Reasons for rejecting the punishment of stoning to death in Islamic religious texts:

With the preface that has been mentioned so far in previous sections regarding the criticism of those who advocate stoning to death for “adultery,” in order to complete these prefaces, interpretive, jurisprudential, and rational reasons will be mentioned for the following subject and they will be divided into traditional and rational reasons.

Investigators, including Sheikh Mohammad Abu Zahra, say: Stoning of adulterers is a religious law and ruling of the Jews, and the Prophet initially implemented it due to the societal conditions (for the Jews), and then it was abrogated through the new ruling of verse 2 of Surah An-Nur, which states to flog adulterers one hundred times.

A: Reasons for transportation.

The first reason for rejecting stoning to death (execution by throwing stones):

)

Verse 25 of Surah An-Nisa: “But if they (the female servants) commit a shameful deed, then upon them is half the punishment of free women. This is for those who fear evil deeds from among you; and be patient. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

The argument is that if, for example, a female servant commits adultery, her punishment is stoning until death. Death, which cannot be divided in half, so the punishment must be (torture) in order to be divisible and halved, such as lashes and whipping, which can be divided in half and result in 100 strikes, 50 lashes.

Note: The Qaylin say until death that: the inference of not dividing and halving the punishment for “being free and having freedom” (not being a slave) is adultery, not an indication of not dividing and halving the punishment. “An Qalt” is how they end up.

Answer: This argument is based on the “fallacy of false premise” and that excuse is worse than the sin and outside the scope of our dispute, which is related to the implications of the word “punishment” and accepting the discrimination between slavery and freedom among human beings; whereas Islam considers everyone free and believes in human freedom, and considers slavery as an abnormal and great social harm that, when Islam came, gradually confronted and eradicated it from human societies, from ancient times to the arrival of Islam, due to the root of slavery in human societies, it gradually worked to negate and completely eliminate it. The subject of gradual establishment and legislation of many laws is a fundamental principle of Islamic jurisprudence, which is clearly stated in specific books such as “Atq” -management- correspondence- and “istilad” from the four branches of jurisprudence.

It is clear that belief in social and class discrimination as a corrupt premise in the above argument (supporters of stoning to death) brings about a corrupt outcome (denial of freedom and liberty for the adulterer) and what a terrible and evil fruit this unproductive and poisonous tree of thought has borne throughout human history!

Islam was able to confront and combat this corrupt intellectual phenomenon as far as it developed, and as a result, social groups emerged among them that were referred to as “followers, friends, and brothers” (mawali). One of these followers was named “Ibn Abzi” and he was the governor and ruler of the region of Ahl Wadi during the time of Caliph Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). (Muslim: 817/1/559).

The second reason for rejecting stoning until death:

The heater mentions in his authentic book about stoning pregnant women, from “Abdullah ibn Abi Awfi”, that we do not know whether the Prophet stoned adulterers before or after verse 2 of Surah An-Nur, which is known as the “Verse of Stoning”. Has the verse of An-Nur abrogated the Prophet’s ruling on stoning (taken from previous laws) or is the ruling of stoning still valid?

“If, like the effort of the Prophet, there is an effort that was made in the exchange of prisoners of war in the Battle of Badr and they were freed in exchange for ransom, this effort was made in accordance with verse 67 of Surah Anfal, which states that taking captives during a defensive battle is not permissible.”

And if the prophet has stoned someone after the revelation of the verse of stoning, it is against the Quran that he is a prophet. And also, his effort to pray towards Jerusalem (the Holy House) for 16 years and its abrogation by the verse designating the Kaaba as the qibla (verse 144 of Surah Al-Baqarah) is an example of “abrogated efforts”.

The third reason for rejecting stoning until death:

Another reason is “the verse of cursing”. In Surah Nur, if a man accuses his wife of adultery and has no witnesses except himself, he must testify four times that he is telling the truth and the fifth time he will be cursed by God if he is lying. The punishment will be lifted from the wife if she also testifies four times that he is lying and the fifth time she testifies that God’s curse is upon him, if her husband is truthful. (Verses 6, 7, 8, 9 of Surah Nur).

