PART I

Chapter 3

The Claim That The Stoning Penalty Is Or Was Once Found In The Qur`an

In this chapter we discuss the last two of the five views that the supporters of al-rajm advance to deal with the Qur`anic penalty for zina`. These two views state:

IV) The stoning penalty is found in the Qur`an but it is known only to scholars of great erudition capable of diving deep into the meanings of the Book of God.

V) The Qur`an did prescribe stoning for adultery but the verse in which the law was stated was omitted from the Qur`an.

IV) THE CLAIM THAT THE STONING PENALTY CAN BE FOUND IN THE QUR`AN BY THOSE WITH INSIGHT

Ibn Qayyim mentions in his book, Zad al-Mi‘ad, a tradition from Ibn ‘Abbas that al-rajm is prescribed in the Book of God but to find it there one needs to be a ghawwas, that is, capable of diving deep (into the meanings of the Qur`an). This view is justified on the basis of Qur`an 5:15, which states that the Prophet brings into open much of what the people of the book used to hide and overlooks much, i. e., lets a great deal remain hidden, al-rajm being one of them. Ibn Qayyim also notes that some other scholars hold the same view. We saw in Chapter 1 that Mawdudi also entertains a similar opinion, which he combines with the first of the five views, that is, the view that the Qur`anic penalty of 100 lashes is only for the unmarried case.

Three observations are enough to see the extreme weakness of this view.

First, the tradition cited by Ibn Qayyim about Ibn ‘Abbas has not been accepted in any early or reliable collection.

Second, the Qur`an often tells us that it makes things clear (2:187, 219, 221, 242, 266, 98:1-3 etc). It even says that it makes “everything” clear (16:89). It also states that God and the angels and (knowledgeable) human beings curse those who hide what God has revealed (2:159). Will such a revelation hide its laws and let people struggle to dig for its instructions like mysteries? Does that not amount to playing games with the people? Is it not too much like the Trinitarian Christians who find the monotheistic Old and New Testaments full of hidden references to the Trinity or like the Shi‘as who see a hidden mention of ‘Ali everywhere in the Qur`an?

The Qur`an may indeed use statements with unclear meaning when it deals with the Unseen or the Hereafter or some other abstract or complex subject matters, although even in that case we do not expect the Qur`an to be unclear for the sake of being unclear but only because of the inherent difficulty of talking about such subjects within our human language. The Qur`an may also let some of the matters that people of the book used to hide remain hidden, as stated in 5:15. But it is unbelievable that the Qur`an will prescribe punishment for a crime using such an unclear language that it becomes a hidden mystery.

Third, suppose that there is some divine wisdom in referring to al-rajm in an unclear, cryptic way, a wisdom that we cannot fathom. Then why do some ahadith, considered authentic by the supporters of al-rajm, talk about al-rajm in a clear way? What happened in case of the Hadith to the divine wisdom behind hiding the commandment about al-rajm?

V) THE CLAIM THAT THE QUR`AN ONCE CONTAINED A VERSE ABOUT AL-RAJM BUT THE VERSE WAS OMITTED FROM THE QUR`AN

Although this claim has the support of several ahadith, one of which uses the authority of ‘Umar and is found in most Hadith collections, it raises insurmountable difficulties. Why was the verse omitted from the Qur`an? If its omission was an accident, why would not Muslim leaders restore the verse to the Qur`anic text when its absence from the Qur`an was noticed? If, as some other narrations tell us, people thought that addition to the Book of God was not permissible in his eyes, surely he must have thought the same about omission. Hence he was duty bound to restore the missing verse. One cannot say that the verse was "suppressed" by the higher authority of the Prophet that ‘Umar could not overturn; for, why would the Prophet suppress the verse while allowing the practice laid down by it to continue? Some traditions tell us that ‘Umar feared that the absence of the verse from the Qur`an would make people ignore a divine injunction. Why did he not prevent this from happening by adding the verse to the Qur`an where it belonged? The verse could not have been forgotten by the whole Muslim ummah. In the time of ‘Umar there were still alive many hundreds of the Prophet's Companions who, we are told in some narrations, used to recite the verse and memorise it.

Supporters of al-rajm never really deal with the above questions in any satisfactory way. For example, Ibn Kathir quotes many of the traditions about the stoning “verse” and seems to accept the idea of such a verse but does not raise any of the relevant and important questions mentioned above, much less give some sensible answers to them. Some scholars have come up with the concept of two types of abrogated verses mansukh al-tilawah (abrogated in respect to recitation) and mansukh al-‘amal (abrogated in respect to practice). It is said that the verse about stoning was mansukh al-tilawah and not mansukh al-‘amal. But coining such new technical terms does nothing to reduce the extreme weakness of the idea of a verse that was in pracitce but was omitted from the Qur`an.

It seems that some supporters of stoning are aware of the difficulties pointed out above and so they choose to ignore the “stoning verse”. Thus in his justification of the stoning penalty Shafi‘i does not at all refer to any tradition about the “stoning verse”. Mawdudi quotes some narrations of hadith attributed to ‘Umar but does not in any way use them to justify his support of al-rajm. For him they are simply an addition to the ahadith about al-rajm and serve to embelish the evidence for it. Moreover, many narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith state that pregnancy can by itself provide proof of zina` but a majority of the supporters of al-rajm, including Shafi‘i and Mawdudi, reject that view.

