Have you ever noticed that Islamic law prescribes
stoning for some adulterers, while the Quran
itself speaks of lashes instead? How do Muslims
explain that tension? Let us start with what
the Quran clearly says. In Surah 24, verse 2,
in Pickthall's translation, we read that the
adulterer and the adulteress are to be scourged
with 100 stripes, and that believers should not
let pity stop them from carrying out this punishment.
This is a straightforward command to use lashes,
not stoning. Yet when we turn to the hadith literature,
we find that Muhammad himself ordered stoning
for adultery. For example, in Sahih al -Bukhari,
Book 9, Volume 93, Hadith 633, Ibn Umar reports
that a Jewish man and woman were brought to Muhammad
on a charge of illegal sexual intercourse. Muhammad
asked the Jews what their usual punishment was,
and they said they blackened the faces of the
guilty and disgraced them. He then told them
to bring the Torah and have it recited. When
the reader tried to cover a portion with his
hand, Muhammad told him to lift his hand. Underneath
was the verse prescribing stoning, the verse
of Ar -Rajm. The Jewish leaders then admitted
that stoning was the true ruling. Muhammad ordered
both offenders to be stoned, and they were put
to death by stoning. A similar report appears
in Bukhari, Book 6, Volume 60, Hadith 79. This
ties in with the Old Testament law, which commands
stoning for adultery in Leviticus chapter 20,
verse 10, and in Deuteronomy chapter 22, verse
24. So why did Muhammad apply the stoning penalty
when the Quran speaks plainly of lashes? Muslim
scholars generally offer two reasons. The first
possible reason is that Muhammad may have treated
the Torah as a binding and even higher authority
in legal matters for the Jews and at times for
himself. In Surah 5, verses 43 and 44, in Pickthall's
translation, the Quran asks why the Jews come
to Muhammad for judgment when they already have
the Torah in which Allah has delivered judgment
for them. It then says that Allah revealed the
Torah in which there is guidance and light. and
that the prophets, as well as the rabbis and
priests, judged the Jews by that scripture. It
says that whoever does not judge by what Allah
has revealed is a disbeliever. Ibn Ishaq's biography
of Muhammad gives us a vivid scene. On page 260,
he reports that the apostle entered a Jewish
school and called them to God. When they asked
him what his religion was, he replied that his
religion was the religion of Abraham. They answered
that Abraham was a Jew, Muhammad then said, Then
let the Torah judge between us. They refused.
This shows that Muhammad himself at one point
appealed to the Torah as a decisive authority
in disputes. The second reason offered is even
more directly related to abrogation. There is
a tradition that a verse commanding stoning for
adultery once formed part of the Quran itself.
According to this view, the verse of stoning
abrogated the lashing verse. even though the
stoning verse is no longer found in the Quranic
text. One important report comes from Sahih Muslim
. In this narration, Abdullah ibn Abbas relates
that Umar ibn al -Khattab sat on the pulpit and
said that Allah sent Muhammad with the truth
and sent down the book to him, and that the verse
of stoning was included in what was revealed.
Umar says that they recited it. memorized it
and understood it, and that the Prophet applied
the punishment of stoning to married adulterers.
Umar then warns that he fears a time will come
when people will say they do not find stoning
in the Book of Allah and that they will go astray
by abandoning this duty. He insists that stoning
is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married
men and women who commit adultery when there
is proof, pregnancy, or confession. Another striking
narration appears in Sunan ibn Majah, number
1944. There Aisha is reported to have said that
the verse about stoning adulterers and the verse
about an adult being made a foster son through
ten sucklings were revealed. She explains that
these verses were later abrogated, yet they remained
written on a document kept under her bed. After
the Messenger of Allah died, she says, and they
were occupied with his death and burial, a domestic
goat entered the house and ate that document.
This report is translated by Muhammad Mahdi al
-Sharif in Volume 2, page 204, published by Dar
al -Khutob al -Ilmiya. Think about what this
implies. Here we have a verse of stoning that
Umar calls a duty in the Book of Allah, and Aisha
says that this text was once written down but
was physically destroyed by a goat. The verse
that commands lashes for adultery remains in
the Qur 'an. But many jurists argue that its
ruling is abrogated by a lost stoning verse that
is no longer in the text. Now here is the serious
theological problem. In Surah 15 verse 9, the
Qur 'an declares that Allah Himself will guard
the reminder, meaning the Qur 'an, from corruption.
If a verse that supposedly lays down such a serious
legal penalty can disappear because a goat ate
the written copy, how does that fit with the
claim that Allah is the protector of the Quran?
If the abrogating verse is lost while the abrogated
verse remains, then the community is left with
a softer penalty in the text and a harsher penalty
preserved only in memory and tradition. So we
are left with some important questions. How can
a lost verse override a verse that everyone can
still read? How can the doctrine of abrogation
allow for an abrogating verse to vanish while
the abrogated verse remains in the Quran? And
how can the claim that Allah protects His Book
be reconciled with reports that key parts of
it were eaten by an animal? These are not merely
academic puzzles. They go to the heart of how
Muslims understand revelation, preservation,
and authority in their own sources.