The argument is that the punishment of lashing is applicable to a married woman, and in this case, the punishment is waived. This punishment is a fresh one, which is doubled for the punishment of the Prophet’s wives (meaning 200 lashes) and halved for servant women (meaning 50 lashes).

It seems that the rule of punishment by execution through testimony in the punishment of adultery means that the adulterer has not received the punishment of stoning for certain reasons and circumstances, not that stoning is specifically designated for the single adulterer, as some claim. This is because in the verse of Lian it is clear that the punishment is stoning and not death. ^{“بهترین آرزوهای من”}

“My best wishes”

Because death is not negotiable, it cannot be reduced or intensified, or decreased or increased, or divided or added… It is not like the punishment of the grave, which can be subject to all these restrictions mentioned in the verses as a logical argument.

The fourth reason for rejecting stoning until death:

Another reason for verse 30 of Surah Al-Ahzab, which says: “O wives of the Prophet, if any of you commits a bad deed, her punishment will be doubled.”

“So the punishment for women is double that of men, meaning 200 lashes, if they commit adultery, while stoning to death (rajm) means death and dying twice. And the punishment in the verse is a worldly punishment, and the reason for it is the letter ‘alif’ and ‘lam’ which indicate the severity of the punishment (refer to the Arabic text of the verse).”

The fifth reason for rejecting stoning until death:

Basically, verse 2 of Surah An-Nur states that adulterers should be punished with 100 lashes, and the Arabic text does not differentiate between married and unmarried adulterers.

The sixth reason for rejecting stoning until death:

“And the verse of imprisonment (verse 15 of Surah Nisa) which indicates keeping a woman in the house until death (eternal imprisonment in the house) due to adultery cannot be followed by stoning, because imprisoning a woman in the house is a form of living and not death. Therefore, this is a reason why stoning is not prescribed, and if it was prescribed in any form, it has been abrogated along with the verses of punishment and harm, gradually replaced by the establishment of laws.”

It is clear that along with verse 2 of Surah An-Nur, this verse, along with verse Al-Adhiyat (16-An-Nisa), have been abrogated. The verse of punishment for adulterers before the revelation of verse 2 of Surah An-Nur, meaning the verse of the fresh wound, through reproach and reprimand and beatings that lead to physical harm. ^{“به مناسبت تولد من”}

(1). “On the occasion of my birthday”

It was not possible and… was being done, which was also revised with a new verse.

The seventh reason for rejecting stoning until death:

Verse 3 of Surah Nur states: “The adulterer does not marry except an adulteress or polytheist, and the adulteress does not marry except an adulterer or polytheist. That is forbidden to the believers.”

Here, marrying a faithful person to a promiscuous woman is considered forbidden, and this is the reason for the survival of the promiscuous woman after receiving the punishment, which is one hundred lashes. However, if the punishment is stoning to death, the woman will not survive after being stoned, and she will not be subject to this punishment if she gets married.

The eighth reason for rejecting stoning until death:

But their claim (those who believe in stoning until death) is that the general words of the Quran are specified by means of hadiths. Previously, it was mentioned that yes, they are specified, but not by hadiths that have doubtful evidence. And when the narrator of the hadith is one person and the one being narrated from is someone else, and the narration is transmitted and transmitted in a way that the source is not known, and the narrator is known for “criticism”, they cannot specify and restrict the Quran, which is certain and established. And describing “individual narration of hadith” for only “the narrator of the event” is not a trivial and insignificant description. But the best choice is yours!

B: Rational reasons.

1. Lexical research is the boundary of stoning, which seems to be not from the specific terms and phrases of jurisprudence and religion that have a true religious meaning, but later, after a long time after Islam, it was transferred to religious truths with a doubtful meaning, like many other linguistic situations. And through this, in its definition (boundary), the jurists do not agree with each other and say that any punishment that has a specific amount is a “boundary” and any punishment that does not have a specific amount is a “retribution” (Allama Hilli). And this definition and interpretation of “boundary” is accepted by many jurists and scholars of Islam.