One may ask: if the idea of a verse about stoning, omitted from the Qur`an and banned from recitation in the daily prayers but still practiced is as absurd as we have suggested, then how could it find its way in our best Hadith collections and be accepted widely? This question ignores the fact that given right circumstances completely wrong ideas can develop and get accepted by a vast majority of people, including some very learned persons. Take for example the Christian belief in the Trinity. This belief has no basis in the teaching of Jesus, his eyewitness disciples, the gospels, other books of the Bible, or rational thought. Yet at one point it became a dominant idea in Christendom and is still professed by a majority of the church-going Christians, including some very learned ones.

In view of the weaknesses of the idea of a missing verse on stoning pointed out above, we need an extremely solid proof that this idea indeed was expressed by a man of such caliber as ‘Umar al-Faruq. Let us examine the various traditions more closely to see if such proof is forthcoming. Our examination of these traditions, like that of other ahadith on al-rajm in Part II, is of necessity somewhat technical, detailed, and therefore seemingly complex. A reader who wants to discover the true Sunnah of our beloved Prophet for himself/herself must go through such examination of ahadith. It is like if you want to understand for yourself phenomena of nature, you much be prepared to follow science with some of its complex experiments, equations and theories.

We begin our examination with, and focus primarily on, ‘Umar’s hadith, which alone has some credibility with the muhaddithun. Later, we will also briefly consider other traditions about the stoning verse.

A) ‘Umar’s hadith

This hadith comes in many narrations. Our examination of it, like that of any hadith, must necessarily involve both the asanid and the contents of its various narrations. This examination shows that this hadith is a gharib[1] hadith with “hidden defects”[2] and therefore according to established criteria of the science of Hadith is not reliable.

NARRATIONS’ ASANID

Below is a list of all the asanid that my search of the Hadith Encyclopedia for the narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith produced. In this list a later narrator is written first. The asanid having in common the same narrators in the first few generations are grouped together with names of common narrators indicated in color once at the end of the group. Other narrators common in asanid are also shown in color.

Malik 1295 --

Darimi 2219 – Khalid bin Makhlad – Malik --

Ahmad 265 – ‘Abd al-Rahman – Malik –

Ahmad 368 – Ishaq bin ‘Isa al-Tabba‘ – Malik --

Bukhari 6327 – ‘Ali bin ‘Abd Allah – Sufyan bin ‘Uyaynah –

Muslim 3201 (note) – Zahir bin Harb -- Sufyan bin ‘Uyaynah –

– Muhammad bin Yahya – Sufyan bin ‘Uyaynah –

– Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah – Sufyan bin ‘Uyaynah –

Ibn Majah 2543 – Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah – Sufyan bin ‘Uyaynah –

-- Muhammad bin Sabbah --Sufyan bin ‘Uyaynah –

Muslim 3201 --Ahmad bin ‘Amr -- ‘Abd Allah – Yunus bin Yazid –

-- Harmalah bin Yahya --‘Abd Allah – Yunus bin Yazid –

Bukhari 6778 – Musa bin Isma‘il – ‘Abd al-Wahid – Ma ‘mar –

Tirmidhi 1352 – Salamah bin Shabib – Ma‘mar –

--Ishaq bin Mansur – Ma‘mar –

--Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali – Ma‘mar –

Ahmad 313 -- ‘Abd al-Razzaq -- Ma‘mar –

Bukhari 6328 – ‘Abd al-‘Aziz bin ‘Abd Allah – Ibrahim bin Sa‘d – Salih –

Abu Da`ud 3835 – ‘Abd Allah bin Muhammad al-Nufayli – Hushaym --

Ibn Shihab – ‘Ubayd Allah – Ibn ‘Abbas [‘Ubayd Allah’s full name is ‘Ubayd Allah bin ‘Abd Allah bin ‘Utbah bin Mas‘ud (d. 98)]

Ibn Ishaq -- ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Bakr –

Ahmad 192 – Hushaym –

Ibn Shihab – ‘Ubayd Allah – Ibn ‘Abbas – ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘‘Awf

Ahmad 333- Muhammad bin Ja‘far – Shu‘bah –

Hajjaj – Shu‘bah –

Sa‘d bin Ibrahim – ‘Ubayd Allah – Ibn ‘Abbas – ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf

Ahmad 151-- Hushaym –

‘Ali bin Zayd -- Yusuf bin Mihran -- Ibn ‘Abbas

Malik 1297 –

Ahmad 241—Yahya bin Sa‘id bin Farukh --

Ahmad 285—Yazid –

Yahya bin Sa‘id bin Qays -- Ibn al-Musayyab

Tirmidhi 1351– Ahmad bin Mani‘ – Ishaq bin Yusuf al-Azraq –

Da`ud bin Abi Hind -- Ibn al-Musayyab

From the above list we see:

n Four fourth-generation narrators, Malik, Sufyan bin ‘Uyaynah, Yunus bin Yazid, and Ma‘mar can be reached with multiple chains of transmitters and each of these four narrators quote the hadith from al-Zuhri with the same isnad. Hence ‘Umar’s hadith can be taken back to Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri with a very high degree of confidence.

