FOR ADULTERY-RAJM?

As the Qur'an declares, the Prophet Muhammad was raised up as a messenger "for the mercy of all people" (21: 107). The Qur'anic law is characterized by a relaxation of many of the strictures established by the Bible, including in the field of criminal law (2:178; 7:157). Thus, the biblical list of crimes that deserve the death penalty was reduced to a minimum, and, one might say, it was actually canceled - it is allowed to take a person's life only if he fights against Muslims.

Contrary to this tolerant and humanistic attitude of the Qur'an, medieval theologians-faqihs in some cases returned to the harsh punishments rejected by the Qur'an, as was shown in previous articles of the series on the example of attitudes towards non-believers and those who changed their religion. The faqihs reinstated rajm - stoning to death, establishing it as a punishment for a married person found guilty of adultery1. In order to justify such punishment, they refer to the alleged ayat of Rajma in the Qur'an and/or to the statements and sentences ascribed to the Prophet.

Imaginary ayat about rajma

Caliph 'Umar is credited with a speech in which he expresses the fear that after a long time some will say," We do not find the Ayat of Rajma in the Book of God, " 2 and so they will go astray from the right path by disregarding the injunction sent down by God. "Indeed," Umar continues, " The Messenger of God was revealed a verse about Rajma that we read, understood and understood. Rajm was used by the Messenger of God himself, and then rajm was used by us. According to the Scripture of God, a person who commits adultery deserves rajma if he is married (ahsana) and [guilt] is established either by witnessing, or by pregnancy, or by his own confession " (B 6829-6830; M 1691). According to one version (Zh 2553), this ayat sounds like this: "The old man and the old woman 3, if they are

* The last article of this cycle. For the first four, see: Vostok (Oriens), 2006, N 3-6.

1 In the Bible, stoning is punishable not only for adultery, but also for calling the dead, witchcraft, blasphemy, and idolatry. Sometimes this penalty was also applied for disobeying the son of the father and for violating the Sabbath.

2 One version adds: "For the Scriptures of God speak [only] of flagellation (jald)" (X 198, 354). Flagellation is mentioned in Ayat 24: 2.

3" Old man"(shaikh)/" old woman " (shaikha), as explained by the interpreters, should be understood as a mature man/mature woman.

page 20

if they commit adultery, be sure to stone them" (ash-shaykh wa-sh-shaykh iza Zanaya fa-rjumuhuma al-batta)4.

Proponents of the use of the death penalty for adultery sometimes claim that the ayat of rajma mentioned by Umar, which allegedly originally appeared in the text of the Qur'an 5, was annulled (naskh) in the aspect of "reading" (tilyawa), i.e. his words were taken back to heaven, but the injunction contained in it (huqm) remained in force. A truly strange logic: God sent down a revelation, then It pleased Him to abolish its text, but not its content itself!6

Even more striking are those traditions in which the absence of a verse about Rajma in the recorded canonical text of the Koran is associated not with God's taking back this verse, but with its loss. In particular, according to Aisha, the ayat of Rajma was written on a scroll (sahif) that was under the Prophet's bed. When the Prophet died and the family was busy with the funeral, a certain pet entered the room where the body was buried, which ate the scroll (W 1944)7. And this is despite the fact that God assured the Prophet of His concern for the preservation of the Qur'anic text: "It is We who have sent down the Teaching (az-Dhikr), and it is We who protect it" (14:9)!

It is equally flippant to report that the ayat of Rajma was lost because those who knew this ayat fell in a war with members of the apostate movement-Ridda, which unfolded shortly after the death of the Prophet (X 1214).

After all, it is well known that when compiling the Koranic corpus during the reign of Caliph Abu Bakr and / or Uthman, it was established that the inclusion of the relevant fragment requires only the testimony of two companions of the Prophet in favor of the affiliation of these words to the Koran. The question is: where then were the companions of the Prophet to whom the evidence is ascribed regarding the ayat of Rajma?! Why didn't Umar, who was known for his integrity and determination, insist on including ayat in the Qur'an?! Did no other companion of the Prophet confirm Umar's words?

The words attributed to Umar in some versions of the above-mentioned speech are also perplexing: "If it were not for [the fear that there will be] a rumor that Umar added something to the Book of God that is not there, I would have written (katabt) this [ayat in the Koran]" [D 4418; Malik, 1985, N 1560]8. If rajm was a Qur'anic injunction, would it be appropriate for Umar to be so apprehensive?

In addition to the differences in the transmission of the words of Ayat about Rajma 9, which cast a shadow on its belonging to the Quranic revelations, the very content of the Ayat itself speaks against the authenticity of the tradition ascribed to Umar. For it refers to rajma as a punishment for "the old man and the old woman" in general, although in the Muslim theological tradition

4 In some versions, the following words follow: "as a punishment from God, He is omniscient and Wise" (Nikalyan mina-Llah, wa-Llah 'alim hakim-see: X 20702); or: " as a punishment from God, He is omnipotent and Wise" (Nikalyan mina-Llah, wa-Llah 'aziz Hakim-see an-Nasai, 1991, No. 7150); or: "for the pleasure [illegally] obtained by them" (Bima kadaya min al-lyaza - ibid., No. 7146).

5 According to one version, ayat was included in Surah 33 [X 20702; al-Qurtubi, 1952, to Ayat 33: 1].

6 See also note 50.

7 The indignation of al-Qurtubi (d. 1224) is understandable, although it is not directed at the right place: "The story that these [words of the ayat about Rajma] were in a scroll in Ayesha's room and were eaten by a pet was composed by heretics (malahida) and Rafi'idis (i.e. extreme Shi'ites)" [al-Qurtubi, 1952, to Ayat 33:1].

8 Other versions: "... I would approve (asbatt) [ayat] as it was revealed" (X 354); " ... I would write it down somewhere [in the margins] of the Qur'an (fi nahiyah min al-Mushaf)" (X 157); "...I would write it at the end of the Qur'an " [al-Asqalani, 1990, k B 6829]. See note 5.

9 See note 5.

page 21

Traditionally, rajm has established itself as a punishment only for married persons.10
In this tradition, the words of Umar also deserve attention: "And after him (i.e., the Prophet) we also used rajm," which the commentators (al-Asqalyani, al-Nawawi) pass over in silence, without illustrating them with cases from the reign of either Abu Bakr or Umar himself. Moreover, al-Bukhari reports that the Caliph approved the decision of one of Umar's deputies, who sentenced him to flagellation (and not to rajm!) a married man caught committing adultery with his wife's slave 11. It should also be noted that the statement put into Umar's mouth about rajma as a punishment for a woman caught in adultery simply on the basis of pregnancy did not receive support from Hanafis, Shafi'is and some other theologians. And this fact serves as an additional argument against the authenticity of the speech attributed to Umar.

The main argument against rajma as a Qur'anic injunction is presented by the Qur'an itself.

The Qur'an was established only by Jald

According to the prevailing view in traditional Fiqh theology, in the early days of Islam, the penalty for adultery12 was determined by ayats 4: 15-16. The first ayat installs:

And as for your women, who commit an abomination (fahishah), -
Call four witnesses from among you against them.
If they bear witness to [this sin],
Lock [wives] in their homes,
Until they die
Or God will not give them a way [to salvation].

The following ayat says::
If two of you commit [abomination],
Punish them both (aazuhuma).
But if they repent and correct themselves,
Leave them alone:
Truly, God is All-merciful and All-merciful.