In the beginning, the word “hadd” was used to mean absolute punishment, such as in the phrase “adru’u al-hudud bi al-shubuhat.” Therefore, for the audience and Muslims, its “linguistic truth” is dominant over its legal truth, if there is one. And the legal truths, such as prayer, pilgrimage, fasting, etc., have not been and are not based on that “linguistic truth” itself, which is absolute punishment. This is because many narrations have come with the meaning of absolute punishment, such as “adru’u al-hudud bi al-shubuhat,” and even in some places, the term “hadd” has not been mentioned in regards to punishments.

(1) “من یک دانشجوی رشته مهندسی هستم”

“I am a student majoring in engineering.”

2. The difference in the level or interpretation of stoning is an important rational reason that requires careful consideration. Even Shia scholars, who differ from other scholars on the level and interpretation of stoning, consider it a matter of “ijtihad” (personal reasoning) rather than “tafwid” (divine decree) and believe that there is no definitive evidence for the level of stoning. This is the result of considering the punishment of stoning as a matter of ijtihad. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the religious ruler to implement, suspend, or replace the punishment of stoning based on the interests, circumstances, time, and place. It is not a divine law that there should be fear of suspension, even if it is considered a punishment, as long as it is outside the general and rational rules and interests of religion.

“Being diligent and enforcing limits and punishments is one of the fundamental principles and essential rules of life. It leads to broader and more fundamental discussions in legal and jurisprudential matters, which are pursued through the use of “contemporary ijtihad” in interpreting the “seven principles”. However, the truth is that it cannot be contained within this framework. The following lines contain some notes on this matter, which it is hoped will be born healthy after the pain of labor, by the will of God, away from the eyes of the envious. Amen.”

3. The case of stoning punishment – Mustafa Zarga, one of the contemporary scholars and jurists, says: In my opinion, the Prophet (peace be upon him) may have ordered stoning as a form of “retribution” due to the specific circumstances of that time and place – assuming the authenticity of the transmitted narrations (this sentence is a protest from the writer).

4. The severity and cruelty of stoning punishment – Mohammad Abu Zahra, a researcher and scholar, says: “Until the punishment of stoning to death, among the punishments that humans imagine in the death penalty, we see the most severe cruelty and it is impossible to imagine that the noble Prophet of Islam, who had a kind and compassionate heart, would have imposed the punishment of stoning for this crime, which is a sign of the highest cruelty, a punishment that makes the hearts of all listeners tremble.”

5. The existence of historical differences and controversies over the issue of stoning – as a witness and historical reporter of the issue of stoning, such as the Khawarij who openly and explicitly stoned people due to not being mentioned in the Quran and the lack of repeated tradition from the Prophet, were rejected. Despite their correct or incorrect ideological tendencies, the companions and later followers had no objections or refutations against them regarding the issue of stoning.

This report and historical testimony from them clearly reveals the lack of legitimacy of stoning and execution, and it has significant implications. From a historical perspective, this issue can be examined and given serious consideration.

Life and the abhorrence and evilness of stoning in the eyes of both the general and the specific, and in the eyes of human nature – those who advocate stoning consider it a disgrace – due to confusion between the beauty and ugliness of things in the eyes of speakers and the lack of connection between this beauty and ugliness with religious laws – they do not understand this rational reason correctly. While this matter (abhorrence and appreciation) should be understood. ^{“من به تو اهمیت می دهم”}

(1). “I care about you.”

The rationality that is the ultimate goal of penal laws for the legislator and lawmaker, and with regard to this goal and purpose, laws are made and have no relation to the discussion of the rationality of the speakers in relation to devotional laws, which is clear, and the goodness and badness of things does not prevent the implementation of specified devotional laws. This essentially has no relation to the condemnation of rationality of laws and is merely a verbal similarity, and this similarity has caused confusion in the minds of the supporters to the point of stoning to death; because the condemnation of rationality, which is not the purpose of reforming the offenders, is in itself a violation of the purpose and is invalid and permissible in legislation and legalizing laws.