n All narrations from Ibn Shihab quote ‘Ubayd Allah bin ‘Abd Allah bin ‘Utbah, a Successor.

n Only in one narration someone other than Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri quotes ‘Ubayd Allah. This is Sa‘d bin Ibrahim (d. 125) in Musnad Ahmad (333). But, as we shall see, there is some evidence that Ahmad 192 also came from this same narrator, who was by mistake replaced by al-Zuhri. If so, there is some probability that Sa‘d bin Ibrahim also narrated ‘Umar’s hadith.

n Three asanid also reach Yahya bin Sa‘id who narrates the hadith from Ibn al-Musayyab, a Successor. Another third-generation narrator Da`ud bin Abi Hind is also said to narrate it from Ibn al-Musayyab, making it probable that Ibn al-Musayyab too transmitted the tradition. But Ibn al-Musayyab did not hear[3] ‘Umar and even the narrations attributed to him do not pretend that he had first hand knowledge of ‘Umar’s hadith.

n There is one narration in Musnad Ahmad (151) with an isnad independent of Ibn Shihab, Sa‘d bin Ibrahim, ‘Ubayd Allah, and Ibn al-Musayyab. It is narrated from Yusuf bin Mihran about whom we know next to nothing, which, together with other facts to be presented later, makes it much weaker than the other narrations. We can use it only to corroborate conclusions based on other narrations.

In view of the above comments, there is almost complete certainty that ‘Umar’s hadith was transmitted by Ibn Shihab (d. 125), who belongs to the third[4] generation of narrators. There is also some probability that two Successors Ibn al-Musayyab (d. 93) and ‘Ubayd Allah bin ‘Abd Allah bin ‘Utbah (d. 98) narrated the hadith.

When we move back in time to the Companions, things become very uncertain. In many narrations ‘Ubayd Allah transmits the tradition from Ibn ‘Abbas as if Ibn ‘Abbas himself was the witness to ‘Umar’s khutbah. However, in two narrations Ibn ‘Abbas narrates the tradition on the authority of ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf as follows:

Ahmad 192 – Hushaym –

Ibn Shihab – ‘Ubayd Allah – Ibn ‘Abbas – ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘‘Awf

Ahmad 333- Muhammad bin Ja ‘far – Shu ‘bah –

Hajjaj – Shu ‘bah –

Sa‘d bin Ibrahim – ‘Ubayd Allah – Ibn ‘Abbas – ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘‘Awf

In Ibn Ishaq also Ibn ‘Abbas mentions “‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf informed me”, although Ibn ‘Abbas himself is the speaker in his narration.

Even if we ignore the confusion between the role of Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf in the transmission of the hadith, it remains problematic that only one of these two transmitted the tradition. According to many narrations ‘Umar spoke in a public khutbah that must have been attended by a large number of Muslims including numerous Companions. Why then it is only one person in the whole gathering who has transmitted the tradition to us? We could attribute this to chance except that exactly the same problem arises in the second and third generations. Numerous Successors have transmitted traditions from Ibn ‘Abbas. Why only ‘Ubayd Allah bin ‘Abd Allah bin ‘Utbah and an unknown narrator Yusuf bin Mihran transmit this tradition from him? ‘Ubayd Allah himself had at least 22 known students. Why only Ibn Shihab, and possibly Sa‘d bin Ibrahim transmit from him? Why do we not see several asanid reaching ‘Ubayd Allah, Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Umar like we see several asanid reaching Sufyan, Ma‘mar, and Ibn Shihab?

It is true that as time passes a tradition gets spread and more and more narrators transmit it. But still at the earlier stages of transmission we should expect some mulitiplicity of transmitters, especially in case of a tradition that reports a public address by the leader of the whole Muslim world on a matter of some religious importance.

It is also very strange that ‘Umar remains the only Companion to talk about the stoning verse in a vast majority of books. This fact strongly suggests that for quite sometime the stoning verse and ‘Umar were uniquely tied to each other. Indeed, in one of the traditions it is assumed that ‘Umar was the only one who knew about the stoning verse:

[It is reported by] Ibn Abi Shaybah, concerning al-masahif, from al-Layth bin Sa‘d who said: The first to collect the Qur`an was Abu Bakr and Zayd bin Thabit wrote it. And people came to Zayd bin Thabit (with the portions of the Qur`an) but Zayd did not write anything (in the Qur`an) except with the testimony of two reliable witnesses. The last part of Surah Bara`ah was not found except with Khuzaymah bin Thabit. He said, “Write it, for the Messenger of God had declared the testimony of Khuzaymah equivalent to that of two men.” So he wrote it. And ‘Umar came with the verse of stoning but Zayd would not write it because ‘Umar was alone (in his testimony) (Al-Suyuti as quoted in ‘Awn al-Ma‘bud 3130)

According to this story, in the time of Abu Bakr when the Qur`an was reportedly collected no one knew about the stoning verse or no one remembered it except ‘Umar. This story is absent from all of the nine collections of Hadith covered in the Hadith Encyclopedia and does not even have complete isnad. Furthermore, as we shall see later it is in conflict with several other stories. There is therefore no likelihood that it is telling us an historical incident. Yet even fictions have some history in them. In this story, the history is that even in the time of Layth bin Sa‘d (d. 175) it was assumed by some narrators of ahadith that traditions about the stoning verse all went back only to ‘Umar: no other Companion talked about the verse. This is a powerful argument against the very idea of a stoning verse, since such a verse or, at least its existence, is expected to be known to a large number of senior Companions.