Most commentators believe that the first ayat concerns married adulterers, and the second-unmarried men and unmarried women. The "punishment" provided for here is public reproach.13
10 It is related that after the ayat of Rajmahu ' alayhi wa sallam, Umar came to the Prophet and asked him to recite the ayat, but the Prophet replied:: "I can't" (la astata') [an-Nasai, 1991, N 7148]. According to another version, the Prophet did not seem to like (kariha) that Umar wrote down the ayat. Umar himself explained this refusal as follows:" Do you not see that an old man, if he commits adultery without being married, is subject to [only] flagellation (jald), and a young man (Shabb), if he commits adultery while being married, is subject to rajm?! " (X 21086). From this hadeeth, al-Asqalyani comments, the reason for the removal (nash) of the text (tilyawa) of the ayat is clear: the practice does not correspond to its general sound (QB 6829). And such "carelessness" is attributed to God himself!

11 This testimony is given before Hadith B 2292.

12 Under adultery (zina, less often-sethah), theologians understand illegal sexual relations between a man and a woman, that is, between persons who are not in a marital union or are not master and slave (see ayats 23:6 - 7; 4:24).

13 Some commentators believe that the first Ayat refers to lesbianism, while the second Ayat refers to sodomy.

page 22

As can be seen from the last line of the first ayat, this measure of punishment was temporary. Ayat 2 Surah 24 later came down with the final injunction against adulterers:

The adulteress (az-zaniyah) and the adulterer (az-zani) -
Each of them should be flogged with a hundred lashes 14.

However, there is a hadith (from Ubada ibn as-Samit) indicating the "path", which is mentioned at the end of ayat 15 of Sura 4: "A bachelor (bikr) who [commits adultery] with a bachelor (bikr) is punished with one hundred lashes and eviction for one year, and a married man (sayyib), [sinner] with a married (sayyib)15-hundred lashes and stoning" (M 1690; D 4415; W 2550; T 1434). Based on this hadeeth and other traditions about cases where the Prophet sentenced married adulterers to rajm, capital punishment advocates narrow the scope of ayat 24: 2 to refer only to virgins and retain rajm as a punishment for married persons.

This" specification " (tahsys) of Ayat 24: 2 is objectionable in many ways. To begin with, in addition to this extremely clear ayat, there is other evidence in the Qur'an that clearly points to jald (flogging in a hundred lashes), and not to rajm as a punishment for married people. Thus, Ayat 33: 30, which emphasizes the special status of the Prophet's wives, provides for double punishment compared to ordinary wives for those who commit " obvious abomination "(fahisha mubayyin). On the other hand, Ayat 4 of Sura 25 states for female slaves: "If they commit an abomination (fahishah) when they become your wives, their punishment should be equal to half the punishment of the free wives." If we assume that rajm is a divine decree, the Qur'anic instructions in both cases would be meaningless, since the death penalty/rajm is not doubled or divided in half.

Another indirect argument against rajma is the Qur'anic teaching on the punishment of perjury / false accusation regarding adultery. According to the Scriptures, the penalty for such an oath is eighty lashes (24: 5). This single measure would not be entirely adequate and fair if two significantly different punishments - jald and rajm-were imposed for various cases of adultery. After all, it is one thing - a charge of sin, if confirmed, the culprit is punished with a hundred lashes, and if not confirmed, the slanderer is punished with a proportional measure, eighty lashes. It is a different matter when one is accused of a sin punishable by deprivation of life: in this case, the punishment of the same eighty lashes for a false accusation would look too lenient, not in accordance with the gravity of the charge.

The proponents of execution, which ascribes Rajm to the Sunnah and Jald to the Qur'an, seem not to notice, firstly, that the Prophet could not possibly contradict the Qur'an, and, secondly, that such dualism runs counter to the idea repeatedly voiced in the Qur'an about the self-sufficiency of Scripture, its perfection and completeness: the Qur'an is an " explanation total" (12:111; 16:89); in it, "we did not miss anything" (6: 38), etc. How could it happen that after the rejection of the Qur'an from the biblical rajm, the Prophet applied this measure?! And what completeness of the Qur'an can we talk about if it (in Ayat 24:2) the punishment for the less serious sin - the adultery of a bachelor-is determined, while the more serious and dangerous sin - the adultery of a married man-is kept silent?!

14 Based on the Prophet's relevant instruction, the faqih theologians taught that blows should not cause injury, but should be of moderate severity, and that they should not touch the face or other sensitive areas.

15 theologians interpret the word "sayyib" broadly, meaning not only a person who is married, but also a person who was previously married - a widower/widow and a divorced/divorced person.

page 23

Of fundamental importance for the correct correlation between the Qur'an and prophetic practice on this issue is the hadith according to which the Prophet's companion, Abdallah ibn ' Awf, was asked::

- Did the Messenger of God sentence you to be stoned (rajma)?

- Yes 16.

- Before or after Surah "Light"?

- I don't know (B 6813; M 1702).

The hadeeth refers to Surah 24, or rather its 2nd ayat, which, as noted above, attributes jald as a punishment for adultery. And it is unlikely that the Prophet used rajm after the revelation of Ayat 24: 2, because this would certainly raise the question of whether such a practice is consistent with the requirement of ayat, and there is no hint of such questions in the Sunnah.

In light of this, it can be assumed that if the practice of rajma did indeed take place in the early stages of Islam, when the Prophet could still follow the Biblical/Jewish tradition, then it was later abolished (naskh) ayatom 24:2. This early stage should also include the Prophet's corresponding statement about rajma as a measure of punishment for adultery, even if they are recognized as authentic.

"All are to be forgiven, except those who have sinned openly."

By prescribing jald as a punishment for adulterers, Ayat 24: 2 is more likely to refer to hardened sinners, rather than any person caught having illicit sexual relations. Similarly, the command to cut off the hand of a thief and a thief in Ayat 5: 38 does not apply to any person who has committed theft, even if accidentally, but only to an avid criminal or thief. And this interpretation of Ayat 24: 2 is partly supported by the subsequent Ayat 24:3, according to which "the adulterer is united only to the adulteress... / And the adulteress - only to the adulterer." Here, as commentators rightly point out [17], "adulterer"/"adulteress" means a man/woman who tends to commit adultery.

Further, the punishment mentioned in Ayat 24:2/5:38 is rather the ultimate punishment for adultery/theft, when the sinner persists in his offense and when all other methods of admonition and restraint (including, for example, imprisonment) are ineffective. And the Koran itself makes it clear about the necessary gradation in the measures of punishment. Specifically, for hiraba (armed highway robbery), Ayat 5: 33 defines the lowest measure - exile (nafi)18, the average-cutting off limbs, the highest-the death penalty. And if in the case of adultery or theft only one measure of punishment is used, then, presumably, it serves as the ultimate, most severe measure.

Prescriptions for the punishment of adultery (Ayat 24:2) and for theft (Ayat 5: 38) should be understood in the light of the Qur'an's humane instructions, given in particular in connection with premeditated murder. Like the Bible before it, the Qur'an establishes talion (qysas), or equal retribution, placing the culprit in the power of the relatives of the murdered person, who can take his life. But the Qur'an essentially softens this law, repeatedly commands Muslims to show generosity and forgive 19 (2:178; 5:45; 16:126; 42:40). And once in relation to the most serious crime - murder - God prizes-

16 "Yes, a Jew and a Jew," says one version of this hadith (X 18647).

17 In particular, the authors of al-Muntahab (p. 691, Arabic, text). And in at-Tabari's commentary on this ayat, it is indicated that this refers to public prostitutes.

18 Abu Hanifa understands nafi as " imprisonment."

19 On the basis of the relevant hadiths, theologians interpret this in the sense of consent to the veerah or, better yet, forgiveness of the murderer and without paying the veerah.

page 24

If He insists that we do not exercise our right to punish, will He insist on the use of capital punishment in cases of adultery and theft?!

