Stoning; where is it found in the Holy Quran?

[hadez803]

n

Edited December 13, 2009 by hadez803

[guest 34193]

It is not in the current masHaf, however both Sunnis and Shi`as have ahadith that refer to it having been revealed as a Quranic ayat. From our books:

In Man La Yahdarahu al-Faqih:

4998 æÑæì åÔÇã Èä ÓÇáã¡ Úä ÓáíãÇä Èä ÎÇáÏ ÞÇá: (ÞáÊ áÇÈì ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã: Ýí ÇáÞÑÂä ÑÌã¿ ÞÇá: äÚã¡ ÞáÊ: ßíÝ¿ ÞÇá: (ÇáÔíÎ æÇáÔíÎÉ ÝÇÑÌãæåãÇ ÇáÈÊÉ ÝÇäåãÇ ÞÖíÇ ÇáÔåæÉ)

And Hisham b. Salim narrated from Sulayman b. Khalid. He said: I said to Abu `Abdillah (as): Is stoning in the Quran? He said: "The shaykh and the shaykha, so stone them decidedly for they have carried out lust."

In al-Kafi:

æÈÅÓäÇÏå¡ Úä íæäÓ¡ Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÓäÇä ÞÇá: ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã: ÇáÑÌã Ýí ÇáÞÑÂä Þæá Çááå ÚÒæÌá: ÅÐÇ Òäì ÇáÔíÎ æÇáÔíÎÉ ÝÇÑÌãæåãÇ ÇáÈÊÉ ÝÅäåãÇ ÞÖíÇ ÇáÔåæÉ (1).

And by his isnad from Yunus from `Abdullah b. Sinan. He said: Abu `Abdillah (as) said: Stoning in the Quran is His, `azza wa jalla, saying "When the shaykh and the shaykha have fornicated then stone them decidedly for they have carried out lust."

This verse as I said is not found in the current masHaf, so it would mean either one of two things. One, is that it is a case of naskh tilawa, that is abrogation of recitation (but not ruling), or that there has been tahrif in the masHaf and this verse was not included as a result of that. Obviously most scholars would opt for the former.

[.InshAllah.]

^A third option would be those ahadith are forgeries but we don't know who the liars are, if you don't believe in tahrif and regard naskh tilawa implausible. A fourth would be taqiyyah.

Edited December 14, 2009 by .InshAllah.

[lion]

The slightest tahrif would certainly destroy the entire religion. One single word taken out or put in results in a fallible book, That in my understanding is not possible.

[guest 34193]

The slightest tahrif would certainly destroy the entire religion. One single word taken out or put in results in a fallible book, That in my understanding is not possible.

It might destroy it if we didn't have a living infallible on Earth guarding the correct revelation. But as we do, tahrif in the masHaf would not effect the proof of our religion. And fact is, there was tahrif, no one can deny this. Unless you really can believe that the Quran was revealed ten times or more to account for all the differences in qira'at, wherein you will find actual differences.

[Zahra Ruhullah]

I can't find my original post?

So how then do we explain to our non-muslim friends in regards to this? While I do understand that not everything is found literally in the Holy Quran but in the ahadith but in this case, wouldn't it be a bit... extreme? Cuz we are talking about lives, taking one's life..

And please, I am no arab, so I appreciate if you can use English term to explain ... whats tahrif, mashaf...??

[The Persian Shah]

And fact is, there was tahrif, no one can deny this.

^ The different versions do not necessitate the distortion (tahreef) of the Qur`an. Amongst the 10 or so variations, one is correct. Other incorrect copies =/= tahreef..

[lion]

Is this about differences in qiraat or content?

[The Persian Shah]

In fact, the shi'i ulema have also taken up research in this issue, and identified the incorrect variations. With reasoning and explanations, they firmly believe in one Qur`an..

Is this about differences in qiraat or content?

Primarily, differences in qiraat, but, they can be so different that they change the meaning in some places also..

