wesdeeesur re The issue of Rajm or stoning to death for the crime of adultery is a controversial one in the present age. Because Western, sec- ular civilization has been ascendant for some time, immorality and corruption, manifested through such crimes as adultery for example, has become widespread; to such an extent that people are uncomfortable to hear that in the Islamic Shari’ah the pun- ishment for committing adultery is stoning to death. Some mod- ern-day Muslims deny Rajm and claim that the command to stone the adulterer to death is nowhere found in the Holy Qur’an, which only institutes the punishment of flogging with a hundred stripes the man and woman found guilty of Zina (for- nication). They further argue that the Islamic tradition of ston- ing for adultery was wrongly imported into the Religion from Judaica. Historically, the first group of Muslims to deny the le- gality of Rajm was not these “modernists”, but an ancient Kha- tijite sect known as the Azarigah named after Nafi’ b. al-Azraq (d. 685 C.E). They were the first to deny stoning to death for adultery as they too claimed it is a punishment that is not found in the Holy Qur’an, despite the fact that the rest of the early Muslim community subscribed to the view that Rajmis the nec- essary penalty for those found guilty of adultery. The punish- ment of Rajm did not begin with, nor is it unique to Islam. This punishment comes down from the Torah as revealed to ProphetMoses:And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neigh- bour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10) If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. (Deuteronomy 22:22)Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: be- cause she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:21) If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die (Deuteronomy 22: 23 — 24) It is often argued that the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth was opposed to lapidation. Christians cite a story of Jesus for- giving a woman found guilty of adultery, whom the Jews wanted to have stoned to death. This is a Biblical passage found only in the Gospel of John known as the Pericope Adulterae. It is a fab- rication not found in the earliest manuscripts, and this is the general concensus of impartial Bible scholars and historians. However, what the Pericope Adulterae reveals to us is that in the time of Jesus, the Jews understood that according to the law of Moses those found guilty of adultery are to be stoned to death: “They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned” (John 8: 4 — 5) According to an authentic Hadith: The Jews came to Allah’s Messenger (#8) and told himthat a man and a woman from amongst them had committed il- legal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Messenger (#2) said to them, “What do you find in the Torah about the legal punishment of At-Rajm (stoning)?” They replied, “we announce their crime and lash them.” ‘Abdullah bin Salam said, “You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm.” They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. ‘Abdullah bin Salam said to him, “Lift your hand.” When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, “Muham- mad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet (#8) then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw the man lean- ing over the woman to shelter her from the stones.” (Bukhari) This Hadith has a number of benefits: 1. The Jews considered the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a fair and just person; and perhaps they knew in their hearts that he was truly a Prophet, so they went to him to have him judge them and re- solve their disputes. 2. The Prophet (peace be upon him) judged the Jews in accordance with the Torah (the Laws of Moses) 3. The Jewish scholars had historically tried to subvert the Laws of Moses and like modern-day Muslims, become lax in their im- plementation of the divine Laws, even distorting the divine Laws, 4. The Prophet (peace be upon him) consulted with ‘Ab- dullah b. Salam, a rabbi who converted to Islam, regarding what was actually written in the Torah. Those who deny the punish- ment of Rajm (lapidation) for adultery claim that the Holy Qur’an has only instituted the penalty of flogging with a hun- dred stripes (Surah 24: 2). The answer to this objection is thatthe word Zina is general in referring to any kind of illegal sexual intercourse, including both pre-marital and extra-marital rela- tions. We come to know from the Sunnah that there is a specific punishment for extra-marital adultery which is simply not men- tioned in the text of the Holy Qur’an. The command of the Holy Qur’an is therefore not at all abrogated or contravened by the ptactice from the Sunnah to put to death those found guilty of extra-marital adultery through lapidation. The reality is that the Sunnah has only added a punishment for a specific crime, whereas the text of the Qur’an has ordered a punishment for a general crime. Therefore, according to Islamic law, if someone is found guilty of pre-marital relations, he or she is to be flogged with a hundred lashes only. But if someone is found guilty of extra-marital relations, he or she is to be flogged with a hundred lashes in compliance with the Qur’anic command that is gen- eral, and then subsequently stoned to death in accordance to the practice of the Sunnah for having committed a specific form of Zina. This is the explanation of the Lion of God, Sayyidina ‘Ali b, Abi Talib (Allah be pleased with him): ened 055 ind « Ab 50 Lal bs Shall 655 Sue Mle ail cons He Of 2 aS5Ig « atu! oS LUST": bg « Ansddl 355 Yassg « 19 ale atu! de Ali (Allah be pleased with him) had a woman stoned from the people of Kufah. He lashed her on Thurday and stoned her on Friday, and said: “I flogged her according to the Book of Allah (Qur’an) and stoned her in accordance to the Sunnah of Allah’s Prophet peace be upon him.” (Musnad Ahmad) Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the Messiah and Mujaddid(Reformer) of the 14" century after Hijrah, affirmed Rajm (lapidation) as the punishment for adultery: Pov SPALL LWA LevAL doo at “Allah Most High clearly commands in the Holy Qur’an that the hand of the thief be cut and the adulterer stoned.” Reference: Ruhani Khaza’in; v. 6, p. 252 Similarly, Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s son and second successor, the great Musleh (reformer), Hadrat Mirza Mahmud Ahmad wrote: Pt Pt woke § GF — ase Ut Grose hs oi ot UP Sie Oe ut? Me SP Sal SAS ut ok Lt bast Dot olla ue “A change connected with the time of the Promised Mes- siah, and mentioned by the Holy Prophet, is the abrogation of penalties prescribed by the criminal law of Islam. Hazrat Ali has narrated according to Dailmy, that one sign of the latter days would be the abrogation of statutory penalties. The sign has been fulfilled. In all Islamic governments today Islamic penalties have disappeared. In Turkey, Arabia, Egypt, and Iran, and even in Afghanistan, ‘stoning for adul- tery’ and ‘cutting off the hand for theft’ are no longer rec- ognized punishments. Some Muslim governments have agreed to their abrogation under treaty agreements with other countries. This is a clear and a significant sign. When Muslim governments were prosperous and Islamic ideas prevailed, nobody could think that Islamic penalties would ever be set aside. Nobody could imagine that there wouldarise such a general prejudice against the use of Islamic pen- alties that even those Islamic governments who wished to retain these penalties would be unable to do so.” Reference: Da’ wat ul Amir; p. 417