The Qur'anic instructions concerning the conditions of punishment for adultery are also notable in that while the testimony of two persons is sufficient for all other offenses, the Scripture requires the testimony of four witnesses to confirm the fact of adultery(4:15; 24:4)20. Moreover, witnesses cannot refer to circumstantial evidence and suspicions, but must declare that they saw with their own eyes the act of adultery in all its details - how a man penetrated a woman, "like an antimony pencil into an antimony vessel" [D 4452; Abu Yusuf, 2001, p.283]21.

Such demands on both the quality of evidence and the number of witnesses suggest that the severity of the Qur'anic punishment is aimed at eliminating public debauchery. 22 On the other hand, the strictness of these requirements fully corresponds to the condescending attitude towards human weakness and human transgressions characteristic of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Sharing the attitude expressed in the famous words of Jesus - "Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" - the founder of Islam commanded his followers to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of Muslims, condemning surveillance and suspicion (see: Ayat 49: 12; hadiths B 6064-6065; M 2563-2564). "Whoever covers [the sins] of a Muslim, God will cover him on the Day of Resurrection," the Prophet admonished (B 2442; M 2580)23. To hide their own sins from the eyes of others, he, of course, called upon those who fell into vice: "All [members] of my community are subject to forgiveness (mu'afa), except for [those who sinned] openly (mujahirun) " (B 6069; M 2990)24.

Also noteworthy are the words of the Prophet addressed to a certain Hazzal from the Aslam tribe, who persuaded his fellow tribesman Maiz, who was convicted of adultery, to come to the Prophet and confess to him what he had done: "It would have been better for you if you had covered him (Maiz) with your own dress!" [D 4377; X 21383; Malik, 1985, 1553] 25.

20 A Muslim is said to have heard about the four witnesses and said, " O Messenger of God! Surely if I find my wife with a lover, I must give him time until I have gathered four witnesses?!" - confirmed by the Prophet (M 1498; D 4533).

21 Moreover, if less than four witnesses come forward against the adulterers, or if one of the four subsequently recants his testimony, then, according to legal tradition, the sentence is overturned and all these witnesses are punished as slanderers. The charge is also dropped in case of disappearance (in particular, death) of any of the witnesses.

22 The commentaries on Ayat 7: 31, "O sons of Adam, / Dress up when you visit any temple," usually refer to the practice of walking naked around the Ka'bah among the pre-Islamic pagans of Arabia (also reported in hadiths: B 1665; M 1219, 3029; H 2956). Perhaps these words also refer to the practice of some kind of sacred fornication/prostitution. According to one account, people committed adultery quite openly, "like cattle" (tasa-fud al-humur) [al-Asqalyani, 1990, to B 6829]. See also note 18 (commentary by at-Tabari).

23 Other versions: "Whoever covers a Muslim, God will cover him in this life and in the next" (M 2699; D 4946; F 2544; X 7379); " Whoever covers the weakness ('aura) of his Muslim brother, God will cover his weakness on the Day of Resurrection; and whoever reveals the weakness of his Muslim brother God will reveal his weakness by exposing [the sins] of his very family" (J 2546); "Whoever sees weakness and covers it, it is as if he saved someone's (may uda) life" (D 4891; X 16994).

24 When the Prophet warned the Muslims against stealing, committing adultery, and similar acts, he said:: "Whoever commits any of these [sins] and is punished in the present world, this punishment will serve as an atonement. If anyone commits any of these [sins], but God covers him [the sin], then it is up to him [the subsequent decision] - if He wills, He will forgive him, and if He wills, He will punish him" (B 18). Another time the Prophet announced: "Whoever commits an act deserving of God's punishment (hadd), but God covers him by forgiving him ,then the generous God is above returning to [punishment for] a thing that He has already forgiven" (J 2604; T 2626; X 777).

It is also related that after the flagellation of a man who confessed to committing adultery, the Prophet exclaimed: "O people, is it not time for you to beware of deeds that deserve God's punishment (hadd)? Whoever commits any of these abominations, let him cover himself with the covering of God, for whoever flaunts what he has done, we will reward him according to the Scripture of God "[Malik, 1985, N 1562].

25 Version: "Well, what a bad thing you did, Hazzal, with your orphan-no, to cover him with the edge of your cloak! "[Ibn Sad, 1968, vol. 4, p. 423; according to this version, Hazzal took care of the orphaned Maiz].

page 25

It is also said that when a thief was brought to the Prophet, demanding to be punished by cutting off his hand, the Prophet's face changed.

"What is the matter with you, O Messenger of God?" - they were perplexed. "You don't like it?"

"How can it be otherwise, since you are hurrying Satan against your brother?" Indeed, God is merciful and loves mercy, "the Prophet replied, quoting Ayat 22 of Surah 24:" Forgive and forgive - Do you not want God to forgive you? / He is All-forgiving and All-merciful" [X 3967,4157; see also: X 3703; Abu Hanifa, 1995, p. 263].

The Prophet bequeathed to His followers, especially the judges, concerning the use of haddahs, the punishment prescribed by God's law: "As far as possible, eliminate Hadd (version: eliminate Hadd with doubts), because a mistake in pardoning is better than a mistake in punishing" [Zh 2545; T 1424; Abu Yusuf, 2001, p. 264]. And he himself was a fitting example. In particular, the above-mentioned Ma'iz was constantly persuaded by the Prophet to refuse to admit: "Perhaps you only kissed her, only hugged her? "(B 6824). In the same vein, he would tell the thief brought to him, " I don't think you stole it!" - twice or thrice repeated by the Prophet (D 4380; F 2597; H 4877; X 22002).

The overwhelming majority of theologians-faqihs were properly guided by this tolerant instruction of the Prophet, recommending in criminal cases to interpret any doubts in favor of the defendant and for this purpose suggest possible ways for the defendant to avoid punishment. 26 However, many of them did not fully understand the full breadth of the humane commandment of the Qur'an and the Sunnah about the redemptive power of repentance (tawba). As for the question of adultery, the Prophet's attitude toward repentant sinners is well illustrated by the following stories.

Once a man came to the Prophet, saying: "I have done something that deserves punishment (hadd), so do it to me." The Prophet ignored him, asking nothing about what he had done. Soon it was time for the ritual prayer, and this man did it together with the Prophet. At the end of it, he approached the Prophet again, repeating his statement.

"Didn't you pray with us?" The Prophet asked him.

- yes.

- So God forgave you your sin (B 68323; M 2764-2765) 27.

There is also a story about a Medinan who came to the Prophet and confessed to him in intimate proximity with a woman who was not allowed to him (in one version it is specified that she did not reach the point of penetration). The Prophet left his confession unnoticed, and Umar, who was present, instructed him: "God would have covered your [sin] if you had covered it yourself." When he turned back to the Prophet, the latter recited Ayat 114 of Surah 11 to him, where it says:: "Indeed, good deeds eliminate evil deeds."

"Is it just me or all the people?" Medinets asked.

"All of them, without exception," the Prophet replied (M 2763; W 1398; T 3112; see also: B 526; M 2763).

Also, in one version of the above-mentioned tradition, Maiz is said to have escaped during the execution of his punishment (rajm), but was overtaken and killed. When this was reported to the Prophet, he exclaimed, " Why did you not leave him alone? Perhaps he would have repented and God would have forgiven him " (D 4419; X 21383).