[lion]

Brother shah , perhaps im ignorant in that regard, do you mind to show me some examples?

[Awakened]

Just as there are possible meanings to verses, then can be different possible readings, but you can know of different possible readings (which are not much, and there is very few where meaning is changed and which you can probably figure out which one is true).

While if you say verses are missing and what not, you don't know where they are suppose to be, how many verses are missing, etc... It's a whole different thing.

[guest 34193]

In fact, the shi'i ulema have also taken up research in this issue, and identified the incorrect variations. With reasoning and explanations, they firmly believe in one Qur`an..

I rather doubt they have. Which qira'at would have they decided is the correct one, if any of them? (I mean other than the one that the Ahl al-Bayt (as) know)

Primarily, differences in qiraat, but, they can be so different that they change the meaning in some places also..

Some examples, these are between the Hafs and Warsh qira'at (keep in mind there are seven famous recitations, though in fact there are more):

2:140 - in Hafs "taqooloona" you say, in Warsh "yaqooloona" they say

2:259 - in Hafs "nunshizuhaa" we grow them, in Warsh "nunshiruhaa" we spread them

3:146 - in Hafs "qaatala" fought, in Warsh "qutila" was killed

5:53 - in Hafs "wa yaqoolua" in Warsh "yaqoolu" (without the wa "and" at the beginning)

43:19 - in Hafs "`ibaad" slaves, in Wash "`inda" with

That is only some examples of differences between two recitations, there are more between the two. Now take ten recitations and you can get an idea of the variation that exists.

Our belief though is that there is only one Quran. The Imams (as) possess the true knowledge of it, and thus through them we can see the Quran in fact being protected on Earth. Since Sunnis don't believe in the Imams, they resort to the explanation that all of the recitations are valid and that the Quran was revealed multiple times including them all. So sometimes with a "fa" or a "wa" and sometimes without in an ayat for instance.

Whether one likes to call this tahreef or not, I don't see what else it is as it means that there are versions of the recitation of Quran in circulation that have mistakes in them. Now, saying some verses or words were not included that are part of the actual Quran as another level of tahreef is obviously going a step further. However, fact is Shi`as and Sunnis have hadiths like the above one on stoning that state something to have been a verse or part of a verse, yet we don't find it in the current masHaf (masHaf meaning the printed copy). It's also known for instance that there were at least two other variant versions in circulation for some time afterwards (the versions of Ibn Mas`ud and Ubayy b. Ka`b ) that did have actual differences with the so-called `Uthmanic version.

All of this is a nightmare for Sunnism, hence most of them get fed this idea that the differences in qira'at are all just dialectical differences of the different tribes. That falls short though when you actually look at some of these differences. With us though, it does not at all present the same problem as we can point to the continued existence of an infallible Imam on Earth who retains a perfect knowledge of the Quran as it was revealed (as well as the knowledge of the authentic Sunna). If anything, this demonstrates yet another reason why there has to be a Ma`sum Imam, otherwise you fall into the problems that Sunnism just doesn't have a believable answer to.

[Qa'im]

(salam)

Brother MacIsaac, I don't think the issue of tahrif is as simple as you are putting it. Firstly, due to the sensitivity of the issue it does require more caution. Many of our main, early classical scholars held the opinion that the Qur'an was in fact not corrupted. Sheikh Saduq held this opinion. As for al-Mufid however seems to have two opinions attributed to him. The first is very clear; in Awail al-Maqalat, Mufid says that Qur'an's original order has been changed but no additions have been made to text. What is missing is not part of the text, but instead, the interpretation. The second attribution is one I'm sure you familiar with, from Masa'il al-Sarawiya, which says there are omissions in the Qur'an.

Even if both were the opinions of al-Mufid, Awail al-Maqalat was his later work, therefore if Mufid had held the opinion before that the Qur'an was corrupted, he had later changed it. However al-Khoei says that when Najashi in his rijal mention al-Mufid, he doesn't mention any work by the name of M asail al-Sarawiya, therefore this work is not proven to be from al-Mufid.

