existed in all previous Divine Shariahs as well as the Shariah of Muhammdur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Remember that the era of the “maulanas” of the Indo-Pak subcontinent had dawned on mankind only about 150 years ago while the Khairul Quroon epoch was under the direct Spiritual Shadow of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It was the time of the Sahaabah and their illustrious Students.
Let us ask the munaafiq sheikh: “Was Rajm ever effected in the Indo-Pak subcontinent since the inception of the era of the “maulanas”? Is the Law of Rajm discussed or not in ALL the Kutub of Islam — Fiqh, Hadith and Tafseer books — which existed from the earliest times of this Deen more than a millennium prior to the age of the “Maulanas” on the Indo-Pak sub-continent? Who were the authors of all the thousands of Deeni kutub in the pre-maulana era, from the inception of Islam? Were Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan, Hadhrat Ali and the countless Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) “maulanas” from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh? Was Imaam Maalik, Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Shaafi, Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal and the innumerable Fuqaha of these ages “maulanas” of the Indo-Pak subcontinent? Did all these Authorities of the Shariah order and discuss Rajm or not? Do the present non-maulana Ulama all over the Muslim World believe in the validity of Rajm or not? Let the miserable munaafiq and murtad “sheikh” answer!
Is the Nigerian Qaadhi and the Nigerian Ulama of the Maaliki Math-hab — those who handed down the sentence of Rajm — products of the Daarul ulooms of the “maulanas” of the Indo-Pak subcontinent? Did they acquire the law of Rajm from the “maulanas”? This will suffice to demonstrate the utter nonsense and trash the munaafiq and murtad “sheikh” has gorged out from his belly of kufr.
For the benefit of unwary Muslims, Rajm is expounded in the greatest detail in all the Books of Islam from the earliest time of this Deen.
(1) Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “Verily, Allah Ta’ala sent Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the Haqq (Truth), and He revealed the Kitaab (Qur’aan) to him. Among the (aayaat) which Allah had revealed to him was the aayat of Rajm. I recited it, understood it and memorized it. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) executed Rajm, and we (the Sahaabah) after him executed Rajm. I fear that due to the long duration of time on people they may say: ‘We do not find Rajm in the Kitaab of Allah.’ Thus, they will go astray by abandoning an injunction which Allah Ta’ala had revealed. (Know) that Rajm is incumbent on the one who commits zina when he or she is (of the quality of) Ihsaan (i.e. married), when evidence has been established or there is pregnancy or confession.” [Bukhaari and Muslim]
(2) Hadhrat Ibnus Saamit (radhiyallahu anhu) — a Sahaabi — narrated: “Verily, the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Take from me! Take from me! Verily Allah has made a way for them (adulteresses) — (The punishment) for an unmarried person with an unmarried person is 100 lashes and banishment of one year; for married persons it is 100 lashes and Rajm.” [Muslim and Abu Daawood]
(3) “Sha’bi narrated that on the occasion when Ali Ibn Taalib (radhiyallahu anhu) executed Rajm on a woman on the Day of Jumuah, he said: ‘I applied Rajm on her by the Sunnat of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).” [Bukhaari]
In this incident, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) had flogged the man, Shuraahah on Thursday and executed Rajm on the woman on Friday. When it was said to Ali (radhiyallahu anhu): ”You have combined Jald (flogging) and Rajm (stoning).” He said: “I flogged him on the authority of the Kitaab of Allah and executed Rajm on the authority of the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).”
(4) “Jaabir Bin Abdullah Ansaari (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that a man from (the tribe of) Aslam came to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and said that he had committed zina. He testified against himself four times. Then Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered that he be stoned. Rajm was then inflicted on him. He was a married person. [Bukhaari]
(5) “Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that while Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was in the Musjid a man approached him and exclaimed: ‘O Rasulullah! Verily, I have committed zina.’ Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ignored him. When he had testified against himself four times, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) called him and said: ‘Are you insane?’ He replied: ‘No.’ Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked: ‘Are you married?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ Then Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered (the Sahaabah): Take him away and execute Rajm on him.”
(6) “Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘The child is for the bed (of the husband, i.e. it is his legitimate child notwithstanding the accusation of adultery levelled at his wife), and for the adulterer are stones (i.e. Rajm).” [Sahih Muslim]
(7) A man had committed adultery with his employer’s wife. The man’s father had secured the release of his son from his apprehenders by ransoming him with 100 sheep and a slave. When the matter was presented to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he said:
“I take oath by The Being in Whose control is my life! I shall decide by the Kitaab of Allah. The 100 sheep and the slave should be returned to you, and your son be flogged 100 lashes and banished for a year.”
Then (instructing a Sahaabi) whose name was Unays, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘O Unays! Go to the wife of this man. If she confesses to having committed zina, then execute Rajm on her.’ He went to her. After she confessed, he inflicted Rajm on her.” [Sahih Bukhaari]
Besides these few quotations from the authentic Hadith kutub, all other Hadith Books report on Rajm. All Authorities report that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had commanded the infliction of Rajm. The Sahaabah had inflicted Rajm during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and the Khulafa-e-Raashideen had done the same during their respective khilaafats.
None of these Hadith books was the work of any Maulana of the Indo-Pak subcontinent. None of these illustrious personalities was a Maulana who had graduated at any Daarul Uloom of the Indo-Pak subcontinent. Only confirmed munaafiqeen and murtaddeen can venture such drivel.
The evidence to substantiate Rajm is overwhelming and conclusive. It is impossible for a man whose sanity is intact to deny historical facts which no one has ever refuted in the past fourteen centuries of Islam’s history. The only exception is the deviated sect, the Khawaarij. These heretics were the only criminals in the history of Islam who had denied Rajm. Insha’Allah, we shall elaborate this issue later. But, they never denied the historical fact that Rajm was practiced. They denied its validity as an Islamic injunction. But the modernist zindeeqs deny even the historical reality of the Rajm.
Irrespective of the fiqhi (juridical) differences regarding the details of pertaining to Rajm in terms of the different Math-habs which present their proofs on valid Hadith and Qur’aanic basis, there is complete consensus of all Authorities and Math-habs on the validity of Rajm. No one has ever disputed that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Khulafa-e-Rashideen had inflicted the punishment of Rajm on adulterers. The only differences pertain to the type and degree of evidence required to secure conviction. But on Rajm itself, there is no dispute. There is only unanimity.
The modernist munaafiqeen and murtadd so-called sheikhs and scholars are at pains in their endeavour to confuse Muslims by introducing differences in details. They have embarked on this futile and devious exercise in a bid to divert attention from the validity of Rajm and from the irrefutable fact that Rajm had existed in Islam from the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Islamic, Hadith and historical facts cannot be denied and dismissed on the basis of Qur’aanic silence. If an event is not recorded in the explicit text of the Qur’aan Shareef, it does not follow as a logical or incumbent conclusion that such an event never existed in history. Consider the existence of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen. No person, be he Muslim, Shiah or any other brand of kaafir denies the historical fact of the Khilaafat of the four Khulafa of Islam. While the Shiahs deny the Islamic legality and legitimacy of the Khilaafat of the first three Righteous Khulafa of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), they do not refute the historical fact of the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhum).
To claim that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) and the other Khulafa were not installed as the Rulers of Islam merely on the basis of the silence of the Qur’aan Majeed on this issue, is palpably absurd. In exactly the same manner is it absurd to claim that Rajm was not a punishment inflicted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Khulafa-e-Raashideen because the Qur’aan nowhere mentions it.
If any munaafiq or murtadd has a rabid desire to appease his kuffaar masters by a denunciation of Rajm, he should tender a refutation of the Islamic legality and validity of Rajm in which the Ummah believes. He should present facts in refutation, not display absurdity and puerility by asserting the very non-existence of Rajm in Rasulullah’s time. Such a stupid denial is a vivid commentary of the stark ignorance and downright stupidity of these westernized munaafiqeen and murtaddeen.
We have furnished conclusive evidence from the Ahaadith for the belief and contention of the Ummah that Rajm was commanded and executed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Khulafa-e-Raashideeen.
RAJM AND THE FUQAHA
Let us now see what the illustrious Authorities of the Shariah — the Aimmah Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha in general — have to say on this issue. Summing up the Verdict of these noble Authorities — the Salf-e-Saaliheen — the following appears in Al-Mughni of Ibn Qudaamah, the Hambali (non-Maulana) authority:
“The compulsion of Rajm for a married adulterer and adulteress is the view of all the People of Ilm among the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and those Ulama who followed after them in all the lands (of Islam). We do not know of any opposing view except that of the Khawaarij.