26 For example: "Maybe you didn't intend to do this?", " Maybe you didn't know it was forbidden?", etc.

27 In a rigorous spirit, an-Nawawi writes in the commentary to the hadith that the offense committed by this person is a minor sin, not a serious one (which includes adultery), because " all the scholars agree that ...the punishment for such [grave] sins is not removed by performing the salat prayer." It is surprising that the commentator does not notice all the remorse that is revealed here.

page 26

Without paying due attention to such testimonies28 or to the Qur'anic revelations that grant amnesty to those who repent, even from among the Gentiles who fought against Muslims (9: 11) and from among those who participated in armed robbery-hirab (5:34), faqihs-rigorists do not consider repentance to remove the criminal penalty in cases of adultery (as well as theft and drinking wine). What led them to such a contradiction of the fundamental tolerant orientation of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and with it common sense, was precisely the uncritical acceptance of certain hadiths ascribing to the Prophet the appropriate sentences against repentant sinners. Instead of seeing the inauthenticity of such hadiths in the light of this tolerant orientation, or at least classifying them as "abrogated" (mansuh), the rigorists led by such hadiths went in the opposite direction, significantly narrowing the Qur'anic/prophetic humanism!

The Legend of the Jew and the Jewish woman

Among the hadiths about the death sentence for adulterers, there is one that tells about a certain Jewish couple, while the rest are about sinners among the followers of Islam. It has been suggested above that both types of these testimonies, if they turn out to be authentic, took place even before the descent of Ayat 24:2, which definitively defined jald as a punishment. As for the specific tradition of the Jews, the following should be added to such considerations: The Prophet could judge the Jews according to their own law, the biblical one, as Ayat 5:44 29 prescribes to the founder of Islam. Moreover, upon closer examination, there are many inconsistencies and discrepancies in all the hadiths about Rajma, which makes us doubt their authenticity.

As noted in the previous article, the tradition of the Rajma of a Jew and a Jewish woman is usually given as an illustration of the Qur'anic revelations (in particular, Ayat 5:41) about the"concealment"/" distortion " by Jews of certain provisions of the Torah (according to interpreters, the provisions on rajma). The Jews of Medina who were contemporary with the Prophet, who allegedly abandoned the practice of rajma and replaced it with tajbiyah (flagellation with public shame), asked him about the proper punishment for a couple of their co-religionists caught in adultery. When the Prophet asked what punishment the Torah provided for, the Jews called tajbiyah. Then the Prophet offered to turn to the Torah itself, and in it they found the "verse about stoning" hidden by the Jews, according to which the Prophet pronounced a sentence on the wicked.

In this tradition, as in general in the hadiths about the sentence to rajm/jald for adultery (or to cutting off the hand for theft), first of all, the fact is striking

28 This is well said by Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 1350), commenting on the following testimony. One woman was raped. They grabbed a man who was suspected of this and started subjecting him to rajma. Then someone in the audience stood up and confessed that he was the real culprit. And the Prophet addressed him with kind words. "Shouldn't we perform rajm on the man who confessed?! Umar intervened. "No, for he repented before God (version: he went to such a repentance, which would have been enough for all the Madinahs), " the Prophet objected to him [an-Nasai, 1991, N 7311; X 26698]. According to the theologian, "even if the soul of the commander of the faithful [Umar] was unable to contain repentance as a means of removing punishment, then we should not expect such breadth from many faqihs!" [Ibn al-Qayyim, 1973, vol.3, pp. 9-10].

Apparently, this breadth of soul was not shown by Abu Dawud, who, quoting this tradition (D 4379), inserted from himself that those kind words were addressed to the first man, and the Prophet sentenced the one who confessed to rajm. In the version from at-Tirmidhi, this inserted text seems to come from the narrator himself! [For criticism of the latter version, see Ibn al-Qayyim, pp. 86-88; however, it is said here that Abu Dawud's version is the same as the above version from an-Nasai and Ibn Hanbal].

29 The meaning of the Prophet's following of this precept is also mentioned in hadiths D 4450-4451.

page 27

complete (or almost complete) absence of mention of the names of those sentenced 30. And such anonymity - as the classical Hadith tradition itself has established in a different context (in particular, in connection with the question of the reliability of the chain of hadith transmitters) - is already causing concern.

In addition, the version of the Sahih (B 1329.3635; M 1699) and Ibn Hisham (vol. 1, p. 564) suggests that the guilty couple was from among the Jews of Madinah. According to another version, it was a couple from the Jewish nobility of the city of Khaybar, and it was the Khaybars who sent to the Jews of Medina to ask the Prophet about the proper punishment. There are also other versions: the Jews of Medina approached the Prophet about a married man; they brought a woman to him; a prominent Jewish woman committed adultery, and her father sent his men to the Prophet [at-Tabari, 1988, Ayat 5: 41; al-Askalyani, 1990, to hadith B 6841].

A completely different kind of motive is given by the next version. The Prophet passed by a Jew caught in adultery, who was betrayed to tajbiyeh. And the Prophet, perplexed, asked the Jews: "Is such a punishment for an adulterer provided for in your Scripture?!"The Jews answered in the affirmative (M 1700; D 4447; F 2558).

Similarly, the details of the Prophet's subsequent appeal to the Torah and the Jewish acceptance of the Biblical verse about Rajma are also mixed. According to one version, when the Jews approached the Prophet about an adulterous couple and when asked about the punishment prescribed in the Torah, they called flagellation with disgrace, Ibn Salam (a Madinah Jew who converted to Islam) exclaimed: "You are lying, for it [indicates] rajm!" Then they brought a scroll with the Torah, opened it, but one of the Jews covered it with his hand (palm?) the text of a verse about rajma, read the preceding and subsequent verses. "Take your hand away!" demanded Ibn Salam. And at hand was the same verse about rajma (B 3635; M 1699). Another version does not mention Ibn Salam, and it can be understood from it that the Prophet himself ordered the reader to raise his hand (see B 7534). And in several other versions, instead of a certificate of conversion to the text of the Torah, it is told how the Prophet called a Jewish scholar to himself (variants: he called two scholars to himself; the Prophet himself, when he appeared at a Midrash Jewish religious school, turned to one of the Jews) and conjured him to name the punishment imposed by the Torah for adultery, and he spoke in favor of rajm (M 1700; D 4450, 4452).

Other inconsistencies in the various versions of this tradition might be mentioned, but these are enough to cast doubt on the authenticity of the tradition under discussion. The caricature-like detail of reading the Torah scroll is also noteworthy. Didn't the rabbi, who was covering the verse about Rajma with his hand, realize that he was only drawing attention to this place?! And what is a verse about rajma that can be exactly covered with the palm of your hand, moreover, so that when you skip it, the verse smoothly passes from the previous to the next? And what naive cranks do the Jews of Medina look like who agreed to turn to the Torah, knowing in advance that it contains a verse about Rajma, and how did they immediately get to the "inconvenient" verse?! The question is also asked: if these Jews truly worshipped the Torah, how could they conceal the truth about the verse about Rajma; and if they had long ago abandoned rajma in favor of tajbiyya, then why did they - contradicting the Prophet in almost everything-suddenly agree with him so easily, returned to Rajma and executed two of their nobles?! This agreement is also improbable because Ayat 5:41 itself (according to the classical interpretation) indicates a prior agreement between the Jews when they were separated from each other.-

The history of Maiz is no exception, but even here, as we will see below, it is on the verge of anonymity.

page 28

they sent to the Prophet for judgment: "If he reveals to you [the injunction on tajbiyah], / Accept it, / And if it is not [but rajm], / Beware [of following it]"!

The hadith about the Rajma of a Jew and a Jewish woman is also confusing in another aspect. It follows that the Prophet made the decision without being convinced of the guilt - he did not require any witnesses to the act of adultery, nor did he require the confession of the suspects themselves. Apparently, this" carelessness " did not remain unnoticed by medieval theologians, and this, presumably, gave rise to the version that Abu Dawud gives.31 According to this version, the Prophet, after asking two Jewish men about the Torah's injunction regarding adulterers, was told that if there were four witnesses who saw a man's penetration of a woman "like the penetration of an antimony pencil into an antimony jar," the perpetrators would be subjected to rajmu. The Prophet called for four witnesses, and they were found (D 4452). It is amazing how easy it was to obtain a certificate, the conditions of which are almost impossible to fulfill, and therefore in the entire subsequent history of Islam there is no such case!32.