On top of that, students of al-Mufid like at-Tusi and al-Murtada don't seem to have believed in tahrif.

Instead we have many authentic narrations of the A'immah (as) in all of our books telling us to stick to the Qur'an, and practically no narrations with a real sahih authenticity that allude to tahrif. The Qur'an is to be protected the same way Ahl al-Bayt (as) was protected.

As for the different qira'at, my theory is that the Quran is both with us here and with the Imam. So the Quran with a complete and correct qira'a is with the Imam (as), and with us we have several differing qiraat. However, the correct qira'a can possibly be with us simultaneously, but existing in different versions at the same time. In other words, no one qira'a is fully right, but some are right in different ways, and we cannot differentiate between which is right and which is not until the Imam (as) is back, bringing with him the pure qira'a and interpretations.

[Jondab_Azdi]

Even if both were the opinions of al-Mufid, Awail al-Maqalat was his later work, therefore if Mufid had held the opinion before that the Qur'an was corrupted, he had later changed it. However al-Khoei says that when Najashi in his rijal mention al-Mufid, he doesn't mention any work by the name of M asail al-Sarawiya, therefore this work is not proven to be from al-Mufid.

Shaykh Tusi also didn't mention any work with this name.

Åäø äÓÈÉ åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈ Åáì ÇáÔíÎ ÇáãÝíÏ : ÞÏøÓ ÓÑøå : áã ÊËÈÊ¡ æáã íÐßÑ ÇáäÌÇÔí æÇáÔíÎ áå ßÊÇÈÇð íÓãøì ÈÇáãÓÇÆá ÇáÓÑæíÉ

---

Regarding those who believed in tahrif, Sharif al-Murtada (ar) said. . .

"Only a group of traditionists who do not understand what they are saying nor know where they are going, those who always follow narratives and submit to whatever is quoted, whether true or false, without any thought or reflection, whose views are not worth attention.

As for the scholars, theologians, and rational debaters of our schools such as Abu Jafar ibn Qiba, Abu'l Ahwas, the Nawbakhtis, and their predecessor and successors, we have never come across any opinion among them concerning alleged omission in the text of Qur'an."

w/s

[Rohani]

Shaykh Tusi also didn't mention any work with this name.

Åäø äÓÈÉ åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈ Åáì ÇáÔíÎ ÇáãÝíÏ : ÞÏøÓ ÓÑøå : áã ÊËÈÊ¡ æáã íÐßÑ ÇáäÌÇÔí æÇáÔíÎ áå ßÊÇÈÇð íÓãøì ÈÇáãÓÇÆá ÇáÓÑæíÉ

---

Regarding those who believed in tahrif, Sharif al-Murtada (ar) said. . .

"Only a group of traditionists who do not understand what they are saying nor know where they are going, those who always follow narratives and submit to whatever is quoted, whether true or false, without any thought or reflection, whose views are not worth attention.

As for the scholars, theologians, and rational debaters of our schools such as Abu Jafar ibn Qiba, Abu'l Ahwas, the Nawbakhtis, and their predecessor and successors, we have never come across any opinion among them concerning alleged omission in the text of Qur'an."

w/s

(salam)

akhi jondab what do you say about stoning? in your studying of hadith have you found this permissible or impermissible? just wondering what you would say to such a thing.

(wasalam)

[Jondab_Azdi]

(salam)

akhi jondab what do you say about stoning? in your studying of hadith have you found this permissible or impermissible? just wondering what you would say to such a thing.

(wasalam)

Stoning is a legal Islamic punishment. The hadith posted by Br. Macisaac is authentic. The verse of stoning was abrogated from recitation but the ruling remains.

w/s

[individualist]

Not only stoning is not a prescribed punishment for adultery in the Quran, the fact is Quran prescribes flogging for both fornication and adultery.