All inappropriate punishments with crimes cause mental disgust and are noticed by all members of society before their own community. For this reason, we see that many convicts, after serving their sentences, not only have not been reformed, but have become vengeful and revengeful individuals.

Continuation:

Stoning (death by throwing stones) was a punishment in the laws of the Shah and the Iranian Revolution.

Alif: Stoning and stoning in the laws of the time of the king.

• Supplementary Provision of the Iranian Constitutional Law, Article 2:

The laws of the country must not contradict Islam. The determination of the contradiction of laws with the sacred rules of Islam is carried out by five knowledgeable jurists and scholars who are proposed by the Shia religious authorities and approved by their assembly. This article will not be subject to change.

• With such a strict set of laws, the first general penal code was approved during the reign of Reza Shah in 1304, adopting religious rulings from Shia jurisprudence. This included punishments such as stoning (1) and execution of married women for adultery (2), among others.

As stated in Article 1 of the General Penal Law of 1304: … and crimes that are in accordance with Islamic standards will be pursued and punished according to the laws and penalties prescribed in the Sharia.

Basically, the criminal laws and judicial procedures during the reign of the Shah “were in accordance with the sacred laws of Islam and the customs and morals of the nation, to the extent that was deemed appropriate.”

(3) Three

It is possible and necessary to adhere to “Anwar Shari’a” and its related materials in administrative matters without any opposition to Islamic laws.

• The General Penal Code, passed in 1352 during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah.

It adds Article 59 to the previous law and declares any laws conflicting with this article null and void. Since it has previously discussed the crime of adultery, it has left it intact in Article 52 of the General Penal Code.

B: Stoning and flogging in the laws of the Iranian Revolution.

In the above titles, reference has been made to the decisions and laws related to stoning in an argumentative and citation manner; however, in the legal analysis of stoning in the pages related to its section, stoning has only been mentioned briefly in the laws; therefore, due to the scientific need, it is felt necessary to mention this title here.

Islamic Penal Code (Punishments) adopted in 1362.

This is the same general criminal law during the time of the Shah that, with some modifications, was passed under the title of Islamic punishments.

Despite the fact that the approved law on stoning had not yet been passed, unfortunately 6 men and women in Kerman were illegally sentenced to stoning (because at the time, the stoning law did not exist due to lack of approval and foreign influence) and were only condemned to death by stoning and stoning to death based on the interpretation and fatwas of religious scholars.

2. Stoning in the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1370.

Book 2 – Boundaries – Chapter 1 – Adultery … and the definition and causes of punishment (stoning) for adultery are mentioned. It includes 33 detailed articles starting from article 63 and ending at article 107.

Article 169 of the Shah’s Civil Code.

Article 207 of the Penal Code, this article was later amended in 1310 to six months to three years in prison.

3. Signature and endorsement of Seyyed Hassan Modarres under the Criminal Procedure Code approved in 1330. Reference: Library of the National Consultative Assembly with registration number: 28243.

And article 102 of that article states:

Men are stoned (pelted with stones until death) and buried in a pit up to their waist, while women are buried up to their chest, and then they are stoned.

And this law, with the approval of the previous law of punishments (taken from the General Penal Code of the time of the Shah), is included in the fifth book of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1983, totaling 729 articles.

3. Islamic Penal Code of 1375 (Book Five: Deterrent Punishments and Penalties).

Due to its title, which is “punishment”, and stoning, which is considered a symbolic punishment, it has been assumed that within the limits of punishment, it is a crime, and this is a clear and official confession to its being a punishment and not a divine limit. So what justification does the judicial system have for insisting and pressuring individuals?

4. Stoning in the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1392.

In the four books, including “Koliyat”, “Hodood”, “Qisas”, “Diyat”, and others, a total of 728 articles were approved, and from article 221 to article 232, only 11 articles were discussed regarding adultery and stoning punishment. This is because this law, except for 7 articles, has confirmed all the articles of the lengthy Islamic punishment law approved in 1370, and in that law, only 33 articles exist regarding adultery and stoning (stoning until death). In addition, these 11 articles add up to a total of 44 articles.