Version D 4452 is also vulnerable in the light of the claim of the medieval faqihs themselves, who believe that the witnesses must be Muslims, otherwise, writes al-Nawawi (in the comments to version M 1699), "their testimony does not count." But, as al-Askalyani rightly points out (in the commentary to version B 6841), "the affiliation of [the four witnesses mentioned] to Islam has not been established." Therefore, al-Nawawi continues, "The Prophet seems to have made a decision based on the recognition of both [persons]" (Ibid.). So, instead of an unconvincing version about witnesses, rigorists seize on an even less likely assumption. Wouldn't it be better to simply refuse to accept the authenticity of the hadith itself?!

History of Maiz

Nor do the traditions of the Prophet's sentence of Rajm to some of the Muslims stand up to a strict test of authenticity. Since it is almost impossible to establish the fact of adultery on the basis of the testimony of four witnesses, as one might expect, there are no hadiths about such cases, and in the available stories about Rajma or Jalda, only people who have confessed their guilt appear. It is immediately obvious that all of them are usually mentioned anonymously, often without any indication of their tribal / ancestral affiliation.33 In addition, other characters about whom it would be logical to report at least something are completely ignored. In particular, there is usually no mention of a partner in an act of adultery who should be questioned: if not for the purpose of bringing to justice (following the commandment to cover up for Muslims), then at least to verify a confession. After all, it is known that the confession itself does not serve as reliable evidence, since it can pursue, for example, the task of concealing the true culprit - for example, a bachelor can obscure a married man. We will also not forget about the right of the alleged partner to press charges of defamation and demand punishment for it.

31 And he alone is among the authors of the six recognized sets of hadith.

32 Version D 4452 unfairly attributes to the Bible the condition of four witnesses, which is actually found only in the Qur'an. In addition, in versions D 4450-4451, as well as in other versions of the tradition under discussion [see Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, p. 564] a Jew and a Jewish woman are defined as both married (muhsan), which means that in this case we are talking about modifying this story to fit the norm developed by medieval Muslim theologians. In fact, as al-Asqalyani correctly points out (in his commentary on Hadith B 6841), the Torah's injunction on Rajma does not distinguish between unmarried and unmarried people.

33 In the same cases where the corresponding tribes are named, it is noteworthy that all these tribes are not Madinan-not a single such case is attributed to the Ansarites (i.e., Madinan Muslims represented by the Aus and Khazraj tribes).

page 29

It is also clear that the culprit usually has parents, brothers and sisters. And the married person also has a spouse (and if it is a man, perhaps several) and many children. And it is legitimate to expect that at least one of the relatives will appear during the trial or during the execution of the sentence, will appeal for compassion and ask for clemency or, conversely, condemn the guilty. The question of the fate of wives and young children who lost their breadwinner should definitely be raised. And since there is not a single such detail in the stories about the death sentences attributed to the Prophet, this fact itself raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the relevant traditions.

Among such traditions, the story of a certain Ma'iz is in the first place, which is given in both the most authoritative sets of hadiths - both in al-Bukhari and Muslim. According to the story, Maiz came to the Prophet and told him that he had committed adultery, but the Prophet turned away from him. Maiz approached the Prophet four times with the same confession, and only then did the Prophet order him to be stoned (B 5270 - 5272, 6815, 6820, 6824; M 1691-1695).

These hadiths describe how the Prophet tried in every possible way to avert the punishment from Ma'iz, asking Ma'iz and his tribesmen about the state of his mental abilities and asking if he had drunk wine before, as well as asking him if he knew what exactly adultery (zina) is. According to version B 6824, the Prophet, suggesting a way for Maiz to escape punishment, asked him if intimacy was limited to a kiss or a hug; and when he received a negative answer, he had no choice but to repeat his question, directly naming the sexual act with his own name ("a-nikta-ha?")34.

As noted above, the story of Ma'iz is a kind of exception, since only in it the sinner is named by name: Ma'iz ibn Malik. His tribe is also named aslam (nomadic to the south of Medina). Against the background of other "anonymous" testimonies, this specificity is fascinating. However, as it turns out, "Maiz" appears only as one of the three variants of the name aslyamit, along with " Urayb "(Arabic. 'Urayb, other reading: Gurayb) and "Muhammad". Some believe that "Maiz" is the nickname of 35, and the other two are variants of their own name (al-Askalyani, 1992, N 5540, 7593; al-Azimabadi, 1993, K D 4377). In addition, Ma'iz, like his father, is only known in connection with the hadith under discussion.

According to some sources, Maiz grew up an orphan (yatim), his father, dying, bequeathed to his fellow tribesman Hazzal to take care of him [D 4419; Ibn Sad, 1968, vol. 4, p. 423]. Other sources report that Maiz was employed as a servant (ista'zhara) to Hazzal (X 21384). Maiz appeared to the Prophet in only his underclothes (izar), without the upper one (rida), completely disheveled (M 1692). This is probably why the Prophet suspected that he was out of his mind.36 Is it really over such a half-madman, half-slave, that the Prophet decided to demonstrate the full rigor of the" Quranic " law?!37

As a partner of Ma'iz in the act of adultery, a certain slave girl is mentioned (jariya, Mamluk; see M 1693; D 4419; X 21384)38. Most likely, a person of such age is considered to be a slave.

34 Version D 4428 adds :" And your organ is hidden in her organ?" The Prophet asked. "Like hiding an antimony pencil in an antimony jar, or like hiding a rope in a well?" The Prophet asked. "Yes," was the reply.

35 Arabic. Ma'iz means "goat"; it seems to imply that he tended goats.

36 At the same time, we are surprised by the versions (B 5272; M 1691) that attribute to Maiz a negative answer to the Prophet's question: "Are you mad?" (a-bika-junoon?) I wonder what other response you can expect from a madman.

37 The Prophet's own admonition is widely known: what destroyed the former nations was that if a noble person was guilty, he was released from punishment, and if a person of low birth was guilty, he was punished to the fullest extent (see: B 3733; 4304; M 1688-1689).

38 The canonical codes do not mention any interrogation or punishment of this woman. According to Ibn Sada (vol. 4, p. 123), the Prophet forgave her and did not question her about anything.

page 30

low social status, like Maiz, could only be married to a slave girl (if he really was married-no information about his wives or children sources do not report). And those are not punished by rajm, but only by jald.

They may object: in some versions (in particular, B 5270 and M 1691), Maiz's positive answer to the Prophet's question is transmitted: "Are you married?" (ahsant?). However, even if these versions are authentic, 39 the situation is much more complicated than it seemed to the rigorist theologians. After all, the verb ahsana (the verbal noun is ihsan; the person himself is muhsan) is ambiguous and within the framework of Ayat 4:25 alone, it is simultaneously used in three different senses: "to be free" (not a slave), "to be chaste", "to be married". Did Maiz immediately and unequivocally understand the Prophet's question?! In addition, the faqihs themselves stipulate the application of the hadda penalty to a married person with many reservations, only in the presence of which this person is considered a muhsan. In particular, at the time of the sin of one of the spouses, both spouses should be free, adult, sane, united by a correct (from the point of view of Islam) marriage contract, having full sexual intimacy (through the female's reproductive organs). Abu Hanifa (and Ibn Hanbal, according to one of the two versions attributed to him) also believes that both of them must be Muslims. However, it does not appear from the Maize traditions that the Prophet made any inquiries about the existence of these conditions before passing a death sentence. And it is unlikely that the Prophet was inferior to the faqihs in terms of humanity and thoroughness in the analysis of a case fraught with the deprivation of a person's life.