As for us (the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah) Rajm is proven on the authority of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by way of his statement and his practice in such narrations which resemble Mutawaatar. There is consensus of the Ashaab (Sahaabah) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on Rajm. Verily, Allah Ta’ala had revealed it (Rajm) in His Kitaab. However, only its written text has been abrogated, not its hukm (effectiveness as law).”
(In substantiation, Al-Mughni cites the narration of Hadhrat Umar which we have recorded later in this post).
As well as the following quotation: The following appears in Mathaabib Ar’ba-ah:
“The Aimmah are unanimous that the Hadd of Rajm is compulsory for the adulterer and adulteress if the condition of Ihsaan is found in them. Stoning them is compulsory until they die. This is based on the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): When the married man and married woman commit zina stone them absolutely as a punishment from Allah.” The Hadith is Muttafaq Alayh (i.e. narrated by Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim).
Also on the basis of the statement of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “Verily, Rajm is a Command in the Kitaab of Allah for the one who commits zina if he or she is a married person……..This Hadith is Muttafaq Alayh.”
And also on the basis of the fact that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) inflicted Rajm on Maaiz (radhiyallahu anhu) and he inflicted Rajm on Hadhrat Ghaamadiyyah (radhiyallahu anha) and others besides them. And, also the fact that the Khulafa-e-Rashideen inflicted the Hadd of Rajm. For this there is Ijma’ (Consensus) without any criticism from anyone among them (the Sahaabah).
Thus the Hadd of Rajm is substantiated on the basis of Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah, the practice of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Ijma’ of the Ummah.”
THE CLEAR RULINGS OF THE MATH-HABS
Maaliki Math-hab: “Rajm will be executed against the adult Muslim….” [Mawaahibul Jaleel]
Hanafi Math-hab: “When the ihsaan of the adulterer has been substantiated by means of evidence or confession, Rajm will be inflicted on him on the basis of Nass (categoric Hadith Proof), and on the basis of rational proof. The Nass is the Mash-hoor Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): ‘The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except with one of three factors— Kufr after Imaan; Zina after Ihsaan; Killing a person without valid cause.” [Badaaius Sanaa’i]
Shaafi Math-hab: “When the adulterer is a muhsin, his (or her) hadd (prescribed punishment) is Rajam.” [Raudhatut Taalibeen]
Hambali Math-hab: “The Aimmah are unanimous that the Hadd of the adulterer and adulteress is Rajm….” [Al-Mughni]
These few references have been cited merely as a sample of the vast volume of unequivocal proofs stated in the innumerable Books of the Shariah right from the very beginning of Islam down to this day. The consensus of the Ummah in every age on the validity of Rajm is complete and unique. There is not a single dissenting voice on this issue among the authorities of the Shariah in Islam’s 14 century history. The consensus on Rajm is of the same degree as the Ijma’ (Consensus) on 100 lashes for unmarried fornicators.
COMPLETION AND PERFECTION OF ISLAM
It goes without saying that Islam with its Shariah and Sunnah, had attained completion and perfection during the very lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This is confirmed by the Qur’aan: “This day have I perfected for you your Deen, and I have completed for you My Favour, and I have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.”
The most incontrovertible evidence for the perfection and completion of Allah’s Shariah is the Finality of Nubuwwat. The self-evident consequence of the Finality of Nubuwwat is that the Shariah brought by Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is the Final, the Complete and the Perfect Shariah which will not tolerate any adulteration, interpolation, excess and deletion. Whatever was part of this immutable Shariah during the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Khairul Quroon (the Three Noble Ages after him), will remain integral constituents of this Divine Shariah until the Day of Qiyaamah. Whatever was not part of this Shariah during the Khairul Quroon epoch is not part of the immutable Shariah of Allah Ta’ala.
A very very important yardstick for the determination of the truth or falsity of a view is the existence or non-existence of that view/belief/injunction during the era of the Khairul Quroon. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had demarcated the limits of goodness and truth with the ending of this noble era. The ascendancy of falsehood and innovation was initiated after the Khairul Quroon. Hence, any view, belief, tenet or practice which enjoyed the Consensus (Ijma’) of the Ummah during the Khairul Quroon was an integral constituent of the inviolable and sacred Deen. Which was completed and perfected by Allah Ta’ala during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
In the light of this Shar’i Yardstick, the substantiation of the chronological inception of the belief that Rajm is not an Islamic injunction and that it was not ordered by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is an imperative devolution on these modernist juhhaal, zindeeqs and munaafiqeen who have blindly joined the kuffaar chorus labeling Rajm ‘barbaric’. It rests squarely on the shoulders of these ignoramuses who pipe the theme and song of the western kuffaar to produce irrefutable evidence that Rajm was not the mandatory punishment for adulterers of the Ihsaan class. For the sake of brevity we shall content ourselves with saying that married persons are of the Ihsaan classification although the term has a much wider meaning.
It is necessary for the denouncers of Rajm to substantiate with Shar’i’ evidence that Rajm did not exist in the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) nor in the era of the Khairul Quroon, nor in the entuire history of Islam, nor did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ever execute the punishment of Rajm, nor did the Sahaabah ever mete out this punishment and that there exists no Ijma’ on the validity of Rajm from the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
It furthermore devolves on these miserable miscreants who have traded their souls to appease the western kuffaar for whatever nafsaani designs they may be having, to state when precisely in the history of Islam did their view develop, that is, the view that Rajm is not an Islamic injunction. If they fail to present a satisfactory response — and most assuredly they must fail — to these queries, their case falls flat. In fact, their claim is devoid of Shar’i substance.
THE INCEPTION OF RAJM
Even the enemies of Rajm join the consensus of the Ummah in upholding the claim that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did in fact mete out Rajm to two Yahood adulterers. In a ludicrous attempt to provide credibility for their view, the mulhids aver that such Rajm which was ordered by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was in terms of the Tauraah — the Shariah of Hadhrat Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam).
Be that as it may. The irrefutable fact inherent in this averment is that Rajm was a prescription of the Tauraah. It is a known fact on which every Muslim has to incumbently have Imaan, that the Tauraah was the Divine Scripture which Allah Ta’ala had revealed to Hadhrat Musaa (alayhis salaam). The fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) issued the decree of Rajm in compliance with the Shariah, testifies to the truth and the divinity of the punishment of Rajm.
In other words, Allah Ta’ala had commanded Rajm for adulterers. Now when Rajm is irrefutably a command of Allah Ta’ala and it was ordered to be inflicted on adulterers by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), then by which attribute of Imaan can a Muslim deny the validity of this punishment, and by which stretch of Imaani intelligence can he join the kuffaar chorus to sing the song of ‘barbarism’?
COMMAND OF THE QUR’AAN Besides the command of Rajm in the Mansukhut Tilaawat (aayat whose recitation alone is abrogated), the Qur’aan commands that Muslims accept Rajm in the same way as they accept that there are five Fardh Salaat in a day. Issuing this command, The Qur’aan Majeed states:
“Obey Allah and His Rasool ………”
“Whatever the Rasool brings to you, hold on firmly to it, and whatever he forbids you of, abstain from it.”
“Verily, in the Rasool of Allah is a Beautiful Pattern (of life and law)……..”
“It is not lawful for a believing man nor a believing woman when Allah and His Rasool have ordained a matter that they have any choice regarding their affairs.”
“By your Rabb! They do not believe (i.e. they are not Mu’min) as long as they do not appoint you (O Muhammed!) as the arbiter in their mutual disputes. Then they find no fault with what you (O Muhammad!) have decided, and they wholly submit.”
“The Mu’mineen are only those who believe in Allah and His Rasool, then they have no doubt…..”
“Say (O Muhammad!) Obey Allah and the Rasool. If you turn your backs, then (know that) verily, Allah does not love the kaafireen.”
“O People of Imaan! Believe in Allah and in His Rasool…”
“…Those who believe in Our Aayaat, they are those who follow the Rasool who is the Ummi Nabi ….”