5. Stoning became permanent in the Islamic Penal Code of 1397.

According to Article Q-M-A approved in 1992, after the expiration of its experimental period, it became permanent and until the writing of this document, the law of stoning to death is still in effect.

Persian sources:

Abbas Farming – Public Criminal Law of Tehran – Ghoghnoos – 1385 (2006).

2. Momeni Abedini- Legitimacy of Stoning- Comparative Jurisprudence Quarterly- First Year/1392.

3. Mohammad Gilani Mohammad – Criminal Law in Islam – Tehran, Al-Mahdi Publishing – 1361.

4. Fayz Kashani, Alireza – Islamic Penal Law – Tehran Publications – First Edition.

5. Feiz Kashani, Alireza – Comparison and Comparison in Islamic Criminal Law – Tehran – Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance – 5th edition – 1379.

6. Morteza Motahari – Islam and the Necessities of the Time – Tehran – Sadra – First Edition – 1374.

The Islamic Penal Code, passed in 1370.

The Islamic Penal Code passed in 1392.

Lesson on the Principles of Mr. Sobhani – Legal Truth.

10. Khateri Barahan – Process of Crime Formation – Tehran – Pride – First Edition – 1387.

11. Farhoudi Nia, Hassan – Incomplete Crimes – Tabriz – Furoozesh – First Edition – 1388.

12. Mohammad Shamai – An Introduction to Blasphemy and Apostasy in the Islamic Republic – Tehran – Jangal Publications – 2013.

13. Investigator Damad Seyyed Mostafa – A Study of Family Law Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition – Tehran – Islamic Sciences Publications, 1367.

14. Mazafar Mohammad Reza – Principles of Jurisprudence – Qom – Islamic Propaganda Office Publishing Center – First Edition – 1370.

15. Gospel.

16. Gorgi Abolghasem- Legal Articles- Tehran- University of Tehran- 2nd Edition- 1372.

Arabic sources.

Ibn al-Arabi’s Abu Bakr – The Book of Al-Qabas, an Explanation of Muwatta Ibn Malik.

2. Mustafa Zarqa – Fatwas – Damascus – Dar al-Qalam – Second Floor – 1425 AH

3. Al-Jaziri, Abdulrahman – Jurisprudence according to the four schools of thought – Beirut – Dar al-Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, 1406 AH.

4. Khoyi Abolghasem – Principles of Speaking in the Curriculum – Beirut Dar al-Zahra.

5. Najafi, Mohammad Hassan – Jewels of Speech – Tehran – Dar al-Kolayat al-Islamiyah – Second Edition – 1363 AH.

6. Halim Moheq – Sharae al-Islam.

6. Halim Moheq – Islamic Jurisprudence.

7. Fathi Ahmad – Punishment in Islamic Jurisprudence – Beirut – Dar al-Ra’id al-Arabi 1983.

8. Al-Zahili Wahba – Sharia Penalties … Published by All Islamic Nations 1991.

9. Jabal Amel Zayn al-Din – Sharh al-Lum’ah – Beirut – Dar al-‘Alam al-Islami.

Translation: Jabal Amel Zayn al-Din – Explanation of the Lum’ah – Beirut – House of the Islamic World.

10. Hali Ibn Idris – Secrets – Islamic Publishing Institute – 1411 AH

11. Tusi, Mohammad ibn Hussein – Al-Khilaf – Qom – Ghods Mohammadi Publications.

12. Mostafavi, Ruhollah – Book of Sales – Qom – Mehr Printing Press.

English sources:

1. Wilson, William, Criminal Law: Doctrine and Theory, London: Longman, 1998.

2. Turner, J.W.C. The Modern Approach to Criminal Law, London: University of Cambridge, 1998.

3. Hello Vincent, in 2009 I had the intention and attempted to study criminal law and philosophy at the Cambridge Harvard Law School.

4. The title of the book is “The Principles of Criminal Law” by Andrew Ashworth. It was published by Oxford University Press in 1999.

5. 5. Iran Briefing (at index: MDE 13/08/1987).