There are many contradictions in the description of the circumstances of the appearance of Maiz in the Prophet. While some accounts speak of his coming to the Prophet's Mosque (B 5772; M 1691) in the central part of Madinah, others suggest that this story took place during a certain campaign [see M 1692; an-Nasai, 1991, N 7183; X 21044 - anonymous], and sometimes specify-between Mecca and Medina (X 16149-anonymous)40. Along with the version about Maiz's voluntary coming with a confession of sin (B 5272; M 1961), there is one according to which aslyamit was brought to the Prophet (M 1692). From another version it is clear that the Prophet knew in advance about Maiz's sin and that it was he who initiated the conversation-interrogation (M 1693; D 4425; T 1427)41.

Such contradictions are characteristic of almost all the evidence and in describing other details of the history of Maiz. According to one of the most common versions (B 5272; M 1691), Maiz pronounced the confession four times 42, and according to others, two or three times (M 1692). At the same time, the fourfold confession is sometimes attributed to a single appearance: Maiz approached the Prophet, but he turned away from him, but he immediately appeared before him again, from a different direction; and this was repeated four times (B 5272; M 1691). According to other versions, Ma'iz retreated a short distance, and then returned again (M 1695); went far away, outside the city [al-Marginani, vol. 2, p. 95]; left and returned only the next day

39 Other versions do not include such a question from the Prophet Maizu, but indicate that Maiz was married, or do not mention his marital status at all.

40 It is also reported that Aslam first turned to Abu Bakr. He asked if he had told anyone else. When the answer was no, Abu Bakr instructed: "Repent to God and cover [your shame] with His covering, for He accepts the repentance of His servants." But Aslam, not satisfied, went to Umar, who gave him similar advice. Not satisfied with this, the culprit approached the Prophet, who dismissed him three times [Malik, 1985, N 1552; an-Nasai, 1991, N 7179].

Version 41 begins with the Prophet asking Maizu, " Is what has come to me about you true?" "What is it?" "That you have known the slave (jariya) of such-and-such." - Yes, there was such a thing.

42 According to the logic of many theologians (especially among Hanafis), such a four-fold confession corresponds to the required testimony of four witnesses.

page 31

(M 1695); in his first parish he confessed twice, and in the second - twice more (D 4426; X 2869).

Further, one version says that a pit was dug for Maiz, where he was stoned to death (M 1695), another reports that he was tied to a certain tree (D 4428), while the third emphasizes that Maiz was not tied and no pit was dug for him at all (M 1694; D 4431). Most traditions indicate that the Prophet was not present at the execution, but sometimes it is said that he was there (Ad-Darimi, 1987, N 63). According to another version, the Prophet sent Abu B'akr (the future caliph) to perform rajma over Ma'iz (Ibn Sad, 1968, vol.4, p. 423).

As a place of execution, some call Musallah (an open area where festive prayers were performed), and when stones were thrown at Maiza, he rushed away, but he was overtaken at Harrah (volcanic lava in the vicinity of Medina), where they finished rajm (B 5272). Others recall how Ma'iz was taken to the Baqi (Muslim cemetery in Madinah), where he began to perform rajm, but from there he rushed to Harrah (M 1694; D 4431).43 Still others claim that Maiz was immediately taken to Harra(D4419; T 1428).

In addition, the latest version introduces a new detail that is completely absent from the versions given in al-Bukhari and Muslim. It appears that the fleeing Maiz met a man holding a camel's jaw in his hand, which he threw at Maiz and thereby killed him (D 4419), or: he beat Maiz with it, and others began to strike him with [stones] until he died (T 1428) 44. And if in one version this person is called Abdallah ibn Unais (D 4419), then in another he appears as Anas ibn Nadiya (X 21385), in the third - this is the future Caliph Umar (al-Haythami, 1987, vol.6, p. 266). It is also said that Maiz was stoned, but he survived until Umar threw a camel's jaw at him, which hit him in the temple, wounding him to death (Abd-ar-Razzaq, 1972, N 13339).

According to one version, Maiz, feeling the impact of stones, cried out: "O people, bring me back to the Messenger of God - indeed, I was condemned, deceived, and told that he would not sentence me to death" (D 4420).45 However, another version shows that Maiz, when he came to the Prophet and asked to be cleansed from his sin, was clearly aware of the punishment that threatened him. Placing his hand in the Prophet's, he urged, "Stone me to death" (M 1695).

The testimonies about the Prophet's funeral prayer over Maiz are also inconsistent: some mention such a prayer, while others deny it (B 6820; T 1429).

It can be concluded that such inconsistencies are sufficient to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Maize story. The main objection to its authenticity is related to the above-mentioned leniency of the Qur'an and the Prophet to the penitents. This condescension is expressed, among other things, in the above-mentioned words of the Prophet about the fleeing Maiz: "Why did they not leave him alone?! Perhaps he would have repented and God would have forgiven him." Maiz's sentence of death does not agree with these words, since he appeared and so clearly repented, confessing four times and demanding to be cleansed by Rajm.

43 In the context of these two versions, it is sometimes suggested that "Musalla" here refers to the site for performing funeral prayers (Musalla al-jana'iz), which was located near Baqa. However, it should be noted that Hadith B 1329, which tells about the rajma of the aforementioned Jewish couple, clearly states that the indicated site (mawda' al-jana'iz) was located near the Mosque!

44 Some of these versions report that a man who met Maiz struck him on the leg, causing him to fall, and then he was beaten to death (al-Askalyani, 1990, K B 6430).

45 However, this version does not conform to the principle established in the classical Muslim legal tradition, according to which ignorance of the proper punishment exempts the violator from it.

page 32

It is reasonable to assume that the tradition of Maiz may have been based on some statement of the Prophet, following in line with the above-mentioned instruction regarding hiding one's sins from prying eyes. The Prophet might have stated something like this: "Whoever comes to me with a confession of adultery, I will certainly apply Hadd to him." And subsequently, the hypothetical case acquired the features of a real fact, which was portrayed in accordance with the ideas of one or another about the appropriate modes of hearing a case and executing a sentence: whether one confession is enough or as many as four are necessary; whether these four confessions can be pronounced at the same time or they will be separated in time; whether the imam / judge during the execution of the sentence; whether it is necessary to dig a hole for the culprit; whether the subsequent refusal of the sentenced person from his initial confession is accepted; whether it is possible/necessary to perform a funeral prayer for the executed sinner; etc.

The impression that this kind of writing/modeling took place is even stronger in the light of other traditions about specific cases of the Prophet passing sentence on those who committed the sin of adultery.

The story of gamiditka / juhainitka

Consider another, also famous legend, the heroine of which is a woman. According to Muslim's version, the history of Maiz continued in this way. Then a certain woman from Hamid, a branch of Azd, came to the Prophet. And like Maiz, the Hamidite woman addressed the Prophet, saying:

"O Messenger of God, purify me!"

"Wretch, come back, ask God for forgiveness and repent to Him!"

"I see that you want to send me away, just as you sent Ma'iz ibn Malik away.

"What's the matter?"

"I'm pregnant through fornication.

"Go on until you're free of the pregnancy."

One of the Ansarites took custody of the woman, and with her permission, he appeared to the Prophet, saying:

- Gamiditka was resolved.

"We will not betray her to Rajma, nor leave her little child without a wet nurse," said the Prophet.

"I'll take over feeding him," an Ansarite volunteered.

And the Prophet performed rajm on the woman (M 1695).

According to another version of the same Muslim, the Prophet sent the Hamidite woman away for the first time, but she came to him the next day. The Prophet told her not to come until she gave birth. When she gave birth, the woman came to the Prophet with the baby in swaddling clothes. The Prophet again postponed the matter until the time when the baby is weaned. After the baby was weaned, the Hamidite woman came to the Prophet with the baby in her arms, who was holding a crust of bread in his palm. And the Prophet sentenced her to rajm (M 1695; see also D 4442).