The Qur’aan repeatedly commands obedience to Allah’s Rasool. Minus this obedience the claim of following the Qur’aan is absolutely baseless and absurd. The Qur’aanic theme of this twin obedience testifies to the incumbency of obeying what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had commanded. He had commanded innumerable Ahkaam (laws of the Shariah) for which there is no explicit reference in the Qur’aan. But to argue that Fajr does not have two raka’ts Fardh on account of the silence of the Qur’aan is not an implied rejection of the Qur’aan. It is a clear and a direct refutation of the Qur’aan. The demand to produce explicit textual reference from the Qur’aan for every injunction of the Shariah is preposterous and stems from kufr hidden in the heart.
BOOK OF NASEEHAT
The Qur’aan itself describes that it is a Thikr or an admonition. The Qur’aan is not a book of Fiqhi (juridical) details. The Deen of Islam is not confined to the Qur’aanic text. This fact is too obvious for dilation. Broad immutable principles are deducted from Qur’aanic Aayaat, on which are based innumerable details of the Shariah. Among these inviolable Principles is the principle of Itaa’at-e-Rasool (or obedience to the Messenger of Allah).
This principle is substantiated by numerous Qur’aanic verses. The incumbency of obedience to the Rasool is in the same category as obedience to Allah Ta’ala. Those who seek to create a division between the twin obediences (which in reality is ONE obedience – the obedience to Allah Ta’ala) explicitly deny the many Qur’aanic verses commanding obedience to the Rasool, e.g.
“O People of Imaan! Obey Allah and obey the Rasoool…”
The copious Qur’aanic verses and the Ahaadith Mutawaatarah leave absolutely no scope for doubt or difference in the incumbency of obeying the Rasool.
It is Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) who had commanded Rajm and who had practically executed this punishment to married adulterors. It is unintelligent to refute this historical reality on the basis of this punishment being ’inhumane’, and that there is no explicit reference to it in the Qur’aan. Allah Ta’ala and His Rasool are more aware of what constitutes humanity and inhumanity. Allah Ta’ala, The Creator understands the need of a punishment for a crime. The command to punish with a specific form of punishment is the prerogative of Allah Ta’ala. No creation of His has any right whatsoever to find fault with such a divine decree. The very questioning of the validity and humanity of Rajm is kufr which renders a Muslim a murtadd (renegade — outside the pale of Islam).
THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ZINDEEQS, MULHIDS, MUNAAFIQS AND INCUBUSES
In their abortive attempt to refute the validity of Rajm, the aforementioned enemies of the Deen from within, resort to the folowing arguments:
(1) The Qur’aan is silent on Rajm.
(2) The Aayat in Surah Noor orders 100 lashes for zina.
(3) Summary dismissal of all the Ahaadith which make explicit reference to Rajm.
(4) The Rajm decreed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on two Jewish culprits was in terms of the Tauraah, and was not an injunction of Islam.
RESPONSE TO THEIR FIRST ARGUMENT
Silence of the Qur’aan on any issue is not evidence for the non-existence of an injunction. The Qur’aan is silent on the number of times Salaat is Fardh daily. It is silent on the number of raka’ts; silent on the manner in which Salaat has to be performed; silent on the hundreds of rules pertaining to Salaat such as Qiraa’t, Qiyaam, Sajdah, Sajdah Sahw, Tashahhud, Qa’dah Ulaa, Qa’dah, Akheerah, Tashahhud, Durood, Salaam, etc., etc.; silent on the details of Zakaat, Saum and the innumerable other rites and acts of ibaadat. The Qur’aan is silent on the method of Thabah (Islamic ritual slaughter); silent on the detailed masaail related to Tahaarat; silent on the Islamic system of burial and the performance of ghusl and Janaazah Salaat; silent on Eid Salaat; silent on thousands of issues on which there exists Ijma’ (Consensus) of the entire Ummah from the very inception of Islam.
In view of this situation of Qur’aanic Silence, the denial of all Ahaadith by the murtadd incubus is the ranting of a man whom shaitaan has driven to insanity by his wicked touch. There is no need for intelligent comment on this issue as every Mu’min with understanding does understand the fundamental importance of the Ahaadith in the formulation of the structure of the Divine Shariah. Only an incubus can claim that there can be an ‘islam’ bereft of the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
RESPONSE TO THE SECOND ARGUMENT
The punishment of 100 lashes is the Hadd for unmarried adulterers. This is the unanimous Ruling of the entire Ummah from the very beginning of Islam, there being no difference of opinion on this issue. Ijma’ on this fact has existed from the inception of Islam. In view of the complete unanimity of the entire Ummah for the past fourteen centuries on the applicability of this Hadd, the stupid argument of the mulhids and incubuses is dismissed with contempt. Further argument on this issue in the face of the Wall of Consensus is redundant.
RESPONSE TO THE THIRD ARGUMENT
This averment is too ludicrous for intelligent comment. We dismiss it with the brief comment, that thousands of Islamic teachings, tenets, injunctions and beliefs are structured on the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The names of the famous Muhadditheen such as Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim are household names. Suffice to say that minus the Ahaadith there is no Qur’aan and no Islam. No Muslim will proffer an ear to this kufr drivel of the incubus.
RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH ARGUMENT
Assuming that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did in fact, sentence the two Jews to be executed by Rajm in terms of the Tauraah, it is a confession made by the deniers of Rajm. In this confession they have been compelled to concede that, after all, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did order the execution of Rajm.
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) came to abrogate all previous Shariahs and Laws and impose only the Final Shariah of Allah Ta’ala — Islam. He did not govern by the earlier Shariahs. There are many issues on which there is the agreement of this Final Shariah with the Shariah of the Tauraah, since both were revealed Laws of Allah Ta’ala. There is absolutely no substantiation for the claim that the Rajm which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasasallam) ordered for the two Jews on the basis of the Tauraah does not apply to Muslims. Any such suggestion is debunked by the example of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah and the Ijma’ of the Ummah.
The Ahaadith substantiating Rajm are of the Mutawaatar class which is the highest category of Hadith. This category of Hadith gives rise to the consequence of Qatiyat (Absolute Certitude, not brooking the slightest vestige of doubt) in the same way as the Qur’aan.
None of the Sahaabah and Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon had ever ventured the interpretation ventured by the incubuses to refute Rajm. Whatever valid interpretation was made by the Authorities of the Shariah, it did not conclude in the rejection of Rajm. On the contrary all the Fuqaha and Mufassireen notwithstanding interpretations, confirmed the validity and Qatiyyat of the injunction of Rajm.
The very first deviate sect of kufr to develop in the Ummah was the Khawaarij. These deviates were mercilessly pursued and exterminated by Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). Like the incubuses, this sect denied Rajm. Discussing the denial of the Khawaarij, Allamah Zafar Ahmad Uthmaani (rahmatullah alayh) states in I’laaus Sunan:
“Rajm is proven by the statements and actions of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Narrations of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in this regard are comparable to Mutawaatar. The Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had enacted consensus on it (Rajm).”
Muhaqqiq states in Al-Fath: “The denial of the Khawaarij is baatil because they deny the evidence of the Ijma’ of the Sahaabah, hence it (their denial) is compound ignorance of the evidence. In fact it (the Law of Rajm) is Ijma’ Qat-iyy…..
The substantiation of Rajm from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is Mutawaatar in meaning just as the courage of Ali, the generosity of Haatim and the justice of Umar (are substantiated by such narrations of Mutawaatar meaning).
There is absolutely no doubt in the basis of Rajm………Verily, Umar said:
“I fear that after a lapse of considerable time, people (like today’s incubuses) will say: ’We do not find Rajm in the Book of Allah, while Allah has revealed it (Rajm) in His Kitaab.’’
Only its text has been abrogated, not its hukm. It has been narrated from Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) that he said: ’Verily, Allah Ta’ala sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed to him The Kitaab (Qur’aan). Among that which He (Allah had revealed to him was the Aayat of Rajm. I recited it, understood it and memorized it. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered Rajm and after him we too ordered Rajm. I fear that after a considerable time has lapsed, people will say (like the incubuses say today): ’We do not find Rajm in the Book of Allah.’ Thus they will go astray by abandoning a compulsory command which Allah has revealed………..He recited: ’When the married man and married woman commit zina, then stone them as an absolute punishment from Allah. And Allah is The Mighty, The Wise.’ This Hadith is Muttafaq Alayh (i.e. Narrated by Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim).”