Our examination of the asanid of ‘Umar’s hadith suggests the approximate time when the hadith was fabricated: As noted above the asanid show that the hadith can be take back with some probability only to the time of ‘Ubayd Allah and Ibn al-Musayyab. Now both of these Successors died in or after 93 and those who transmitted from them -- al-Zuhri, Yahya bin Sa‘id etc -- died in or after 124. ‘Ubayd Allah and Ibn al-Musayyab therefore could not have transmitted the hadith to the third-generation narrators too much earlier than 75. If we allow a couple of decades for the hadith to gain wide enough circulation for ‘Ubayd Allah and Ibn al-Musayyab to start quoting it, then we can date it somewhere between 50-80.

Our examination of the contents of the narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith leads to a very significant result which may be stated at tht outset: not all narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith talk about a missing Qur`anic verse about stoning. In fact, narrations that do not refer to such a verse have much more varied asanid than those that refer to it (see Table 1 presented further below). This result is significant because it strongly suggests that ‘Umar’s hadith originally did not talk about the stoning verse. Once again it is possible to approximately date when the reference to a stoning verse was introduced in ‘Umar’s hadith: The earliest narrator who can be said with confidence to have included this reference in his narration of ‘Umar’s hadith is al-Zuhri who died in 124 or 125. Allowing a few decades for the reference to gain some circulation, we can date it between 95 and 115.

NARRATIONS’ CONTENTS

Let us now examine the contents of the narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith. One of these narrations is attributed to Yusuf bin Mihran while the rest are said to come from ‘Ubayd Allah bin ‘Abd Allah bin ‘Utbah or from Ibn al-Musayyab. One of the narrations from ‘Ubayd Allah comes from Sa‘d bin Ibrahim while the rest come from Ibn Shihab. One of the narrations from Ibn al-Musayyab comes from Da`ud bin Abi Hind while others come from Yahya bin Sa‘id. We can therefore discuss the various narrations under the following categories:

1) Narrations from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri from ‘Ubayd Allah

2) A narration from Sa‘d bin Ibrahim from ‘Ubayd Allah

3) A narration from Yusuf bin Mihran

4) Narrations from Yahya bin Sa‘id from Ibn al-Musayyab

5) A narration from Da`ud bin Abi Hind from Ibn al-Musayyab

1) Narrations from Ibn Shihab from ‘Ubayd Allah

The narrations of this category are found in many books but they are all very similar to those found in Sirah Rasul Allah of Ibn Ishaq (as quoted by Ibn Hisham), Muwatta of Malik, and Bukhari. We will, therefore, focus on the narrations in these three books, with other books being used to provide additional evidence for the conclusions reached.

Ibn Ishaq’s narration

Ibn Ishaq knew Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri and received many traditions from him. But this particular tradition he does not receive directly from him but indirectly through ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Bakr [d. 135]. His isnad is: ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Bakr told me from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri from ‘Ubayd Allah bin ‘Utbah from Ibn ‘Abbas who said, ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf informed me..

Ibn Ishaq’s narration is part of a long khutbah that ‘Umar delivers on a Friday night after he returned to Madinah from his last hajj. The stage for the speech is reportedly set by Ibn ‘Abbas as follows:

I was waiting for ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf in his station in Mina while he was with ‘Umar during the last hajj that ‘Umar performed. When he returned he found me waiting, for I was teaching him to read the Qur`an. Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘Abd al-Rahman said to me, "Would that you had seen the man who came to the Chief of the Believers [that is, ‘Umar], saying, ‘O Chief of the Believers! How would you like a man who says, 'By God, if ‘Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such a person, as the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established’.”

‘Umar wanted to stand before the people and speak on the issue, but on the advice of ‘Abd al-Rahman he postpones it till his return to Madinah. There he sat on the pulpit and after due glorification of God said:

God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book to him. Part of what God sent down was the verse of al-rajm; we recited it, we were taught it, and we memorized it. God’s Messenger did carry out stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that with the passage of time people will say that they find no mention of al-rajm in God's Book and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation sent down by God. Surely, al-rajm in the Book of God is laid on married men and women who commit zina` if there is direct evidence (of witnesses) or conception or confession. We also used to recite as part of the recitation of God's book: ‘Do not desire to have anscestors other than your own as it is kufr (disbelief or unthankfulness) to do so.’ Beware! The Messenger of God did say, ‘Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, so call me God's slave and his messenger.’

The speech then continues with the political issues that motivated it in the first place (Ibn Ishaq as quoted in Ibn Hisham, p. 898-899).

Substantially the same narration is also found in Bukhari (6327; see also 6778) and Ahmad (368) [5] with different asanid, showing that the narration does come from al-Zuhri.

