Stoningirrq Verse
I would like to point out something, when it comes to silly stuff like this the Shia and other groups like
the christians like to bring.
TO ASSUME A VERSE HAS BEEN LOST DUE TO A BUFFALO OR A WHALE EATING IT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THEY WERE
NOT MEMORISED.
They were memorised!
Shubha
I will deal with stoning verses here first and the Suckling Verses
in a different channel. As this narration play a role in both
Same narration
Sunan ibn majah 1944
Shuyab al arnaoot declares the sanad weak due to Ibn ishaq
and says “the narration has a defect”
and mentions that there is different narration (SUNAN IBN MAJAH 1942) that doesn’t mention the Goat.
This will be in Suckling Verses because it doesn’t mention stoning.
same narration as sunan ibn majah 1944
Shuyab al arnaoot declares the sanad weak due to Ibn ishaq
and says “the narration has a defect”
and mentions in the footnote the different narrations that dont mention the Goat.
bn Hajar al Asaqlanis sharh on Bukhari 6830
“and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed”
Ibn hajar says: “The verse that is mentioned is what was abrogated in recitation and its ruling has remained,
and what Umar had mentioned (“I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say,
“We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,”) has happened,
for a group of people from the Khawarij and the Mutazilah have rejected this.
Ibn hajar says with regards to Umars RA statement:
“And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah’s Book”:
which is another verse in the hadith
‘What has been abrogated in recitation’.
This is the narration in Bukhari.
Notice how Umar RA said “we recited the verse, understood it and memorised it”
Al Nawawi in his sharh says the same thing. The narration is Sahih Muslim 1691a
Al Nawawis on Umars RA comment: “He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what
was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it”
He says: (Umar) implied the verse of Stoning. Al Nawawi then writes down the ayah of stoning.
“If an old man and old woman commit adultery stone them both”
Al Nawawi continues to say “and this is what was abrogated in recitation and its ruling remained.
(In other verses) the ruling was abrogated and the recitation remained and (in other verses) both the ruling and
recitation were abrogated)
Imam badr al deen al ayni in his book Imdat al Qari fee sharh sahih al bukhari says
“(verses) in the Quran perhaps have been abrogated in recitation and its ruling remained such as :
“If an old man and old woman commit adultery stone them both”
Sa’d Ibn Ayyud Al Baji (رحمه الله) states:
”[…] and it is not correct to take the Qur’an as Thabit before the Ijmaa and the mass transmission of it,
therefore the person who goes against the Quran (before Ijmaa) will say ‘He added into the Quran what it
doesn’t contain’ and whoever agrees with him that it was revealed from the Quran and says he added into the
Quran which is impossible for him to prove due to it not being agreed upon it’s proving, and it is also possible
for another answer and it is that everyone agreed with him that it was revealed in the Quran but it was aborgated
in it’s recitation and the ruling stayed, then it is not
to be said from the Mushaf, bevause it is not proven for something to be from the Quran unless the recitation
still remains without the aborgation of it’s recitation”
Narrated by Kathir bin al Salt
He said: “We were with Marwan and among us was Zayd bin thabit and he said: ‘we used to recite
‘If an old man and old woman commit adultery stone them both’ Marwan said: “Should we not include it in the Mushaf?”
Zayd replied: “No, Dont you see the two young men being stoned”? He said: “This was mentioned and Umar bin al khattab
was with us and he said: “I will cure you (of this confusion) they replied: “How”, Umar said:
“The Prophet came and recited the stoning verse” I said: Oh Messenger of Allah allow me to write it (asked twice)
and the Propht said “I cannot have it written”
Al-Bayhaqi comments on this statement, saying:
“In this, and what came before it, are evidence that the ruling of the verse of stoning is affirmed and its
recitation is abrogated. This among matters of which I do not know of any disagreement”
‘Umar bin Al-Khattab said:
“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned. If I didn’t dislike that I add to the Book of
Allah. I would have written it in the Mushaf, for I fear that there will come a people and they will not find it
in the Book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it.”
Why would Umar dislike adding to the book of Allah?
It clearly abrogation in tilawa (recitation) but not in hukm.
In conclusion the verse of Stoning is also in the books of the Rafidah.
Al Majlisi also believed that this verse was abrogated in recitation. However it’s still in ruling.
Al tusi states in his tafseer
The stoning verse, it was said that it was revealed and its recitation was raised (abrogated) and its ruling remained
“The people differed on how abrogation can occur and they’re 4 groups”
After listening the first 3 he then states
“I say (Al Tusi) the 4th group permit the abrogation of the recitation alone or the Hukm (judgement/ ruling) Alone,
and to abrogate them both AND THIS IS CORRECT”