ENLIGHTMENT FOR THE INCUBUS
A delegation of the Khawaarij came to Hadhrat Umar Bin Abdul Azeez (Umar, The Second), and said: “In the Book of Allah is nothing other than lashes.” Umar Bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh) said: “You say nothing (by way of proof)) except what is in the Qur’aan.” They said: “Yes.” He said: “Inform me about the number of the Fardh Salaat, the number of their Arkaan and raka’ts, and of their respective times. Where do you find these in the Book of Allah Ta’ala? And, tell me about the things in which Zakaat is compulsory — their quantities and their Nisaabs.” They said: “Give us time.” Thus, they departed and returned the same day (after having checked the Qur’aan). They said: “We did not find these things in the Qur’aan.” Umar Bin Abdul Azeez said: “How did you then accept these?” They said: “Because, verily the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) practised these and so did the Muslims (the Sahaabah) after him.” He then said to them: “Similarly is Rajm. Verily the Nabi (Alayhis Salaam) stoned and the Khulafa after him stoned as well as the Muslims thereafter.”
The Khawaarij inspite of their deviation, at least possessed sufficient intelligence to refrain from refuting the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the immoral way of the incubus. They had to concede by their silence the validity of the Argument of Hadhrat Umar Bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh).
In Al-Mughni it is recorded: “With regards to the compulsion of Rajm for the Muhsin adulterer, man or woman — this is the view of all the People of Knowledge among the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and the Ulama of the lands (of Islam) in all ages after them (the Taabieen). We do not know of any difference in this regard except that of the Khawaarij.”
The following appears in Al-Fiqhul Islaamiyyu wa Adillatuhu: “There is consensus of the Ulama on the Hadd of the muhsin adulterer. And, it (the Hadd) is Rajm. This is substantiated with the proof of the Sunnah Mutawaatarah, the Ijma’ of the Ummah and rational argument. As for the Sunnah — there are numerous Ahaadith (to substantiate Rajm).
Among them is: ’The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except on the basis of one of three reasons — a married adulterer, life for life (in case of murder), and one who abandons his Deen, dissenting from the Jama’ah (Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah).
[Bukhaari, Muslim from Ibn Mas’ud, Uthmaan, Aishah, Abu Hurairah, Jaabir, Ammaar Bin Yaaasir — Refer to Nasbur Raayah. Also Al-Majmaauz Zawaaid and Al-Arbaeenun Nawawiyyah].
“The episode of Aseef who had committed adultery with a woman, then Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said to a man from Aslam: ‘O Unais! Go to this woman, and if she confesses, then stone her.” [Bukhaari, Muslim, Muatta, Ahmad, Abu Daawood, Tirmizi, Nasaai]
“The story of Maaiz, which has been narrated from various sources. Verily he confessed to having committed adultery. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) then commanded Rajm to be inflicted on him.” [Muslim, Abu Daawood, Ahmad, Bukhaari, Tirmizi, Baihqi, Abu Ya’la, Tabaraani]
The incident of Maa-iz has been narrated by a group of Sahaabah, and it has reached the level of Mutawaatarah.
“The episode of Al-Ghaamadiyyah. She had confessed to zina. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had her stoned after she gave birth.” [Muslim, Abu Daawood, Nailul Autaar]
The Ummah has enacted Ijma’ on the legality of Rajm.”
Al-Mathaahibul Arba-ah states: “The Aimmah are unanimous that the man and woman in whom the conditions of Ihsaan are fulfilled, when they commit adultery, then Rajm is compulsory on both of them until they die. The proof for this is the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “When the married man and the married woman commit adultery, then stone both of them as a punishment from Allah.” This Hadith is Muttafaq Alayh (i.e. it has been narrated by Bukhaari and Muslim.)
And on account of the statement of the Nabi (alayhis salaam): “The blood of a person is not lawful except for one of three reasons. The married adulterer, life for life (murder), and the one who renounces his Deen, dissenting from the Jama’ah.” This has been narrated in Bukhaari and Muslim from Aishah (radhiyallahu anha), Abu Hurairah and Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhuma).
And because Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) stoned Maa-iz, and he stoned Al-Ghaamidiyyah and others besides them.
And because the Khulafa Raashideen executed Rajm by virtue of Ijma’ without anyone among them (the Sahaabah) objecting. Thus the Hadd of Rajm is based on Ahaadith Mutawaatarah, on the practice of the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Ijma’ of the Ummah. And, it is also proven on the basis of the Qur’aan in terms of the view of those who say that the Hadith of Rajm was an aayat of the Qur’aan, then its recital was abrogated while its hukm was retained.”
NUSKH OR ABROGATION
Nuskh or abrogation of Qur’aanic verses and laws of the Shariah is the prerogative of Allah Azza Wa Jal. No one has the right to question the authority and prerogative right of Allah Ta’ala. Stating the Qur’aanic Principle of Nuskh, Allah Ta’ala says:
“Whatever We (Allah) abrogate of any Aayat or cause it to be forgotten, We bring (another) better than it or similar to it. What, do you not know that verily Allah has power over everything?” [Surah Baqarah, aayat 106]
There is Ijma’ (Consenus) of the Sahaabah and the Ummah on the nuskh of tilaawat of the aayat of Rajm. There is also Ijma’ on the retention of the hukm of this abrogated aayat. The law remains effective. Only incubuses have the audacious stupidity of denying what the entire Ummah has believed in since the very inception of Islam.
Declaring the lofty status of Ameerul Mu’mineen, Umar Bin Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu), Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “If a Nabi had to come after me, it would have been Umar.”
He possessed the qualities, attributes and qualifications of a Nabi. If Nubuwwat had not been sealed in Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the next Nabi would have been Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). His attributes of Nubuwwat — his insight, far-sightedness and wisdom — are conspicuous in many acts and statements. In the matter of Rajm this is manifest in his prediction that a time will come when people will refute the validity of Rajm by claiming that the Qur’aan is silent on this Hadd. He, therefore, closed the avenue for the incubuses by reciting the Mansukh aayat of Rajm, and by his categoric affirmation of Rajm having been executed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and by himself (as the Ameerul Mu’mineen) after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
Not a single Sahaabi contested the statements of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). The Ijma’ of the Sahaabah on Rajm is an irrefutable fact which only mulhids, zindeeqs, munaafiqs and incubuses will stupidly deny. The denial proffered by these criminals is calculated to appease their western mentors who have propounded the concept of “international standards of human rights”.
The numerous Ahaadith on Rajm, accepted by all authorities of the Shariah, leave absolutely no scope for the denial of Rajm and for any interpretation to refute Rajm.
Some incubuses (evil spirits who ravage women at night) have vainly tried to peddle the notion that Rajm was the law of the Tauraah, which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had adhered to prior to the revelation of the verse ordering 100 lashes for zina. This claim is palpably fallacious.
Not a single authority, right from the time of the Sahaabah, ever entertained this baseless opinion which is the idea of the mulhids of this age. There is absolutely no evidence for this baseless claim. Incidents of Rajm inflicted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were carried out after the revelation of this verse which applied to only unmarried fornicators. The Rajm executed by the Khulafa Raashideen is absolute confirmation for this truth. The incubuses have nothing to stand on other than the figments of their imagination and their personal opinions which meet with the approval of only the western kuffaar who rant and rail against the injunctions of Islam in general. Their vilification is not confined to Rajm.
One incubus who styles himself as a ‘sheikh’ attempted to deny the Rajm Hadith by saying that this narration is of the Aahaad class.
Firstly, he has no right to present the Hadith categories to substantiate his baatil and kufr denial of Rajm because he believes and propagates that ALL Ahaadith are fabrications and ‘evil spirits’. According to the insane incubus, only the Qur’aan has to be accepted, nothing else. When it suits his fancy, he conveniently forgets his total denial of Hadith, and seeks to use the Hadith as a crutchz to support his corrupt view of kufr.
Secondly, all the Sahaabah and the illustrious Authorities of the Shariah of the Khairul Quroon era, had greater knowledge of the Hadith categories than this incubus of this day. Yet they elevated these Aahaad narrations to the pedestal of Mutawwatar — the highest category of Hadith on par with the Qur’aan in so far as belief and derivation of Ahkaam are concerned.
Thirdly, the incubus is a Jaahil (ignoramus) who has neither knowledge nor authority to voice himself on the classification and application of Ahaadith.
Fourthly, an opinion of an incubus of this age cannot be cited in negation of the fourteen century Ijma’ of the Ummah.
Fifthly, the widespread acceptance by the Authorities of Hadith of the Aahaad class and the Ijma’ of the Sahaabah and all the subsequent Authorities on such narrations being valid basis for such Ahkaam which require Qat’i proof for their validity, elevates the meaning and applicability of these Ahaadith to the pedestal of Mutawaatar.
INSULT TO ALLAH AND HIS RASOOL
Sight should not be lost of the one single ‘proof’ of those who deny the validity of Rajm. They structure their denial on the basis of Rajm being ‘barbaric’. Their denial is motivated solely by the desire to vindicate the cry of the enemies of Islam who brand the Islamic Penal System barbaric. For upholding this view of the kuffaar, these incubus deniers of Rajm present their utterly baseless interpretations and rejection of all the authentic Ahaadith which confirm the Law of Rajm. In their inordinate desire to appease their western masters and mentors, they imply that Allah Ta’ala and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are ‘barbaric’ — Nauthubillah!
That Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered Rajm to be inflicted on two Yahudi adulterers is undeniable. Regardless of whether he had ordered Rajm in terms of the Tauraah or in terms of the Qur’aan. It is immaterial. The undeniable reality is that Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did execute Rajm on the Yahudi adulterers. If Rajm is ‘barbaric’, the charge of barbarism is leveled at Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and Allah Ta’ala because the Rasool acts only in obedience to the Command of Allah Ta’ala. The kufr and irtidaad of the incubuses should therefore be manifest to all.
The discussion in these pages conclusively establishes that Rajm has been an injunction of Islam from the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In fact, it was an injunction in the Shariats prior to the Shariah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). No one, not even the kuffaar, deny the fact of Rajm having been the Law in the Shariah of the Tauraah. The Christian Bible too confirms this fact. Only the incubuses slinking in the folds of the Ummah deny the validity of Rajm.
Rajm is substantiated by the Qur’aan which commands obedience to the Rasool and which equates obedience of the Rasool to obedience to Allah Ta’ala. The Qur’aan upholds Rajm with a Mansukhut Tilaawat aayat as has already been explained.
Rajm is substantiated by Ahaadith of the Mutawaatar category. Such Ahaadith have the same degree of absolute certitude as the Qur’aan.
Rajm is upheld by the Ijma’ of the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and all the Authorities of the Khairul Quroon era.
Rajm is confirmed by the Ijma’ of the Ummah in every age from the beginning to this day. Never was there a difference of opinion on the question of the validity of Rajm. Only the deviate Khawaarij sect had denied the legal validity of Rajm, not its historical reality.
The mass and volume of evidence in support of the validity of Rajm cannot be dismissed on the basis of the personal ideas and baseless opinions of a handful of modernists, zindeeqs, mulhids, munaafiqs and incubuses of this age.
In refutation of the fallacies of the deniers of Rajm, the Qur’aan Majeed states:
“Those who dispute in the matter of Allah after He (i.e. His Law) has been accepted, their disputation is baseless by their Rabb. And, on them is the Wrath (of Allah) and for them there is a dreadful punishment.” [Surah Shuraa, Aayat 16]
THE OPERATION OF RAJM Alhamdulillah! By the fadhl of Allah Ta’ala, we have explained the Shar’i Proofs for the Law of Rajm. The overwhelming volume of evidence from all Sources of the Shariah establishes the validity of this injunction of Islam beyond the slightest vestige of doubt. It cannot be a Muslim who will view with intransigence the formidable volume of Shar’i evidences there exists to substantiate the validity of Rajm. How a person professing to be a Muslim can scrape the dregs of kufr in an attempt to deny an injunction in whose wall of evidence there is not the slightest crack, beggars Islamic imagination.
It is our belief that murtadds who profess to be Muslims, then blasphemously describing the Hadith of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as an evil spirit which indulgences in sexual intercourse with women during the night times when it manages to gain possession of them, deserve the punishment of Rajm. Undoubtedly, if Daarul Islam had existed, such punishment would have been forthcoming for such vile incubuses.
We shall now, Insha ’Allah, proceed to explain how Rajm would operate in a truly Daarul Islam region.
Rajm is a prescribed form of punishment called Hadd (plural: Hudood). In the Shariah, Hadd is a fixed prescribed punishment, the execution of which is compulsory as a Haqq (Right) of Allah Ta’ala. It unlike Qisaas (life for a life, for example) because in Qisaas is the Haqq of others besides Allah Ta’ala, hence waiving the punishment of Qisaas by forgiveness or compromise is permissible, although it is also a prescribed form of punishment. But, the class of Hudood to which Rajm is assigned does not entertain forgiveness, waiver or compromise if the crime is proven by way of Bayyinah (the testimony of witnesses).
HADD OF ZINA
There are two kinds of Hadd for zina — Jald (lashes) and Rajm (stoning to death). In this treatise we shall deal with only the operation of Rajm.
Rajm comes into effect with the condition of Ihsaan. Ihsaan for the validity of Rajm is a combination of attributes which the Shariah stipulates for the execution of Rajm. In the absence of Ihsaan, the punishment of Rajm will not be applicable. There are seven such attributes as follows:
(1) Aql or sanity. The adulterer must be a sane person.
(2) Buloogh or puberty. The adulterer must be an adult. (3) Hurriyyat — The adulterer must be a free person, not a slave.
(4) Islam— The adulterer must be a Muslim.
(5) An-Nikaahus Saheeh — The adulterer must have been married in a valid Nikah.
(6) Both husband and wife in the Saheeh Nikah should be of these attributes. In other words, both (i.e. the husband and wife) should be sane, adults, free and Muslims. The presence of these attributes in them both is a condition for the validity of their Ihsaan. When these attributes exist in both of them, they (husband and wife) will be said to be muhsan, i.e. the quality of Ihsaan in each one.
(7) Consummation of the marriage (i.e. sexual intercourse) must have taken place in the Saheeh Nikah posterior to the existence of all the aforementioned six attributes.
If any one of these attributes is lacking in the adulterer, Rajm will not apply since he/she will be lacking in the condition of Ihsaan which is imperative for the Wujoob of Rajm.
Thus, if a married man commits adultery before he consummated his Nikah with sexual intercourse, he will not be a muhsin, hence Rajm cannot be inflicted on him. If a husband or wife had contracted a Faasid Nikah, e.g. only one witness was present, then Rajm cannot be inflicted on any one of them, should they commit adultery, i.e. indulge in sexual relations with another woman/man, even if they had consummated their Faasid Nikah.
Similarly, if one of the spouses is a minor, i.e. has not attained buloogh (puberty), then even if the Nikah is consummated, none of the spouses will be a muhsin. Should even the adult spouse commit adultery, Rajm will not be inflicted.
ZINA OR ADULTERY
In the meaning of the Shariah zina is the voluntary indulgence in unlawful vaginal sexual intercourse with a living woman in Daarul Islam by a person on whom the laws of Islam are incumbent, while the union is totally devoid of any semblance of mielk (right/ownership) such as a resemblance with Nikah or a marriage of doubtful validity. The slightest doubt in the application of this comprehensive concept of zina to the act of adultery will cancel the punishment of Rajm.
The principle underlying the cancellation of Rajm with the introduction of the slightest doubt is the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “Cancel Hudood with doubts.” In other words, if a doubt develops in establishing either the definition of zina or in the determination of the attribute of Ihsaan, the punishment of Rajm falls away.
Any other haraam sexual act committed, while it will be morally zina, in the technical terminology of the Shariah it will not be zina, hence neither Rajm nor Jald will apply.
Zina will be proven in the court of the Qaadhi in Daarul Islam in two ways: Iqraar (Confession) or Bayyinah (Eye Witnesses).
Zina is proven by the confession of the adulterer, The following conditions are essential for the validity of Iqraar:
(1) Buloogh (Puberty): The confessor must be an adult (one who has attained buloogh).
(2) An-Nutq (Verbal Confession): The confession must be made verbally by the adulterer. A written confession is not valid. The Qaadhi will not entertain a written confession. If a dumb person (one who does not have the power of speech) presents a written confession, it will be rejected by the Qaadhi.
(3) Adad (Number): The confession has to be made four times, each confession in a separate session.
(4) Each confession should be made in the presence of the Qaadhi. A confession made in the absence of the Qaadhi is not valid. Thus, if the adulterer made three confessions in the presence of the Qaadhi, and one in the presence of some other official, his confession will not be valid. Even if four witnesses testify that the adulterer had made a confession, it will not be valid if the Qaadhi was not present.
(5) Aql (Sanity): The confessor must be sane. The confession of an intoxicated person is not valid.
(6) The person with whom adultery was allegedly committed should be one who is able to defend himself/herself verbally. Thus, if a man confesses to adultery which he committed with a dumb woman, his confession will not be valid.
In all cases where the confession is not valid, it will be dismissed by the Qaadhi and there will be no punishment for the self-confessed adulterer.
AFTER THE CONFESSION
After the adulterer had made four confessions in the presence of the Qaadhi in four different sessions, it is mandatory for the Qaadhi to institute an investigation to establish the sanity and other essential attributes of the confessor. If the investigation confirms the confessor’s sanity, etc., the Qaadhi will then interrogate him and ask him to explain the definition of zina, how he had committed it, where he had committed it, with whom he had committed it, and when he had committed it.
After he/she has satisfactorily answered all questions, the Qaadhi will question him regarding his state of Ihsaan. Is he a muhsin or not?
If the confessor says: ‘I am a muhsin.”, the Qaadhi will impose on him to explain the Shar’i concept of Ihsaan. The reader will be aware from the explanation on Ihsaan that Ihsaan is a concept comprising a number of conditions. These conditions are not within the knowledge of every man in the street. Most people will fail to correctly explain the concept of Ihsaan. If there is any flaw or deficiency in his/her explanation, Rajm will not be imposed.
After all these hurdles have been cleared, and all conditions for Rajm have been satisfied beyond the slightest vestige of doubt, the Qaadhi will convict the adulterer and the sentence of Rajm will be passed.. If after conviction and sentence, the adulterer retracts his confession, it will be accepted and the sentence falls away.
It is significant that the Shariah does not allow the Qaadhi to accept a confession or to convict the confessor or the one who has been charged, on the basis of his (the Qaadhi’s) awareness of the crime to which he was an eye witness. His judgement must not be influenced by his own awareness of the crime which he had seen being committed.
Another significant factor is the wording of the definition of zina which the confessor has to explain. If he says, for example: “I indulged in haraam sexual intercourse.”, his confession will be dismissed even if he thereafter presents the technical definition.
The confessor has the right to retract his confession at any time even while the Rajm is in progress. The adulterer who has been sentenced on the basis of his/her confession, will not be shackled or tied in any way. He will stand in an open place observing the crowd and the mounds of stones infront of him. If fear overcomes him and he walks away, his departure will be registered as retraction. The Rajm falls away. If he flees under the barrage of stones, his flight will be registered as a retraction. Rajm will fall away and he will be proclaimed not guilty.
If the confessor after his conviction adheres to his confession, but withdraws his confession in relation to him being a muhsin, Rajm falls away.
THE PROCEDURE OF EXECUTING RAJM
The Qaadhi will have to initiate the stone-throwing. The Shariah exhorts the Qaadhi to induce the convicted adulterer to retract his confession. A form of inducement is that the Qaadhi should say: “Perhaps you only touched her or kissed her.” If inspite of all these opportunities and inducement to retract, the adulterer refuses and resolutely insists that Rajm be executed, then ofcourse, there is no other option but to carry out the punishment. However, as mentioned earlier, the adulteror still has the opportunity of ’retracting’ by simply fleeing or walking away either before the stoning begins or during the course of the stoning.
Every unbiased person can now pass his/her judgment. The Shariah has left no stone unturned in a bid to save the adulterer from Rajm.
Adultery can theoretically be proven by means of Bayyinah as well. In relation to zina, Bayyinah is the testification of four eyewitnesses. The extremely rigid conditions essential for valid Bayyinah will explain why we say: Adultery can be theoretically proven by Bayyinah. The type of Bayyinah the Shariah requires to secure a conviction in a zina charge makes it practically impossible to secure such a conviction. The conditions for the validity of Bayyinah are:
(1) The eye-witnesses must be males. The testimony of even a thousand saintly females is not admissible in all crimes of Hudood.
(2) The witnesses must be Muslim.
(3) The witnesses must be adults.
(4) The witnesses must be sane.
(5) The testimony must be verbal, not written.
(6) The testimony must be in the presence of the Qaadhi.
(7) The witnesses must be Aadil, i.e. uprighteous, honest, truthful and saintly men who are well-known in society for their moral integrity and piety. (8) The number of witnesses must be four. The severity of the demands of this condition is more than adequate to deter any man who contemplates testifying in a case of zina. Only eyewitness accounts are admissible. If three eye- witnesses come forward to testify, but there is no fourth witness, each one of the four will be flogged 80 lashes. If after four Aadil witnesses testified, one of them retracts his testimony, all four will be flogged 80 lashes each.
The Qaadhi will institute public and private investigations to establish the integrity (Adaalat) of the four witnesses. If he discovers a discrepancy in the adaalat of even one witness, all four will be flogged 80 lashes each.
These severe and stringent requirements make it too dangerous for eye-witnesses to come forward to testify. Furthermore, saintly people will not come forward to testify. They know that the Shariah exhorts Muslims to conceal sins and not to publicize them. The Shariah does not make it incumbent on eye-witnesses to report sins or to testify. It is therefore, practically impossible to secure a conviction on the basis of Bayyinah.
THE QAADHI’S PROCEDURE
The Qaadhi, after having established the Islamic integrity of the Four witnesses will interrogate them in the same manner described in the explanation of the procedure for the confessor. A further requirement is that the witnesses will have to testify as follows: “We saw him having intercourse with her in her vagina like the stick inside the surmah container (i.e. like a key inside the lock).”
No man, leave alone a saintly man, can ever hope to witness zina being committed in this naked manner. This very impossible requirement stipulated by the Shariah is to ensure that there can be no conviction on the basis of Bayyinah. The practical impossibility of four pious, saintly men observing in the darkness, under cover of blankets Zina being committed so explicitly as the Qaadhi demands, should be self-evident.
HOW DO THE SHARIAH COURTS MANAGE CONVICTION
From the explanation in the aforegoing pages, it will be abundantly clear that it is well nigh impossible for a Shariah court to convict people of adultery on the basis of Bayyinah. Shar’i Bayyinah is not practically possible to achieve. Conviction can be secured only on the basis of the Shar’i process of Iqraar (Confession) which itself is an extremely difficult process as the requisites confirm.
Only men and women whose hearts are saturated with Divine Fear and Divine Love, and who have the accountability of the Divine Court of the Aakhirah uppermost in their minds — only such people will demand that Rajm be inflicted on them. In other words, it will be Rajm by the demand of the adulterors, and in most cases their demand will not be satisfied on account of the technicalities of the Shariah’s legal process.
Three zina convictions in recent years testify to the incompetence of the Qaadhis manning the Shariah courts. A few years ago a Saudi princess and her lover who was not a member of the Saudi royal family, were executed by a firing squad. The method of execution was neither Rajm nor Jald, which are the only prescribed forms of punishment for adultery and fornication according to the Shariah. Neither was the crime proven on the basis of Iqraar (Confession) nor by Bayyinah (the testimony of four saintly persons). There were conflicting reports on the status of the couple. The ambiguity and doubt were clear facets of this case. It is quite evident that neither were the proceedings proper nor the punishment in accordance with the Shariah, yet a so-called Shar’i court handed down the punishment. It is therefore improper to equate the Saudi court’s conviction and sentence with the Shariah. Although the sentence was handled by the Saudi ’Shariah’ court, it cannot be substantiated on Shar’i grounds.
The second case was truly bizarre. A woman was convicted of zina in Pakistan during the then State of Pakistan while Ziyaul Haq was the president. A properly constituted Shar’i court found the woman guilty of zina and decreed Rajm for her. We learnt of this case via the Evening Post, our local daily in Port Elizabeth. From the facts mentioned in the press report, we were convinced that the Shariah Court had committed a grievious error in its judgement. It had handled the case very incompetently and the Hadith Principle of “Ward off Hudood with doubts.”, was completely ignored. Several valid and serious doubts clouded the whole case. Inspite of these grave doubts, the Court convicted the woman and ordered Rajm.
The relevant press report is reproduced here for better understanding of the readers.
Press Report- Evening Post 3-12-1987
WOMAN FACES DEATH – BY STONING KARACHI-
Shahida Parveen dabbed hear tears with the corner of her shawl as she was told of her conviction for adultery and rape, and her sentence under Pakistan’s Islamic Law: death by stoning.
Shahida, 25, from the central city of Faisalabad , wore a prison uniform, a wedding ring and a nose pin, a traditional ornament on the subcontinent. “I couldn’t believe it when I heard the sentence,” she said through an interpreter. “It’s all a false case, I just pray to God for my innocence and leave everything to Him.” She insists she is legally married to her cousin, Mohammed Sarwar. But the court rejected her claim and concluded that she is still married to Khushi Mohammed, who has brought the case of adultery against her. Shahida maintains that Khushi divorced her in April 1986 because she could not have children and because he wanted to marry another woman. The court held, however, that the divorce papers produced by Shahida and Sarwar were forged, and that their marriage was illegal.
“I hold that she commited zena-il-jabe (rape),” ruled judge Nasiruddin Abro. “I therefore convict them of the offence of zena (adultery) Ordinance 1979 and I order that she shall be stoned to death at a public place.”
RESPECTED Shahida blames her step-mother, Khorshid, a cousin of Khushi, for her arrest. She said Khorshid who is only 35, wanted her to marry another cousin, who is deaf and dumb, after her divorce from Khushi. “I refused and finally married the man of my own choice.” she said. She said Sarwar, 27, loves her. “He looked after me. Provided me with food and respected me. I was happy.” Shahida told of leaving Karachi to stay with her aunt in Lahore to the north, and of the difficulty of being a divorced woman in a traditional society like Pakistan. “I had problems with people talking behind my back or making passing remarks,” Shahida said of the social pressure on her. So her aunt’s son consented to marry her 90 days after her divorce, according to a rule in Islam. That happiness lasted only two weeks when police came to arrest her and Sarwar at their home and took them to a police station in Karachi. Twelve days later she was transferred to jail.
The sentence was set to be meted out in a matter of days. In the execution of our duty of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar (Commanding Righteousness and Prohibiting evil), we sent the following telegram (there were no fax machines in 1987) to the President of Pakistan:
“In the Name of Allah. The execution of Shahida Parveen and Mohammed Sarwar. Rajm in this case not applicable in terms of Shariah. Rasulullah said Hudood are cancelled by the element of doubt. Our letter of explanation has been posted to you today. Stay execution at least until you have read our letter stating the Law of Allah in this case.”
TEXT OF OUR LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT
ASSALAMU ALAIKUM 4th December 1987
12th Rabiuth Thaani 1408
President Ziyaul Haq Government of Pakistan Islamabad, PAKISTAN
Enclosed herewith is a press report which appeared in our local press. We have no facts and information on the case mentioned other than what appears in the press report. Since the matter is of the gravest importance in view of the lives of Muslims being involved, we are presuming that the report is correct. Until further facts come to light we have no grounds to dismiss the report as false.
According to the report, one sister, Shahida Parveen of Faisalabad has been sentenced to be stoned to death (Rajm) for having committed adultery. However, from what we have gleaned from the report, there is insufficient evidence for the imposition of the Rajm sentence or for even Jald (100 lashes) in terms of the Shariah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has made it abundantly clear that Hudood are waived by the introduction of the element of doubt. In this regard Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“Hudood are waived with doubts.”
In the case under discussion there seems to be the strong element of doubt (in fact doubts). This element exists very strongly in view of the woman’s claim that she is married to Sarwar. Her claim of marriage is sufficient in the Shariah for waiving of Rajm. In fact the sentence of Rajm cannot be handed in view of this strong doubt. The Kutub of the Shariah make this fact abundantly clear.
Furthermore, even if she is not legally married, we fail to understand how the crime of zina has been proved against her in view of the stringent conditions imposed by the Shariah for proving the crime of adultery. The enclosed article which we had published sometime ago in our Islamic periodical, The Majlis, explains in detail the requirements stipulated by the Shariah for the capital punishment of Rajm to become legally applicable. We plead with you to peruse the article carefully, and should any miscarriage of Islamic justice have been committed, it should be rectified.
The matter is of vital importance to Muslims and we feel strongly about this matter. The life of a woman, most probably innocent, is at stake. While the introduction of the Islamic Penal system in Pakistan is laudable, it is imperative to ensure that all the conditions and requirements of the Shariah in this regard are fulfilled.
A man and a woman living together illegally, while abominable and sinful, is not zina in the technical language of the Shariah. If the police found Shahida and Sarwar living together as man and wife, such discovery does not prove the commission of zina in terms of the Shariah. If the nikah claimed by Shahida has been confirmed to be illegal in the Shariah, the Qaadhi can only issue a decree of separation. But no Islamic court has the right to impose the Hadd of Rajm (or Jald) on the couple because they happen to be living together illegally.
Zina can only be proved if four pious/saintly (Aadil) male witnesses observed with their own eyes the couple had indulged in the actual act of sexual intercourse. We are certain that the police (four Aadil ones among them) could not have observed the commission of the act of sexual intercourse in its explicit and naked details allegedly committed by the two. The Shariah stipulates that the actual sexual act of intercourse in its naked details has to be observed by four pious male witnesses with their own eyes. But it is practically impossible for such explicit evidence forthcoming from pious persons even if they had witnessed the act with their own eyes (which ofcourse, is not practically possible).
It is clear to us and quite obvious that the court has overstepped the limits of the Shariah and has imposed the sentence of Rajm without having obtained the required Shar’i evidence. The due Islamic or Shar’i process of Justice has not been followed. In the circumstances it is imperative that you as the Father of the Nation, as President of Pakistan, urgently look into the matter and prevent the execution of an act of zulm of the gravest degree. May Allah Ta’ala bestow to you the necessary taufeeq. Was-salaam
MUJLISUL ULAMA OF SOUTH AFRICA ***********************
Alhamdulillaah! The lady was granted a reprieve and the sentence set aside most probably due to international kuffaar pressure, not due to any concern for the Shariah. This is the lamentable condition of Muslims in this age.
THE SHAR’I VIOLATION
Let us now examine the Shariah court’s ruling in the light of the Shariah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructed that the introduction of doubts cancels Hudood. This principle applies to all Hudood punishments, not only to Rajm. In the Pakistani case, the following factors established the incidence of doubts beyond any shadow of doubt:
(1) The lady resolutely claimed that she was legally married to the man.
(2) She claimed that her former husband had divorced her.
(3) She held divorce papers to prove that she was divorced.
These three factors are more than ample for the introduction of doubt as far as the trial and the Qaadhi are concerned. As far as the accused are concerned, they did not commit and unlawful act. Hence, assuming that she was caught red-handed indulging in sexual intercourse, it would not be zina. The court, therefore, had no right to convict her of zina and order her to die by Rajm.
According to the Shariah, the validity of divorce is not reliant on witnesses nor on documentary evidence. Thus, if a man issues three divorces or one Talaaq Baa-in to his wife, then she is fully within her Shar’i right to consider herself divorced. In fact, she is under obligation to separate herself from the man and not allow him to approach her. Even if he denies having issued Talaaq, the Shariah’s ruling is “The woman is like the Qaadhi.” In other words, in the matter of decreeing Talaaq, just as the Qaadhi executes this function, so too can the woman decree that she is finally divorced from the man if she is convinced that he had given her three Talaaqs or one Talaaq Baa-in.
If in an Islamic court in Daarul Islam, the Qaadhi rejects the woman’s claim of Talaaq due to lack of evidence (witnesses) and orders her to return to her husband, she will have to submit to the Qaadhi’s ruling. However, in view of the strong element of doubt in the ruling of the Qaadhi, and the certainty of Talaaq in the woman’s mind, she will not be sinful if she resorts to some stratagem to escape from the clutches of the man whom she honestly believes is not her husband. When a woman in such a situation claims that she has been divorced, then even if it is not accepted by a court, the element of doubt does exist, and this does not allow the imposition of the Hadd punishment.
Furthermore, the fact that she claimed that she was married to the man, Sarwar, is a very strong factor for her acquittal. An Islamic marriage for its validity does not require any documents or certificates. Only two witnesses will suffice for the validity of the nikah. The court had rejected the validity of her nikah, not because there were no witneses to the nikah, but on the basis that she was still ’legally’ married to another chap. But she persisted in her claim that this chap was no longer her husband and that she had married another man. Thus, her Nikah with Sarwar was in dispute. A disputed Nikah is termed An-Nikaahul Mukhtalaf Feeh which makes an acquittal mandatory.
Even if her claims could have been disproved with proper Shar’i evidence — which was not done — then too the doubt remained in a very very strong degree of probability, hence a conviction in any crime necessitating Hadd is simply not valid.
According to the Shariah a marriage termed ‘Shubhatun Nikah’ (Doubtful nikah) wards off the sentence of Hadd. Neither Rajm nor Jald can be imposed if there had transpired such an invalid nikah, e.g. nikah without witnesses. So, even if the woman had failed to produce the witnesses to her nikah with Sarwar, the shubah (doubt) is a Shar’i verdict which cannot be dismissed. It has to be incumbently taken into consideration by the Qaadhi who is compelled by the Shariah to acquit the accused on the basis of this shubah.
The Court also had committed a grievous error in opening up an investigation into her claim of divorce and subsequent marriage. The court was over-zealous in striving for a conviction in the way prosecutors do in a western court.
The court had no right to initiate another trial within the trial of zina. If the man who claimed that he was the husband of this lady, wanted her back believing her to be his wife, he was supposed to have instituted legal proceedings in a separate case. It was improper to have brought up this matter in the zina trial. But the Shariah court conducted the proceedings in a manner unbefitting of a proper Shariah court. It befitted a western court. This attitude for a Shariah court is most despicable and haraam since Allah Ta’ala and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had exhorted and emphasized that the crime should be concealed and as far as possible the culprits be exonerated.
The very fact that the court had investigated her claim regarding divorce and marriage is sufficient to prove the element of doubt. If there was no doubt, the need for an investigation to establish the worth of her claim would not have arisen.
Of crucial importance is the fact that Khushi (the ex-husband according to Shahida) brought the case of adultery against her. The accuser had not produced four pious male eye-witnesses to prove that she had committed zina. In terms of the Shariah the court had to order him to receive a flogging of 80 lashes.
The most bizarre aspect of this case was that the Shariah court had convicted the woman of zina and had imposed the sentence of Rajm without the mandatory four eye-witnesses. The police arrived at her home and simply arrested her and the man whom she claims was her husband. Then they were charged with adultery. It is difficult to believe that the judge was a Shar’i Qaadhi. He must have been a secular magistrate of a westernized secular court promoted to the post of a Qaadhi, hence he issued the stupid ruling of Zinal bil Jabar (rape).
The question of rape does not arise, not in terms of the Shariah nor in terms of western law. A man and woman are living together willingly. Even if they were not married, the question of rape does not feature any where. It appears as if the qaadhi or perhaps the secular magistrate did not understand the meaning of Zina bil Jabar.
The hatred for Islam harboured by the kuffaar becomes manifest in their criticism and attacks against, not only Rajm, but against the entire Penal System of Islam. In fact, their attacks are not confined to the Penal Code of Islam. These attacks are directed at Islam and all its beliefs and practices. About their hatred, the Qur’aan Majeed states:
“Verily, hatred from their hearts has spewed from their mouth. But what their breasts conceal is worse.”
In their attacks against Islamic beliefs and practices. The cult of liberalism with which kuffaar educational institutions indoctrinate Muslims have spawned a breed of hypocrites in the Ummah. That disease of malice and hatred for Islam have been subtly extended into the hearts of the modernists who vividly epitomize the kufr of their years of indoctrination when they come out in defence of the western critics of Islam each time they target an Islamic practice or belief for ridicule and condemnation. The most recent example is Rajm.
Alhamdulillah, this article answers adequately and conclusively the fallacies which the enemies with the aid of the zindeeqs, mulhids and munaafiqs in the Ummah have spun around this immutable injunction of Islam.
THE DETERRENT VALUE OF RAJM From the elaboration of Rajm which has been presented in this discussion, it should be evident that the primary value of both Jald (flogging) and Rajm (Stoning), in fact of all the Hudood punishments, is their deterrent value. Throughout the history of Islam, the Hudood had precisely acted in this capacity. We, therefore find, a neglible crime rate wherever a true Darul Islam had existed.
Aspects of the Shariah does not qualify a state for being a government of the Shariah. Nevertheless, even where aspects of the Shariah’s penal system operate, the crime is negligible comparatively speaking. Saudi Arabia is an example, and a better example was the Taliban of Afghanistan where every person — man or woman — could walk freely, during the day or night, anywhere in the land without the fear of being accosted and molested by thugs, murderers, robbers, bandits, rapists and the like of criminals which western civilization breeds.
The disappearance of the Taliban State and its substitution with the American kufr state of Kerzai, has reintroduced the pre-Taliban total anarchy and reign of crime in that luckless land.
A perusal of the discussion on the stringent requisites for the operation of Hadd-e-Zina (Punishment for Adultery) indicates with clarity that the only way in which a conviction of adultery can be secured in an Islamic court is by the voluntary confession of the culprit. And, even this system of confession which is unparalleled and unique, renders the confession inadmissible if the slightest discrepancy develops in the wording of the verbal confession which has to be compulsorily renewed in four different sessions in front of the Qaadhi.
In fact, the Shariah has designed its system to deliberately introduce flaws into a voluntary confession with a view to dismiss it. Islam emphasizes concealment of the sin and exhorts the sinners to purify themselves by taking the moral route, i.e. Taubah (Repentence), hence the Qaadhi is instructed to plead with the confessor after his conviction and just before practically executing the sentence, to retract. Which system is more humane and considerate for Insaan than this divine immutable Shariah of Allah Ta’ala.
Never can zina be proved by way of eye-witnesses. It should be remembered that the Shariah NEVER convicts people on the basis of circumstancial evidence which is a fallacy as far as the Islamic court is concerned. The impossible conditions which the Shariah stipulates for this type of evidence is a formidable barrier for anyone contemplating to step forward to accuse a person of zina or to testify in such a case. He is fully aware that the sword of 80 lashes is suspended above his head. It is just not possible to secure a conviction on the basis of Bayyinah — the testification of four saintly eye-witnesses who observed the sexual act of intercourse being perpetrated in its explicit detail.
Inspite of this impossibility to prove the commission of zina, the masses of people are and have always been ignorant of this fact. As far as they are concerned, they have to be very careful and abstain from the immorality of zina. They do so either on account of fear for Allah Ta’ala or for fear of the relevant Hadd — whipping or stoning. They are blissfully ignorant of the legal technicalities which make conviction impossible, hence the deterrent value remains. So has it been, and so shall it remain.
In a truly Islamic governed nation, the masses will be, by intentional design, kept in the dark of the legal technicalities of the Shariah which render conviction a total impossibility. Darul Islam governed region will not allow books such as the one we are here presenting, to be published and disseminated. The knowledge of these facts will be the preserve of those who pursue the Ilm of the Deen at the higher academic level. In comparison to the general population, this is a small percentage. In short, the Darul Islam government will ensure that the masses hardly gain information of such knowledge which will negate the deterrent value of the Hudood and open a wide avenue for evil and immorality. It is worthwhile to remember that Islam does not subscribe to the western concept of freedom of the press and free dissemination of just every kind of muck, filth, and pornography which are among the salient features of western civilization. And, this type of censorship is imposed by the Qur’aan Majeed which states:
“When there comes to them a matter pertaining to either safety or fear, they publicize it. And, if they referred it to the Rasool and the Ulul Amr (leaders) among them, then most certainly, those whom (are experienced) among them will investigate it and know it.” [aayat 83 Surah Nisaa’]
Only after due investigation, if the authorities deem it appropriate, will they release the news or information for public consummation. This is the Shariah of Islam — the Divine Shariah which is unique and which stands poles apart from all worldly and kufr cults and civilizations.
The Islamic Penal Code and all other departments of the Deen cannot be gauged and measured by the ’shariah’ courts of the present day.
There is no Islamic government anywhere on earth. Nigeria is governed by a Christian regime. The shariah courts existing in the predominantly Northern region are not Shar’i courts in the true sense.
They really have no coercive authority. Besides being stripped of full coercive power, there is a dearth of true Islamic Knowledge as well. Precisely for these reasons had it become imperative to buckle under international kuffar pressure; to conduct an appeal in western style, and in fact to have convicted the woman in the first place. There were discrepancies which the court had either ignored or had been ignorant of.
While we have inveigled against the miscreants and modernists in our community, we nevertheless, supplicate to Allah Ta’ala to bestow to them the taufeeq to understand their folly and return to Imaan. And, may Allah Ta’ala preserve our Imaan as well. No one knows what the morrow holds for him. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, Imaan is suspended between hope and fear. And the conclusion of our Call is: All praise is due unto Allah, the Rabb of all the worlds. We supplicate to Allah Ta’ala to accept this little and humble effort in the service of His Deen.