Now, STUPID Sunnis say that there used to be a stoning verse but this verse was removed while the ruling still holds!!! Really? Why would God instruct the prophet to remove the verse of stoning *while keeping* the verses which say that flogging is the punishment for adultery??!!!

Now, Sunnis give two very laughable answers to this question:

1- God wants to test us!!!

2- God wants to show that Muslims will carry His orders (of stoning) even though it's not in His book unlike the Jews who dropped stoning despite being in their books!!!

It is unbelievable how stupid those Sunni scholars are! The ruling in the Quran says flogging... no stoning whatsoever! there is absolutely no point of keeping the ruling of flogging adulterers while removing the *alleged* final say in this which is *supposedly* stoning!

And by the way, the *corrupted* Torah prescribes stoning for A LOT of things (including adultery/fornication). Eg. disobedient kids? Stone them! A man disrespect priests? Stone him! A man curses? Stone him! Someone worked on a Saturday? Stone them! Stone! Stone! Stone! is all over the corrupted Torah!

What I personally think is, Muslims many years after the death of the prophet had a good chance to read other scriptures (includin the Torah) and they liked the idea of stoning unfaithful wives... so they forged these Hadiths about the prophet stoning people to death!

Besides, think about it for a second. The harm of an adulterer is really small compared to the harm caused by a killer, for example... YET the killer dies swiftly by the sword while the adulterer dies the MOST PAINFUL death imaginable! Stones start raining on him breaking his bones, liquifying his flesh, slow, painful, torture until he finally dies!!! Stoning is not only killing.. it's killing after a long agonizing torture! And all for what? Because he cheated on his wife? That's it? And a killer dies swiftly even though he KILLED someone?! Think! Think! This ruling of stoning was stolen from the corrupted Torah (which prescribes this horrible punishment for all sorts of trivial sins... even for disobedient kids or collecting sticks on a Saturday!)

Read : AlNur: 1-8

Also read here:

4:25

And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they committ FAHISHA, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is better for you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[The Persian Shah]

I rather doubt they have. Which qira'at would have they decided is the correct one, if any of them? (I mean other than the one that the Ahl al-Bayt know)

I heard it in person from Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi that they have. He confirmed the real differences (mistakes) in various versions coming out of Saudia Arabi, but explained how this does not negate the fact that one out of all the different versions is correct though. I can't recall whether he said which version is the correct one, but I do remember he said that the one we have here (in the masjid in Qom where I saw him) is the correct one and all the other erroneous ones have been removed from there..

Why do you seem suprised that the scholars have been able to decipher this though ? Do you think it throws your proof for the Imam [AJTF] out the window ?

[iraqi_shia]

It might destroy it if we didn't have a living infallible on Earth guarding the correct revelation. But as we do, tahrif in the masHaf would not effect the proof of our religion. And fact is, there was tahrif, no one can deny this. Unless you really can believe that the Quran was revealed ten times or more to account for all the differences in qira'at, wherein you will find actual differences.

The problem that I have with this theory is that, we have no access to the Imam AS, and theoretically no book to follow. What are lay people like me supposed to do? If I dont know what parts are right/wrong, then assuming is pointless, we are basically left wondering. Im obviously pushing to the absolute logical conclusion, but I think my point is valid.

Therefore I find this type of theory difficult to accept, I cant justify anything with hadiths or rajal analysis, but it just seems to go against the purpose, or grain of Islam.

[individualist]

I heard it in person from Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi that they have. He confirmed the real differences (mistakes) in various versions coming out of Saudia Arabi, but explained how this does not negate the fact that one out of all the different versions is correct though. I can't recall whether he said which version is the correct one, but I do remember he said that the one we have here (in the masjid in Qom where I saw him) is the correct one and all the other erroneous ones have been removed from there..