Muslim gives another such story, but without any connection with the story of Ma'iz. There came to the Prophet a woman who was pregnant through fornication from Juhain, who demanded that he perform the prescribed punishment (hadd) on her. Calling the woman's guardian (wali) to him, the Prophet commanded him: "Treat her kindly, and when she is resolved, bring her to me!" With her permission, he brought the woman to the Prophet, who ordered her to be subjected to Rajma (M 1696; see also D 4440; H 1957; T 1435).

In the second version of the Hamidite woman, it is further reported that Khalid ibn al-Walid, who participated in the Rajma, hurled curses at her. When the Prophet learned of this, he interceded for her: "Calm down, Khalid! By the One in Whose right hand my soul is, she would do such a thing

page 33

remorse that if even the toll collector (Sahib Max) had repented in this way, God would have forgiven him!" Then the Prophet performed a funeral prayer over the woman (M 1695; according to D 4442, the Prophet "commanded that a prayer be performed over her"). And the juhainitka version says that after Rajma, the Prophet performed a funeral prayer over the woman (so says M 1696; according to D 4440, he ordered the Muslims to perform such a prayer). "O Prophet of God, do you pray over her, the adulteress?" Whereupon the Prophet remarked to him: "Indeed, she made such a repentance that if it were divided among the seventy [sinners] of Madinah, it would be enough for them all - what better repentance is there than hers, who did not spare herself in order to please God?"

In addition to these versions, from which it follows that the Hamidite woman came to the Prophet when he was in Madinah (in the Mosque, presumably), there is another one that relates the scene to the Prophet's journey [see fig. X 19923; an-Nasai, 1991, N 7209]. And as in the legend of Maiz, there are differences in the versions regarding the presence of the Prophet himself in the presence of Rajma. According to one of them, the Prophet even "threw a stone the size of a pea at the woman" (Ibid.; see also D 4443; T 1435).

It should be noted at once that the traditions about the hamiditka and / or juhainitka were not reflected in the most authoritative collection of hadith - Sahih al-Bukhari (as well as in Ibn Maji). And this is despite the fact that it is the only hadith on this topic, and the hadith scholar himself devotes a separate paragraph (in the chapter on punishments-hudud) to the question of rajma of a pregnant woman through fornication!

The close proximity of the hamiditka story and the Juhainitka story is also suspicious.46 Apparently, in order to avoid critical conclusions, most authors (including al-Nawawi) were quick to identify the two women, declaring hamid to be an offshoot of Juhaina. But in fact, in the very version of M 1695, it is clearly stated that Hamid is an offshoot of the azd. Azd is usually referred to as the Kahlian group, while Juhaina is considered an offshoot of Kudaa, which is part of the Himyar group (Himyar is the brother of Kahlian). And some interpreters (in particular, al-Asqalyani) clearly distinguish between hamiditka and juhainitka.

Even more than in the history of Maiz, the complete anonymity of all the actors - both the woman herself and her guardian-Wali or two Ansarit trustees-is noteworthy. This raises the same questions as in the case of Ma'iz: about the partner in adultery, about the spouse and children, about other relatives, etc. It is strange that in the case of the hamidit/Juhainit woman, the Prophet did not even find out if she was married, much less did he find out about the existence of the relevant marriage conditions required by the faqihs to make a verdict the verdict on Rajma. And how can you imagine a married woman being placed in the care of someone else's man?!

Of the many obvious inconsistencies in the various versions about the pregnant adulteress, the detail that most draws attention is the time of execution - either immediately after the release from pregnancy, or much later, after the baby is weaned. Once again, the idea comes to mind that the traditions of the hamiditka or juhainitka may have originated from some gentle instruction of the Prophet, meaning to postpone the punishment of pregnant women until they are resolved-an instruction that was later developed into the alleged real story.

Like the legend of Ma'iz, the story of the pregnant woman is in clear contradiction with the condescending attitude of the Koran and the Prophet towards penitents, which makes it doubtful of its authenticity.

46 The heroine of another version, which is similar to the mentioned ones, is a certain Quraysh woman named Subaya [al-Zurkani, 2001, vol. 4, p. 171]!

page 34

Along with the vulnerability of the matna content, the hadith of Hamiditka also has a flaw in the isnad, i.e., the chain of transmitters. For it includes Bashir ibn al-Muhajir, whose reliability is questionable. It is characteristic that only this hadith is transmitted through him in the Muslim code [see al-Zayla'i, 1938, vol. 4, p. 171].

Other hadiths

In the Two Sahihahs, i.e. in the vaults of al-Bukhari and Muslim, there is also such a tradition about the sentence to rajm. Two men came to the Prophet, one of whom claimed that his son, who had been hired to serve the other, had committed adultery with the latter's wife. "Your son is entitled to a hundred lashes and eviction for a year," the Prophet said, and turning to an Aslam named Unais, he added: "Go to that wife and question her - if she confesses, then subject her to rajm" (B 2725, 6633, 6836, 6843, 7260; M 1698).

Doubts about the authenticity of this story are caused by discrepancies in its ending. According to one version, the woman makes a confession to Unais, who subjects her to rajm, and according to another, the Prophet himself executes her. In addition, the litigants demanded to be judged "according to the Book of God" (bi-Kshpab Allah), and the Prophet himself began his speech by saying: "By Him in Whose right hand my soul is, I will judge you according to the Book of God." Meanwhile, the Qur'an itself does not prescribe eviction, nor does it prescribe rajma!

It is also unclear how the Prophet, without finding out whether the son was married or not, could have immediately made a decision about Jalda. And more importantly, why didn't the Prophet demand the required four witnesses or a confession of guilt?! And how does the Prophet, who insistently demanded to close his eyes to other people's weaknesses and in all other cases did not interrogate/sentence the second accomplice, this time suddenly sends a man to interrogate a woman?!47

This story suffers from the same flaws as the traditions of Maiz and Hamiditka / Juhainitka - this is the complete anonymity of all actors, and the absence of any mention of checking for the existence of appropriate ihsan conditions. The name of Unais that has accidentally come up here does not mean much: absolutely nothing is known about aslyamit with this name, and he generally appears exclusively in this legend [al-Askalyani, 1990, k B 6828].

The Two Saheehs mention only these three stories of performing rajma. Other traditions about such sentences, such as those given in the Four Sunanahs (i.e., the codices of Abu Dawud, Ibn Maji, an-Nasa'i, and at-Tirmidhi), are even less trustworthy, and not only because two of the most demanding hadith scholars did not include them in their codices.

According to one of these traditions, the Prophet sentenced an adulterer to Jald, and the sentence was carried out. Then the Prophet was informed that he was married, and the guilty person was sentenced to rajm (D 4438). In addition to being completely anonymous, as always, this tradition does not say at all how the guilt of this sinner was established. Did the Prophet so easily and indiscriminately pass judgment on such a serious matter without finding out the marital status of the guilty person?! To this it is necessary to-

47 According to al-Shafi'i (vol. 5, pp. 128-129), if someone is accused of adultery or any other crime (hadd), then it is not appropriate for the imam-ruler to send to him and interrogate him about it, since God has commanded: "Do not spy!" However, the same al-Shafi'i believes that this does not contradict the Prophet's sending of Unais to that woman, because, he says, it was necessary to find out whether the woman confessed - if so, she would be punished, and in this case the punishment for a possible false accusation is removed from the accomplice; and if not, he would be subjected to a criminal act. and such punishment (Ibid.). At the same time, the instruction to Unais put in the mouth of the Prophet does not in any way support such a motive!

page 35

It should be noted that in another version of this tradition, the Prophet himself does not appear (D 4438 - 4439). This tradition is vulnerable not only from the side of the matna (content), but also from the side of the isnad (chain of transmitters), because in this chain there are two people - Ibn Juraj and Abu-z-Zubayr, who are both considered unreliable transmitters.