There are many weaknesses in the narration.

First, notice the statement that Ibn ‘Abbas [d. 68] was teaching ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf to read the Qur`an. This is hard to believe since ‘Abd al-Rahman [d. about 32] was a senior Companion who was among the six persons ‘Umar nominated as a possible choice for khalifah after him[6]. This part of the narration is also called into question by the fact, noted earlier, that in some narrations Ibn ‘Abbas actually learns this tradition from ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘‘Awf:

Beware of people who say what is al-rajm? (Is not) in the Book of God (there is only) flogging? The Messenger of God indeed carried out al-rajm and we carried it out after him. Were it not that talkers will talk and speakers will speak saying that ‘Umar added to the Book of God what is not part of it, I will have written it as it was sent down (Ahmad 192).

Second, the alleged verse that desiring ancestors other than one’s own is kufr is found in Muslim as a hadith (1/161) without any indication of a missing verse to that effect. The reference to this missing verse about ancestors, moreover, is not found in most other narrations and so it is probably a later addition. But then if additions could be made to a tradition in this way, the reliability of the transmission process is compromised. In particular, it is possible that the reference to stoning was also added later to the khutbah of ‘Umar, a possibility that increases in likelihood when we notice that this reference comes up abruptly in the khutbah.

Third, the statement that “part of what God sent down was the verse of al-rajm” is almost exclusively found in the narrations of al-Zuhri. The reference to the stoning verse is absent in almost all the other narrations, at least in this unambiguous form. This suggests that al-Zuhri heard the idea of the stoning verse from some unknown source and made it a part of ‘Umar’s hadith.

Fourth, the argument that al-rajm is not Islamic because it is not mentioned in the Book of God is first attributed to the Khawarij who came after ‘Umar in the time of ‘Ali. While I do not deny that a strong believer like ‘Umar could sometimes foresee the future, yet there is also a very real possibility that in the tradition under consideration later developments are being projected back in the time of ‘Umar. That is, some decades after ‘Umar someone is responding to the arguments of the Khawarij by putting his own words in ‘Umar’s mouth.

Fifth, in this narration ‘Umar, long after the death of the Prophet says that “the Prophet stoned”. Yet Ibn Ishaq mentions none of the many stories of stoning of Muslims[7] by the Prophet as part of the biography of the Prophet that he is writing. The story of a Companion of the Prophet such as the man of Aslam (Ma‘iz) or the woman of Ghamid committing zina` and then being stoned to death would have left a mark on the people of Madinah. People recalling the events that took place during Prophet’s life and those collecting those events afterwards are expected to remember and narrate or at least allude to some of these stories. But Ibn Ishaq does not do so.

Sixth, there are numerous traditions about the collection of the Qur`an and the efforts made in the time of the first three khulafa` to preserve the Qur`anic text. During the process of such “collection” we expect some questions to be raised about the stoning “verse”, e.g., why it is not in the Qur`an and whether it should be restored to it. But in earlier accounts of the collection of the Qur`an such questions are never raised. Only in very late and isolated traditions, suffering from many weaknesses and not considered reliable by a vast majority of muhaddithun, are such questions encountered and very inadequately answered.

Malik’s narration

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Utbah ibn Mas‘ud that ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas said: I heard ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab say:

“al-rajm in the Book of God is justly laid on any married men and women who commit zina` if there is direct evidence (of witnesses) or pregnancy (al-habal) or confession" (Muwatta 41/8).

This narration is at least as reliable as that of Ibn Ishaq. For, although Ibn Ishaq [d. 151] wrote his book before Malik [d. 179] wrote his, this particular hadith is received by Malik directly from al-Zuhri [d. 125] while, as noted earlier, Ibn Ishaq received it indirectly throung ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Bakr [d. 135].

This narration does not refer to the existence of a stoning “verse” in the Qur`an[8]. The words “al-rajm in the Book of God” may suggest such a reference but this is far from being necessary. For, in the first place, Bukhari’s narration (see below) does not contain the words “in the Book of God” and therefore it is not certain that these words were a part of the original narration of al-Zuhri. And, in the second place, even if the reference to the Book of God is original, it is not necessary that the reference is to the Qur`an. To be in the Book of God can also mean to be a part of the divine law given through the Sunnah/Hadith or even through earlier revelations. This is supported by the fact that the narration talks about proof by pregnancy, which is not mentioned in the Qur`an or any allegedly missing verse in the Qur`an. Similarly, in the story of the stoning of an employer’s wife to be discussed in detail in Chapter 9, it is said that the Prophet ordered, according to the Book of God, that the unmarried man who committed zina` with her be exiled and given 100 lashes, but the Qur`an nowhere mentions exile as a punishment for zina`.

At first sight it appears to be a reasonable hypothesis that Muwatta’s narration has focused entirely on one saying (“al-rajm in the Book of God is justly laid …”) in ‘Umar’s khutbah, that is, it is a drastically shortened form of al-Zuhri’s long narration. If so, it is unlikely that Malik shortened the narration, since a similar narration with a different isnad is also found in Bukhari (see below). But there is a strong indication that the saying is not extracted from the long version but represents a separate tradition that al-Zuhri sometimes narrated separately and sometimes as a part of ‘Umar’s hadith. This indication is provided by the fact that the saying is found only in al-Zuhri’s narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith. If it were part of ‘Umar’s hadith from the beginning, we expect to find in some other narrations, which is not the case. As we shall see later, al-Zuhri has been criticized by some of his contemporaries to attribute narrations to a Successor without personally hearing from him and also to put together narrations from different unknown sources to produce a longer narration.

Bukhari’s narrations

Bukhari gives three narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith: 6327, 6328, 6778. The first of these is very similar to Ibn Ishaq’s narration. The third also seems to be a short form[9] of the narration used by Ibn Ishaq. The second is a slight variation of Muwatta’s narration, as we now show.

The narration (Bukhari 6328) reads:

‘Ali bin ‘Abd Allah related to us: Sufyan related to us from al-Zuhri from ‘Ubayd Allah from Ibn ‘Abbas who said:

‘Umar said: I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find al-rajm in the Book of God,’ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that God has sent down. Beware! Surely, al-rajm is justly laid on whoever commits zina` and is married and there is direct evidence (of witnesses) or pregnancy (al-haml) or confession. "

The narration is followed by two notes:

Sufyan added, "I have memorized (this narration) in this way." (‘Umar also) said, "Surely God’s Messenger carried out the penalty of al-rajm, and so did we after him." (Bukhari 6327).

The natural way to understand Sufyan’s words, “I memorized this narration in this way”, is that they mark the end of his narration. The additional words attributed to ‘Umar (“Surely God’s Messenger carried out … ") were therefore not part of Sufyan’s narration but were added as a note from some other source. Sufyan’s narration like that of Malik thus focused on ‘Umar’s saying about the rules of evidence (“Surely, al-rajm is justly laid on whoever commits zina` … pregnancy or confession”). Al-rajm was justified only on the basis of this saying. There was no mention of the Sunnah of the Prophet and his Companions or of a missing verse about stoning. Unlike the narration of Muwatta it is not even said that “al-rajm is justly laid in the Book of God”; it is only said that “al-rajm is justly laid” without any reference to the Book of God.

We may see a hint about the stoning “verse” in the description of al-rajm as an obligation that “God has sent down”. But, as we noted earlier, rules considered part of the Shari‘ah can be said to be in the Book of God even if they are not found in the Qur`anic text. Similary, rules can be said to be “sent down by God” even if they are not part of the Qur`anic revelation. In this narration ‘Umar’s ijtihad is considered a valid source of Islamic Shari‘ah and so it is said to sent down by God.

Moreover, narrators frequently express earlier traditions in their own words, often influenced by their understanding of those traditions. Thus the particular narration under consideration might have been influenced by some narrator’s assumption that it refers to a stoning verse, an assumption that might have led him to use the words “sent down”. It is certainly true that other narrations express ‘Umar’s words differently:

I fear that there will come groups who will not find [al-rajm] in the Book of God and so will reject it. (Tirmidhi 1351)

Here al-rajm is not described as an “obligation God has sent down”. In Ibn Majah there is a narration from Sufyan that also uses somewhat different words:

I indeed fear that as time passes someone will say, I do not find al-rajm in the Book of God and thus people are led astray by abandoning an obligation from among the obligations of God. (Ibn Majah 2543) [10]

Hence we conclude that Bukhari 6328, like Malik’s narration, does not assume a missing stoning verse and focuses on the saying about the rules of evidence.

Our discussion of al-Zuhri’s narrations further shows:

n The saying about rules of evidence represents a separate tradition that was introduced into ‘Umar’s hadith by al-Zuhri. This is because the saying is found only in al-Zuhri’s narrations.

n For the same reason, the saying “part of what God sent down was the verse of al-rajm … ” was also not found in the earliest version of ‘Umar’s hadith. It was added later by al-Zuhri.

n We can therefore get much closer to the earliest form of ‘Umar’s hadith by omitting the two above-mentioned sayings. This leads us to the version:

God’s Messenger did carry out stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that with the passage of time people will say that they find no mention of al-rajm in God's Book and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation sent down by God.

2) A narration from Sa ‘d bin Ibrahim from ‘Ubayd Allah

Muhammad bin Ja‘far and Hajjaj related to us: Shu‘bah related to us from Sa‘d bin Ibrahim who said: I heard ‘Ubayd Allah bin ‘Utbah relate from Ibn ‘Abbas from ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘‘Awf who said:

‘Umar performed hajj and intended to address the people. ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf said (to ‘Umar), All kinds of riffraff (ra‘a‘) have gathered around you (in the season of hajj), so delay it till you go to Madinah. When he arrived in Madinah, I sat close to him near the minbar and I heard him say:

There are people who say, What is this al-rajm when in the Book of God there is only flogging? The Messenger of God stoned and we stoned after him. Were it not that they will say I have inscribed in the Book of God what is not there, I would have inscribed it as it was sent down. (Ahmad 333).