The Quran I read from Saudi Arabia is EXACTLY the same electronic Quran I read from Iran.

http://www.al-shia.org/html/far/quran/quran_a.php?language=ara〈=txt&translator_far=&sure=5&n_aye1=41&n_aye2=41

[Awakened]

I rather doubt they have. Which qira'at would have they decided is the correct one, if any of them? (I mean other than the one that the Ahl al-Bayt (as) know)

Some examples, these are between the Hafs and Warsh qira'at (keep in mind there are seven famous recitations, though in fact there are more):

2:140 - in Hafs "taqooloona" you say, in Warsh "yaqooloona" they say

2:259 - in Hafs "nunshizuhaa" we grow them, in Warsh "nunshiruhaa" we spread them

3:146 - in Hafs "qaatala" fought, in Warsh "qutila" was killed

5:53 - in Hafs "wa yaqoolua" in Warsh "yaqoolu" (without the wa "and" at the beginning)

43:19 - in Hafs "`ibaad" slaves, in Wash "`inda" with

That is only some examples of differences between two recitations, there are more between the two. Now take ten recitations and you can get an idea of the variation that exists.

Our belief though is that there is only one Quran. The Imams (as) possess the true knowledge of it, and thus through them we can see the Quran in fact being protected on Earth. Since Sunnis don't believe in the Imams, they resort to the explanation that all of the recitations are valid and that the Quran was revealed multiple times including them all. So sometimes with a "fa" or a "wa" and sometimes without in an ayat for instance.

Whether one likes to call this tahreef or not, I don't see what else it is as it means that there are versions of the recitation of Quran in circulation that have mistakes in them. Now, saying some verses or words were not included that are part of the actual Quran as another level of tahreef is obviously going a step further. However, fact is Shi`as and Sunnis have hadiths like the above one on stoning that state something to have been a verse or part of a verse, yet we don't find it in the current masHaf (masHaf meaning the printed copy). It's also known for instance that there were at least two other variant versions in circulation for some time afterwards (the versions of Ibn Mas`ud and Ubayy b. Ka`b ) that did have actual differences with the so-called `Uthmanic version.

All of this is a nightmare for Sunnism, hence most of them get fed this idea that the differences in qira'at are all just dialectical differences of the different tribes. That falls short though when you actually look at some of these differences. With us though, it does not at all present the same problem as we can point to the continued existence of an infallible Imam on Earth who retains a perfect knowledge of the Quran as it was revealed (as well as the knowledge of the authentic Sunna). If anything, this demonstrates yet another reason why there has to be a Ma`sum Imam, otherwise you fall into the problems that Sunnism just doesn't have a believable answer to.

Salam

Can you bring proof of this, this is the first time I hear there is difference in letters and not the stuff that goes on top like Fathas.

[.InshAllah.]

A large number of ulema inc sayid Khoi would say that the only qira'ah that is mutawatir is the one the we all have at home (hafs), whilst all the others are non mutawatir, therefore rejected.

[The Persian Shah]

The Quran I read from Saudi Arabia is EXACTLY the same electronic Quran I read from Iran.

http://www.al-shia.o...e1=41&n_aye2=41

but I do remember he said that the one we have here (in the masjid in Qom where I saw him) is the correct one and all the other erroneous ones have been removed from there..

"masjid in Qom" ≠ "Iran". In fact, I didn't even say which masjid it was..

[individualist]

"masjid in Qom" ≠ "Iran". In fact, I didn't even say which masjid it was..

what are you saying exactly? That the rest of Muslims (outside that mosque in Qom) are all using corrupted versions of the Quran?

[The Persian Shah]

what are you saying exactly? That the rest of Muslims (outside that mosque in Qom) are all using corrupted versions of the Quran?

No, just that the people inside that mosque are definitely using the right one..

[individualist]

No, just that the people inside that mosque are definitely using the right one..

Translation: Everyone outside that mosque are possibly using the wrong version.

Edited December 15, 2009 by individualist

[The Persian Shah]

Translation: Everyone outside that mosque are possibly using the wrong version.

Correct..

[individualist]

fascinating!

[guest 34193]

fascinating!

I don't know enough about what research was undertaken under the Shaykh. However that said, ask yourself, do you believe that the Holy Quran was in fact revealed ten times or more with these variations we find in the qira'at? Or, do you believe there is one Quran? If the latter, how is one to regard all these variants that have been in circulation for centuries? Sticking your fingers in your ears and denying they exist doesn't just make them go away...

[individualist]

First off... please don't confuse the 10 Qira'at with the 7 Ahruf.

The 10 Qira'at are basically 10 different Arabic "accents" or dialects (words are the same but pronounced differently).

The 7 Ahruf is a different story. The text overall is basically the same but there are few tiny wording changes here and there BUT with the same meaning, the same message, the same Quran..

Anyway, all these stories of different 7 Ahruf come in Hadith... and I don't care whether they're true or false... but I know this: God must have protected His final message...

moreover, it is rather ridiculous for anyone to believe that the true message is hidden in some mosque, in some town, in some country WHILE the rest of the people, the world over, are given the false message!

[guest 34193]

The 10 Qira'at are basically 10 different Arabic "accents" or dialects (words are the same but pronounced differently).

The 7 Ahruf is a different story. The text overall is basically the same but there are few tiny wording changes here and there BUT with the same meaning, the same message, the same Quran..

So I take it you've never actually read them then, other than what you've found in the copy you own (likely Hafs). Because if you did, you'd see this isn't a case of different accents, but of actual differences in meanings. See some of the differences cites above between Hafs and Warsh. There's more. Again, for us this doesn't prove quite the dilemna it would to you, since we could say the Quran was still intact on Earth, perfectly, with the living Imam (as). You don't believe in him, so where then according to you is the perfectly intact, unaltered without the slightest difference from its revelation (not even by one vowel), Holy Quran as revealed by Allah ta`ala?

[individualist]

Are you claiming that you have the 7 Ahruf? I only saw examples to explain the trivial textual differences... (and of course, I never was necessarily convinced that these examples were genuine... especially that the Sunni Hadith explaining the reason for 7 Ahruf was very very laughable).

Besides, as far as I'm concerned my understanding of protecting God's word is protecting God's message.

According to you, the 7 Ahruf (7 versions of the Quran) have different *messages* or meanings... until you produce these texts (in Arabic of course), then you have no point.

Moreover, I don't believe that the Quran is the uncorrupted word of God just because the Quran says so! I AM convinced in this message I read (especially in Arabic), the logic and the elequonce can only come from GOD!

Otherwise... if it's entirely blind belief, then I would have believed in the Bible, for example, or Vedas or Zorostrian text, etc, etc... like I said in another thread: the Quran makes sense to me and that's why I believe it when it claims that it's the uncorruptible word of God. It's not entirely a matter of faith.

Finally, if the Imams have the correct version, aren't they obliged to divulge the truth to the rest of the World? Why are they hiding the truth? God is telling them to hide His true message from us?

[avjar7]

(salam)

Don't know if this has been posted, but we have a hadith through multiple routes which state that the stoning of a muhsan adulterer has been suspended until the rising of al-Qa'im عليه السلام.

From al-Kafi:

http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-hadis/al-kafi-3/24.htm

5767 - 5 - عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن محمد بن الحسن بن شمون، عن عبدالله بن عبدالرحمن، عن مالك بن عطية، عن أبان بن تغلب قال: قال لي أبوعبدالله (عليه السلام): دمان في الاسلام حلال من الله لا يقضى فيهما أحد حتى يبعث الله قائمنا أهل البيت فاذا بعث الله عزوجل قائمنا أهل البيت حكم فيهما بحكم الله لا يريد عليهما بينة: الزاني المحصن يرجمه ومانع الزكاة يضرب عنقه. (2)

عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد، عن محمد بن علي، عن موسى ابن سعدان، عن عبدالله بن القاسم، عن مالك بن عطية، عن أبان بن تغلب، عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) نحوه.

"Two bloods in Islam are halal from Allah, no one is to rule regarding them until Allah sends our Qa'im of the Ahlul Bayt, who will rule in them by the ruling of Allah: Stone the muhsan zani, and cut the neck of the one who holds back zakat."

Sheikh al-Sadouq's 'Iqaab al-'Amal:

http://www.alseraj.net/maktaba/kotob/hadith/zawab/html/ara/books/savab_alamal/15.htm#link5

حدثني محمد بن علي ماجيلويه عن محمد بن علي الكوفي عن موسى بن شعبان عن عبد الله بن القاسم عن مالك بن عطية عن أبان بن تغلب قال قال أبو عبد الله (ع) ذنبان في الإسلام لا يقضي فيهما أحد بحكم الله عز و جل حتى يقوم قائمنا الزاني المحصن يرجمه و مانع الزكاة يضرب عنقه و ذكر أن في رواية أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله (ع) من منع الزكاة فليمت إن شاء يهوديا أو نصرانيا

Sheikh al-Sadouq's Ikmal al-Deen:

http://www.alhikmeh.com/arabic/mktba/hadith/kamal/22.htm

‎حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن أحمد بن الوليد رضي الله عنه قال حدثنا محمد بن الحسن الصفار عن يعقوب بن يزيد عن محمد بن أبي عمير عن أبان بن عثمان عن أبان بن تغلب...

21- و بهذا الإسناد عن أبان بن تغلب قال قال أبو عبد الله ع دمان في الإسلام حلال من الله عز و جل لا يقضي فيهما أحد بحكم الله حتى يبعث الله عز و جل القائم من أهل البيت ع فيحكم فيهما بحكم الله عز و جل لا يريد على ذلك بينة الزاني المحصن يرجمه و مانع الزكاة يضرب رقبته

Sheikh al-Sadouq's al-Faqih:

http://www.u-of-islam.net/uofislam/maktaba/Hadith/manla/02/a11.htm

1589 وروى أبان بن تغلب (3) عنه عليه السلام أنه قال: " دمان في الاسلام حلال من الله تبارك وتعالى لا يقضي فيهما أحد (4) حتى يبعث الله عزوجل قائمنا أهل البيت فإذا بعث الله عزوجل قائمنا أهل البيت حكم فيهما بحكم الله عزوجل: الزاني المحصن يرجمه، ومانع الزكاة يضرب عنقه

Al-Barqi's al-Mahaasin:

http://al-shia.org/html/ara/books/?mod=hadith&start=170&end=180

28- عنه عن محمد بن علي عن موسى بن سعدان عنعبد الله بن القاسم عن مالك بن عطية عن أبان بن تغلب قال قال أبو عبد الله (ع) دمانفي الإسلام حلال لا يقضي فيهما أحد بحكم الله حتى يقوم قائمنا الزاني المحصن يرجمهو مانع الزكاة يضرب عنقه و في رواية أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله (ع) قال من منع قيراطامن الزكاة فليمت إن شاء يهوديا أو نصرانيا و قال أبو عبد الله (ع) من منع الزكاة فيحياته طلب الكرة بعد موته

Al-Majlisi graded the isnads in al-Kafi "ضعيف على المشهور و آخره مرسل." The paucity of such a method in grading hadith is evident by seeing the exact same matn with the multiple routes it came through. Even if none of the other routes are "sahih," which I don't know if they are or aren't, clearly the multiplicity of chains for this narration speaks to its being traceable back to an imam. And of course if any of the other routes are technically sahih, which they don't need to be to accept this narration, it obviously means that the isnad with the exact same matn that al-Majlisi graded as weak, is obviously truthfully reported, and therefore leveraging his rulings and methods, at least in the way they are employed by some to grade the authenticity of hadiths, has flaws.