On both sides, the same Abu Dawud story is also vulnerable about the case when in the market [in Madinah? a certain woman appeared with a child [in her arms], which excited everyone present. The crowd that had gathered moved with her toward the Prophet. "Who is the father of this child?" The Prophet asked the woman, but she remained silent. Then a young man stood up and said, " I am, O Messenger of God." The Prophet asked others about him, who replied that they had only heard about him from the good side. The Prophet then asked the young man if he was married and, after receiving a positive answer, sentenced him to rajm (D 4435; see also: X 15504).

Regarding the isnad, this hadith is weak because the reliability of two of its transmitters - both Ibn Ulaysa and al-Lajlaj-is disputed. As for the content, it is puzzling at least that the woman was not subjected to any punishment or even censure, although it was she who was the troublemaker.

The Sunan also tells of a man who committed adultery with his wife's slave girl. He was brought before the governor of Kufa, an-Numan ibn Bashir, who announced to the culprit: "Indeed, I will judge you according to the judgment of the Messenger of God - if [your wife] allows her to you, I will give you a hundred lashes, and if not , I will subject you to Rajm" (D 4458; F 2551; N 3360-3361; T 1451) 48.

In quoting this hadeeth, at-Tirmidhi himself notes the weak reliability of the isnad. In addition, this hadith is contradicted by another (no more trustworthy!)hadeeth. hadith according to which the Prophet did not apply the punishment (hadd) to one such culprit (J 2552), or he established that "if sexual intercourse occurred against the will of a slave girl, then she gets her freedom, and the husband compensates her to his wife, but if with the consent of the slave girl, then she becomes his slave, and to the wife he gives her freedom." compensates the slave" (D 4460; H 3363-3364; X 19556).

With reference to the practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet, such a fairly common tradition is also transmitted. A certain Sharaha, an adulteress from the Hamdan tribe, was brought to Caliph Ali, and by his decision she was subjected to Jald on Thursday, and the next day, on Friday, to rajma. "I sentenced her to Jald according to the Book of God, and Rajm according to the Sunnah of the Prophet of God," explained the Caliph (X 841,1189, 1214; an-Nasai, 1991, N 7140) .49 However, the version narrated by al-Bukhari mentions only Rajma (B 6812)! Commenting on this tradition (in its latest version), al-Askalyani notes the unreliability of the hadith on the part of the isnad: some scholars of hadith believe that al-Shabi, the transmitter of this testimony, did not meet Ali. As for the content, it is sufficient to say that the absolute majority of Faqihs do not consider it appropriate to add the Jald to the Rajm. for example: al-Marginani, vol. 2, p. 12; Hidaya, vol. 2, p. 99].

In the light of such a perfectly reasonable opinion of the faqihs, it seems unlikely that the order attributed to the Prophet in the above - mentioned hadith from the words of Ubada-about the punishment of unmarried adulterers by jald with an annual eviction and about the punishment of those who were married by jald with Rajm 50. And the banishment to which they are sentenced here is far from being a practical and expedient measure, especially in relation to

48 Version D 4459 brings this general injunction directly to the Prophet, and version H 3362 reports a particular case of his passing such a sentence.

49 It is easy to see that this tradition contradicts the hadiths about rajma as a Qur'anic injunction.

50 Note also that this hadith is not found in al-Bukhari. In addition, it refers to the punishment for adultery between two bachelors or two married persons, without mentioning the punishment in mixed cases!

page 36

women and slaves. Therefore, this measure is not recognized by many faqihs (in particular, the Khanafis and Malikis).51.

There is another hadith that ascribes to the Prophet the injunction of rajma for adultery. According to this hadeeth, the blood of a Muslim is allowed to be shed only in three cases: for murder, for adultery (if he is married), and for apostasy. 52 However, the authenticity of this hadith was actually questioned by the medieval faqihs themselves, 53 significantly expanding the list of acts deserving of death, which began to include sorcery (among the Malikites and Hanbalis), neglect of ritual prayer (among the Shafi'is and Malikites), etc.

As a result, we can conclude that all the hadiths about Rajma contained in the canonical "Six Books" do not pass the strict test of authenticity. And even if some of them are authentic, they probably date back to the time before the descent of Ayat 24: 2, which finally confirmed the abolition of the harsh biblical sentence for adulterers.

A scientific and critical discussion of the remaining measures of criminal law established by Fiqh (in particular, cutting off the hand for theft, flagellation for drinking alcoholic beverages) reveals a significant departure of medieval theologians from the tolerant teachings of Quranic/prophetic Islam. In this area, as in many others, the universal humanitarian spirit of this teaching is yet to be rediscovered by the current generation of Muslims.

list of literature

Abdarrazzak. Al-Musannaf. Beirut, 1972.

[Abu Hanifa]. Musnad Abi Hanifa. Riyadh, 1995.

Al-Azimabadi. 'Awn al-Ma'bud: sharh Sunan Abi-Da'ud. Beirut, 1990.

Al-Askalyani. Fatah al-Bari bi-sharh Sahih al-Bukhari. Beirut, 1990.

Al-Askalyani. Al-Isaba fi tamiiz al-sahaba. Beirut, 1992.

[Ad-Darimi]. Sunan al-Darimi. Beirut, 1407 H. [1987].

Az-Zailay. Nasb al-raya fi tahrij ahadis al-Hidaya. Cairo, 1938.

[Al-Zurqani]. Sharh al-Zurqani 'ala al-Mu watta'. Beirut, 2001.

[Ibn al-Qayyim]. I'lam al-muwaqqi'in... Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. Beirut, 1973.

[Ibn al-Qayyim]. At-Turuk al-huqmiyyah. Cairo, b.g.

Ibn Sad. At-Tabaqat al-kubra. Beirut, 1968.

[Al-Qurtubi]. Tafsir al-Qurtubi. Cairo, 1952.

Malik. Al-Muwatta'. Beirut, 1985.

Al-Marginani. Al-Hidaya. Beirut, b. g.

Al-Muntahab. Interpretation of the Holy Quran. Cairo, 2000.

An-Nasai. Al-Sunan al-kubra. Beirut, 1991.

[Al-Nawawi]. Sharh an-Nawawi ' ala Sahih Muslim. Beirut, 1392 H. [1972].

At-Tabari. Jami 'al-bayan' an ta'wil ai al-Qur'an. Beirut, 1988.

Al-Haysami. Majma ' al-zawa'id. Cairo-Beirut, 1987.

Hidaya, a commentary on Muslim law. Tashkent, 1893.

Al-Shafi'i. Al-Umm. Beirut, 1973.

51 According to the Hidaya, " the expulsion of a woman opens the way for her to commit further fornication, for people are less embarrassed when they are removed from their friends and acquaintances, whose censure they most fear. In addition, being in an uncertain position and among strangers, they can with great difficulty obtain food, as a result of which they can indulge in lasciviousness for the sake of existence, and this is the worst of fornication" (vol.2, p. 12). And another thing: a woman leaving for a remote area must be accompanied by one of her close male relatives (mahram). And in the case of slaves, eviction is a greater punishment for the master than for them. Therefore, even the supporters of exile do not apply this measure to such persons.

52 As we have shown in the third article, in the latter case we are talking about an apostate who has joined the enemies fighting against Muslims.

53 And some (including the prominent Shafi'i al-Juwayni) have actually started talking about its problematic nature (see al-Asqalyani, 1990, Kb 6978).

Permanent link to this publication: