Adultery in Islam from two different angles: Traditional Islam vs Quranism – Part I


In this article (defining our terms), Traditional Islam is Sunnism and Quranism is the belief that the Quran is the supposed sole authority of sharia in Islam.

I have recently been investigating details on the adultery penalty in Traditional Islam compared to Quranist Islam. I would like to share them with you if you are interested in truth, because a part of truth is to hear your “opponent”, although I don’t want to be one.

The subject is adultery in the Quran and sunnah. Lately, I’ve had the chance to read a book on the interpretation of chapter 24 (Tafseer Surat An-Noor by M. A Al-Hasan and A. F Abu Albah – dated 1983. Old, I know), where the first part exclusively dealt with the penalties and regulations of adultery in “Islam”. I found them to be awfully bigot and contradicting. I still don’t understand why any Muslim woman ever got into an Islam-ruled marriage.

Moving on, this book preaches that chapter 24 is dealing with the social relationship between men and women, highlighting the act of fahisha. The writer/s insisted that adultery is, indeed, an act of fahisha – thus saying that 24:2 is an abrogation of 4:15-16.

I wish to discuss the penalty of adultery in traditional Islam with you bit by bit, simply because it is a must. The first detail includes abrogation in the Quran.

Although the Quran mentions that a verse (ayah, actually) could have been abrogated (and only ONCE, being 2:106), there’s a big chance “abrogation/naskh” in the Quran means something else. Well, whether it means abrogation or not, who said you can “cancel” one verse using another? What logic would allow this? All based on a possible contradiction you found? What about the many verses that state the Quran is clear, comprehensive, and of no fault (39:28, 41:3, 10:37, etc)? So in what name dare you annul or abolish a certain law made by the deity you acknowledge as GOD by another law made by Him when you have previously learned that no contradictions exist?

In fact, 39:28 mentions the Quran is free of awaj, literally meaning something free of crookedness. The Quran is thus straight-forward, and so, there is no chance of sudden “turn-backs”. And yet, some scholars of traditional Islam recognizes such turn-backs under the name of abrogation.

4:15, roughly speaking, states that if “women” among you commit a fahisha, and four witnesses gave testimony against them, they should be sentenced to house-arrest for life or until “God helps them find a way out”. Then 4:16 states that, if “two of you” commit it, then you should hurt them; that, if they repent, you can stop. Traditionally, 4:15 is an exclusive call against “obscene” women while 4:16 can be general (considering the grammar rules of Classical Arabic) and yet is not (to them). To them the verses say that (as the writer himself explained) if a woman commits such an obscenity, she would be locked up in her own house for life or until God offers her a way out, and if a man commits the same level of crime (the crime at level fahisha) would only be rebuked and admonished.

You think this is bigot? Wait ’till we discuss more of this. This, after all, if you are a traditional Muslim, the religion you settled for, and are thus obliged to study and know it.

Anyway, the entire point is that 4:15-16 were abrogated by 24:2. But let us, for a moment, imagine a world where no “contradiction” such as this was ever found (no, reader, it is not a contradiction, but a technicality). We have two options: ONE, we either say that a fahisha can be something horrible, but non-sexual, or that, TWO, “adultery” in the Quran could be something horrible, but non-sexual. Either ways, those two verses will have to work together, in harmony. Only one can be about adultery (if you think it’s about adultery anyway – I don’t), and only one can be about fahisha, and yes, either “adultery” or fahisha is sexual, but not both. Adultery can not be fahisha neither be a part of it, and vice versa.

Now, was it so hard to find a way to fit both statements of LAW in one book without having to abrogate either of the two?

Advertisements

“Stoning” from a Quranist’s perspective


Onto more serious matters. Stoning (Ar Rajm – RJM) has been mentioned a lot recently (in particular on this FB post in the QRAC group) and I thought it would be useful to a have a list handy of the facts about what the Quran says about it.

This is clipped from http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11237.msg267101#msg267101 please visit for the full article, excerpt is below:

“Look in the Qur’an and read WHO is saying they will do the RJM and to whom, and why.
in 11:91 the people to whom Shuayb was sent, say it to him because they don’t want to obey the message.
in 18:20 the people in the city will want to RJM the one in the cave OR return him to THEIR religion.
in 44:20 the messenger sent to the people of the Pharoah seeks refuge in Allah in case the people of the Pharoah want to RJM him.
in 19:46 Ibrahim’s father said it to Ibrahim because he didn’t agree with Ibrahim telling him not to worship the Shaytan.
in 36:18 2 messengers, strengthened by a 3rd are sent to the companions of the city and it is the people who don’t want to obey the message who want to RJM the messengers
in 26:116 The people who Nuh was trying to warn didn’t want to obey the message so they threatened to RJM him.”

And here is another link:
http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.pl/md/read/id/314123119157718

And another which talks about “The Goat that eats up the Quranic Verse” and the “Stoning of adulterous monkeys”: http://www.quranic.org/quran_article/26/rajm_stoning_to_death.htm#205

Abrogation links:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_196918190318799&view=doc&id=222535794423705
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_196918190318799&view=doc&id=222546194422665
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45298097/John-Burton-Islamic-Theories-of-Abrogation
http://www.youquran.com/Ubaid-nasikh-wa-mansukh-Burton.pdf

Word Studies
https://quranistvoices.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/more-on-rajim-outcast-or-pelted-with-stones/
https://quranistvoices.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/rajeem-kareem/
http://search.quranaddict.co.uk/search/label/rajm

PS. The Quranists.net page has been updated on FaceBook – please take a look here, and press “like” – Many thanks! 🙂

“Hijab Errors” Video


I’ve seen this video a couple of times in different Facebook groups:

hijab errors quran quranist quranists quranism

Sorry but I humbly say I personally believe this kind of video makes new converts leave Islam. Especially seeing as the concept of “hijab” is not even in the Qur’an. I personally find this video repulsive and offensive, and sad. And I find it condescending, close-minded and sarcastic. To the maker of this video. Please read the Qur’an and stop judging people and inciting division by making people feel guilty for practising their faith the best way they know how. And shouldn’t we be following the teachings of the Qur’an and judging by the scripture and not the teachings of man? I really will be very surprised if anyone can find anything in the Qur’an about covering hair, wearing pink, wearing sparkly fabric, wearing perfume. The claim in this video is that wearing perfume is adultery!! Please! Next it will be those who don’t use unscented soap, or those that wear anti-perspirant. Or those that wear freshly laundered socks. Yeah I know people love to argue about socks. Specifically whether they must be on or off for prayers. Well I am sure it will factor in, in the decision making process, what they smell like. If they smell of the perfume of the soap powder you’d better not wear them, especially not for prayers.

My sincere wish for all my muslim sisters is that we can try to uphold the teachings of the Qur’an and abandon all falsehood.

See Noble Qur’an 7:26 and 17:46 and 5:44
The word for hair in Arabic is ashʿārihā and can be found in the Qur’an in Chapter 16 verse 80
And PS “socks” is not in.