Notice that the two sayings that we identified above as al-Zuhri’s additions to ‘Umar’s hadith are not to be found in this narration. There are no rules of evidence and there is nothing like the explicit reference to the stoning verse that we find in some of al-Zuhri’s narrations. The stoning verse is not even implicitly assumed here. When ‘Umar says that he “would have inscribed it” in the Book of God “as it was sent down” [11], the meaning is not that he would have restored to the Qur`an a verse that was once there and is now missing. Rather, the meaning is that he would have written in the Qur`an a statement about al-rajm that was not there. The statement that people will accuse ‘Umar of adding to the Book of God “what is not there” is in fact an admission that the Qur`an never contained anything about stoning.

Although there is only one chain that reaches Sa‘d bin Ibrahim, there are grounds to think that Ahmad 192[12], said to be transmitted by al-Zuhri, was originally also transmistted by Sa‘d[13], which provides another chain reaching Sa‘d and thus increases the probability that Sa‘d did transmit ‘Umar’s hadith in the name of ‘Ubayd Allah, which in turn increases the probability that ‘Ubayd Allah transmitted the hadith in some form.

3) A narration from Yusuf bin Mihran

The narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith are dominated in our sources by those from al-Zuhri from ‘Ubayd Allah and to a lesser extent by those from Ibn al-Musayyab. But there is one narration that is transmitted independenetly of these narrators. This narration is weak[14] by traditional standards, but sill it is significant that it also does not refer to the stoning verse.

Hushaym related to us: ‘Ali bin Zayd told us from Yusuf bin Mihran from Ibn ‘Abbas who said:

‘Umar bin al-Khattab gave a sermon (khataba, at one time Hushaym said khataba na), he glorified God and then mentioned al-rajm, saying:

Do not be deceived about it. It is one of the hudud ordained by God. Beware! The Messenger of God carried out al-rajm and we carried it out after him. Were it not that some talkers would say that ‘Umar has added in the Book of God what is not a part of it, I would have written it in the margin of the mushaf –

‘Umar bin al-Khattab testifies (at one time Hushaym said: ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf and so-and-so testify”) that the Messenger of God did indeed carry out stoning and we carried it out after him.

Beware that after you there will come people who will reject al-rajm, al-Dajjal, intercession, the punishment in the grave, and being taken out of hell after being burnt (for a period) (Ahmad 151, also recorded by al-Bayhaqi).

Here stoning is described as one of the hudud ordained by God and then immediately it is said: “The Messenger of God carried out stoning and we carried it out after him”. This means that the hadd of al-rajm is ordained by God not through a verse in the Qur`an but the Sunnah of the Prophet and the khulafa`. Once again what ‘Umar would like to do is not to restore to the Qur`an a verse that was once a part of it but to add in a margin a statement about al-rajm that was never a part of it. This point is particularly clear in this narration, as may be seen from the following two observations:

n We are explicitly told what ‘Umar would like to add and this is not a Qur`anic verse. Rather, it is a testimony that “the Messenger of God indeed carried out stoning and we carried it out after him.”

n We are told that ‘Umar would make the addition in a “margin”. This seems to be an admission that no stoning “verse” belonged to the main text.

Notice that the part about al-rajm in this narration is almost identical in meaning to the narration (Ahmad 333) of Sa‘d bin Ibrahmin from ‘Ubayd Allah discussed above.

4) Narrations from Yahya bin Sa‘id from Ibn al-Musayyab

In this category, there is one detailed narration in Muwatta and two short ones in Musnad Ahmad. A narration very close to the one in Muwatta is also found in Tabaqat of Ibn Sa‘d (3/116-7).

Malik’s narration

Like the long narration of al-Zuhri in Ibn Ishaq, the narration in Muwatta from Yahya[15] ibn Sa‘id is also presented in the context of a khutbah that ‘Umar delivered in Madinah after his last hajj. But the background of the khutbah is quite different in this narration than in Ibn Ishaq.

Malik related to me that Yahya ibn Sa‘id heard Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab say:

When ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab came from Mina, he made his camel kneel at al-Abtah, and then he gathered a pile of small stones and cast his cloak over them and dropped to the ground. Then he raised his hands to the sky and said, “O God! I have become old and my strength has reduced. My flock is scattered. Take me to you with nothing missed out and without having neglected anything.” Then he arrived in Madinah and addressed the people.

Here there is none of the controversy that we find in Ibn Ishaq about how Abu Bakr was chosen khalifah and how someone wanted to repeat history by giving pledge of allegiance to his favorite leader. There is also no intention on the part of ‘Umar to address the people immediately, an intention that he changed on the advice of ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Awf. The whole story is completely different here, suggesting that we cannot fully trust in the transmission process that led to the formation of the narration of Yahya ibn Sa‘id or that of Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, although, as we shall see, Yahya’s narration is a bit more coherent and understandable than al-Zuhri’s, in which it is extremely difficult to see why ‘Umar abrubptly starts talking about al-rajm.

After giving the background, the Muwatta then continues:

He said, “O People! Sunan have been established for you and obligations have been placed upon you. You have been left with a clear way unless you lead people astray right and left.' He struck one of his hands on the other and then said …

This part provides a clue to the whole objective of the khutbah. This objective is to stress the importance of the established sunan that some people ignored because of their focus on the Qur`an. Later we shall see that ‘Umar himself focused on the Qur`an and not on the Sunnah, which in any case had not taken in his time the elaborate form that it came to assume in the time of Yahya ibn Sa‘id and al-Zuhri.

The narration continues with a special mention of al-rajm. Unlike the narration of al-Zuhri, where the talk of al-rajm appears abruptly and without any rhyme or reason, in this narration the mention of al-rajm is understandable. For, al-rajm is where the tension between the Qur`an and what became Sunnah gets most clearly and intensely manifested. Hence anyone stressing the importance of sunan around the turn of the first century, when the controversy about al-rajm was still alive would understandably refer to this penalty.

“Take care lest you are destroyed because of the verse of stoning (tahliku ‘an `ayah al-rajm[16]) and lest someone says, we do not find two penalties in the Book of God. The Messenger of God carried out stoning and we carried it out. By the one in whose hand my soul is, had it not been that people would say that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of God, I would have written it:

as for al-shaykh and al-shaykhah stone them both outright (al-shaykh wa al-shaykhah fa arjimuhuma al-battatah)

We certainly recited it ( fa inna qad qara`na ha)."

The narration concludes with some comments by the narrators:

Malik said: Yahya ibn Sa‘id said: Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab said: “Dhu al-Hijjah had not passed before ‘Umar was murdered. May God have mercy on him." Yahya said that he had heard Malik say, "As for his word al-shaykh wa al-shaykhah … it meant, al-thayyab wa al-thayyabah fa arjimuhuma al-battatah.” (Muwatta 1297).

In the whole narration there is no indication that Ibn al-Musayyab personally heard ‘Umar, which is consistent with the fact that Ibn al-Musayyab was at most a child when ‘Umar died. He may, therefore, be simply relating a tradiition that was circulating among the people like so many other traditions including many fabricated ones. It is not even necessary that he fully accepted it, since people often relate or use traditions that they do not necessarily fully accept..

Before we look more closely at the words about al-rajm attributed to ‘Umar in Malik’s narration, let us compare them with the two other narrations available to us.

Ahmad’s narrations

Ahmad reports the following two shorter narrations:

Yahya (ibn Sa‘id bin Farukh) related to us from Yahya ibn Sa‘id who said: I heard Sa‘id bin al-Musayyab say that

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said: “Take care lest you are destroyed on account of the verse of stoning (saying) we do not find two penalties in the Book of God. I have seen the Messenger of God; he did carry out al-rajm and so did we.” (Ahmad 241)

Yazid related to us: Yahya (ibn Sa‘id) told us from Sa‘id bin al-Musayyab that

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said: “Take care lest you are destroyed on account of the verse of stoning and lest someone says, we do not find two penalties in the Book of God. I have seen the Messenger of God carry out al-rajm and so did we after him.” (Ahmad 285)

In these two nearly identical narrations there is no reference to any khutbah by ‘Umar. This may be because Yahya ibn Sa‘id might have at times narrated only the part about stoning. So let us compare the two narrations with the part about stoning in Malik’s narration. This comparison shows that all three narrations are very close except for the following additional part in Muwatta which is not found in Ahmad’s narrations:

By the one in whose hand my soul is, had it not been that people would say that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of God, I would have written it:

as for al-shaykh and al-shaykhah stone them both outright (al-shaykh wa al-shaykhah fa arjimuhuma al-battatah)

We certainly recited it ( fa inna qad qara`na ha)."

The fact that we have two narrations, with two different chains reaching Yahya ibn Sa‘id, that do not contain this part raises doubt whether the part was included in the original narration of Yahya. This justifies looking at the interpretation of Yahya’s narration with and without this part.

Without the additional part, the narration does not refer to the existence of a stoning verse in the Qur`an. The words “destroyed on account of the stoning verse” do not require us to infer such an existence, since they are best understood in terms of the subsequent words, “we do not find two penalties in the Book of God” -- we only find flogging but not al-rajm. That is, it is best to under the words “destroyed on account of the stoning verse” in the sense “destroyed because of a lack of a verse about stoning in the Qur`an” and not in the sense “destroyed because there was a verse about stoning in the Qur`an, which was then removed”. The idea is the same as in other narrations, in which ‘Umar reportedly says that he feared people will neglect a divine injunction on the grounds the injunction about stoning is not found in the Qur`an. We can paraphrase the meaning of the narration as follows: Do not destroy yourselves by neglecting the injunction of stoning on the grounds that there is no verse in the Qur`an about stoning, that is, by saying that the Qur`an mentions only flogging for zina` and not stoning. For, the Prophet and those succeeding him applied the stoning penalty, which establishes it as a sunnah and hence as a divine commandment.

This interpretation presents us with a complete and coherent thought. It uses the sunnah to justify the stoning penalty and does not require reference to a verse about stoning that once upon a time existed in the Qur`an. This appeal to the sunnah as the basis for the stoning penalty is in fact much earlier than the appeal to a stoning verse, as is shown by the following facts:

i) The appeal to the sunnah is found in almost all narrations of ‘Umar’s hadith whereas the appeal to the stoning verse occurs almost exclusively to the narrations from al-Zuhri (see Table 1 presented further below).

ii) One of the earliest references to al-rajm is found in a document called Sirah Salim bin Dhakw