On an additional note, right under the narration in 'Iqaab al-'Amal this narration is reported:

أبي (رحمه الله ) قال حدثني سعد بن عبد الله قال حدثني أحمد بن محمد بن خالد عن أبيه عن بعض أصحابنا قال من منع قيراطا من الزكاة فما هو بمؤمن و لا مسلم و قال أبو عبد الله (ع) ما ضاع مال في بر أو بحر إلا بمنع الزكاة و قال إذا قام القائم أخذ مانع الزكاة فضرب عنقه

This says that the one who withholds zakat is neither a mu'min, nor a Muslim, and when al-Qa'im عليه السلام returns he will take them and cut their necks.

There actually seem to be translations of some of these hadiths in chapter 39 of Greater Sins entitled, "The Thirty-seventh Greater Sin: Non–Payment of Zakat."

http://www.al-islam.org/greater_sins_complete/

These hadiths make it clear that for one to be a member of the Muslim community, one must pay zakat. If one fails to do that, they are neither a believer, nor a Muslim. Due to the fact that salat is linked to zakat in the Qur'an, this might intimate that those who do not pray are also neither believers, nor Muslims. And if the hadd for the kufr of not paying zakat cannot be ruled upon during the ghayba, then this might equally apply to the kufr of leaving prayer, and might extend to all actions considered to be apostasy. Thus, the Islamic punishment for apostasy in general might be suspended until re-appearance of Imam al-Mahdi عليه السلام, which means a modern practicing of Islam in terms of governance and intra- and extra-social interaction and attitudes would have to take this into account. Not saying the content of the hadith can be extended this far, but just saying one might want to consider this further.

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله

Edited February 27, 2010 by avjar7

[Jondab_Azdi]

There have always been difference of opinion on this matter. One view is that in the absence of Imam (as) it's permissible for the fuqaha to establish the hudud. One of our earliest scholars, Sallar Daylami (ar). . .

فان تعذر الامر لمانع، فقد فوضوا (1) (ع) إلى الفقهاء إقامة الحدود والاحكام بين الناس بعد أن لا يتعدوا واجبا ولا يتجاوزوا حدا

. . .

http://al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-fqh/almarasim/a154.htm

I don't think the forbiddance of execution of hudud is clear from the hadith you mentioned. Otherwise it would imply that it's forbidden for Imams before al-Qaim (as) too to execute the hadd/rajm and this goes against other ahadith of Imams.

وفي رواية صفوان، وابن المغيرة عمن رواه عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: " إذا اقر الزاني المحصن كان أول من يرجمه الامام ثم الناس، وإذا قامت عليه البينة كان أول من يرجمه البينة ثم الامام، ثم الناس

سئل الصادق (عليه السلام) عن المرجوم يفر (2)، قال: إن كان أقر على نفسه فلا يرد وإن كان شهد عليه الشهود يرد ". وقد روي أنه إن كان أصابه ألم الحجارة فلا يرد وإن لم يكن أصابه ألم الحجارة رد، روى ذلك صفوان عن غير واحد عن أبى بصير عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام)

w/s

Edited February 27, 2010 by Jondab_Azdi

[Jondab_Azdi]

(salam)

Don't know if this has been posted, but we have a hadith through multiple routes which state that the stoning of a muhsan adulterer has been suspended until the rising of al-Qa'im عليه السلام.

Even though the routes are multiple, but it doesn't really reach the level of tawatur and maybe that's the reason many scholars don't consider this narration as hujjah. Here's Ayatullah Montazeri's view about its isnad. Read ( روايت ابان بن تغلب از امام صادق) http://www.amontazeri.com/Farsi/moaod/html/0196.htm and http://www.amontazeri.com/Farsi/moaod/html/0197.htm

w/s

Edited February 27, 2010 by Jondab_Azdi