Stoning: A Qur’anic Ruling or a Rule Derived from Reports?

The Law Set Out in Al-Nur

Al-Nur opens with these words:

سُورَةٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهَا وَفَرَضْنَاهَا وَأَنْزَلْنَا فِيهَا آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ

“A surah We have sent down and made obligatory, and in it We have sent down clear signs, so that you may take heed.”

An-Nur 24:1 (Not yet published)

Three expressions stand together at the outset: anzalnāhā, “We sent it down”; faraḍnāhā, “We made it obligatory”; and āyāt bayyināt, “clear signs.” Immediately afterward, the surah’s first ruling appears:

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُمْ بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

“The woman and the man who commit zina: lash each of them a hundred lashes. If you believe in The God and the Last Day, let no compassion for them hold you back in The God’s religion, and let a group of believers witness their punishment.”

An-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published)

The wording is general:

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي

An-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published)

The woman and the man who commit zina.

The verse contains no qualification such as “single,” “unmarried,” “virgin,” or “not muḥṣan.” The verse itself does not create these divisions.

If a qualification is subsequently attached to these two designations through reports or jurisprudence, it must be clear that the qualification does not appear in the wording of The God’s ruling.

Nor is the punishment The God specifies ambiguous:

مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ

An-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published)

A hundred lashes.

At the end of the same verse, the Qur’an itself designates this penalty:

عَذَابَهُمَا

An-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published)

“Their punishment.”

That is the term it uses.

The word reappears a few verses later, establishing one of the surah’s most important internal connections.

A Married Woman and the Same “Punishment”

After specifying the penalty for zina, Al-Nur addresses accusations:

وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاءَ فَاجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَانِينَ جَلْدَةً وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا لَهُمْ شَهَادَةً أَبَدًا وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

“Those who accuse chaste women and then fail to produce four witnesses: lash them eighty lashes, and never accept their testimony. They are the defiantly disobedient.”

An-Nur 24:4 (Not yet published)

When a man accuses his own wife and has no other witness, however, the Qur’an establishes a different procedure:

وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ أَزْوَاجَهُمْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُمْ شُهَدَاءُ إِلَّا أَنْفُسُهُمْ فَشَهَادَةُ أَحَدِهِمْ أَرْبَعُ شَهَادَاتٍ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ ﴿٦﴾

وَالْخَامِسَةُ أَنَّ لَعْنَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ إِنْ كَانَ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ ﴿٧﴾

وَيَدْرَأُ عَنْهَا الْعَذَابَ أَنْ تَشْهَدَ أَرْبَعَ شَهَادَاتٍ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ ﴿٨﴾

وَالْخَامِسَةُ أَنَّ غَضَبَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهَا إِنْ كَانَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ ﴿٩﴾

“Those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves: the testimony of one of them shall be four attestations by The God that he is telling the truth, and a fifth invoking The God’s curse upon himself if he is lying. The punishment is averted from her if she testifies four times by The God that he is lying, and a fifth time invokes The God’s wrath upon herself if he is telling the truth.”

An-Nur 24:6 (Not yet published) An-Nur 24:7 (Not yet published) An-Nur 24:8 (Not yet published) An-Nur 24:9 (Not yet published)

The woman in these verses is not a hypothetical figure of unspecified status. The Qur’an explicitly says:

أَزْوَاجَهُمْ

An-Nur 24:6 (Not yet published)

“Their wives.”

We are therefore dealing with a woman in a marriage.

Of her, it says that the counter-oaths:

يَدْرَأُ عَنْهَا الْعَذَابَ

An-Nur 24:8 (Not yet published)

“Avert the punishment from her.”

But what punishment does al-‘adhāb refer to within this very surah?

Six verses earlier, after prescribing a hundred lashes, the Qur’an had said:

وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

An-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published)

It had called those hundred lashes “their punishment.”

If a married woman found guilty of zina were to be stoned rather than receive a hundred lashes, this would be one of the clearest places for that distinction to appear. Yet the Qur’an uses al-‘adhāb for the married woman within the very surah that defines the punishment for zina as a hundred lashes.

To read al-‘adhāb in verse 8 as stoning, we must first import stoning from outside the surah, because the surah itself has introduced no such penalty.

This evidence within Al-Nur is even more direct than the argument about “half the punishment”: the Qur’an explicitly addresses a married woman accused of zina, yet still says nothing about stoning.

Half the Punishment: Answering a Juristic Objection

Al-Nisa provides another piece of evidence:

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنْكُمْ طَوْلًا أَنْ يَنْكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِنْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ مِنْ فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِإِيمَانِكُمْ بَعْضُكُمْ مِنْ بَعْضٍ فَانْكِحُوهُنَّ بِإِذْنِ أَهْلِهِنَّ وَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ مُحْصَنَاتٍ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحَاتٍ وَلَا مُتَّخِذَاتِ أَخْدَانٍ فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ ذَٰلِكَ لِمَنْ خَشِيَ الْعَنَتَ مِنْكُمْ وَأَنْ تَصْبِرُوا خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ

“Whoever among you lacks the means to marry free, chaste believing women may [marry] believing young women from among those in your possession. The God knows your faith best; you are of one another. Marry them with their families’ permission and give them their bridal dues honorably, as chaste women, neither engaging in illicit intercourse nor taking secret lovers. Once they enter marriage, if they commit an indecency, their punishment is half that of free women. This is for those among you who fear falling into hardship; but patience is better for you. The God is Forgiving, Merciful.”

An-Nisa 4:25 (Not yet published)

The decisive phrase is:

فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ

An-Nisa 4:25 (Not yet published)

Their punishment is half that imposed on the muḥṣanāt.

Halving makes sense for a punishment that can be measured.

A hundred lashes can be halved to fifty.

Death cannot be halved.

One juristic response runs as follows: an enslaved woman, even when married, is not muḥṣanah in the technical legal sense, because freedom is a condition of the iḥṣān required for stoning. The verse, therefore, was never addressing stoning in the first place.

But this response imports a later juristic definition into the verse and then interprets the verse through that same definition.

The Qur’an itself says of these women:

فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ

An-Nisa 4:25 (Not yet published)

It then sets their punishment at “half” that of “the muḥṣanāt.”

If a later legal system says that these women technically never become muḥṣanah, it must first explain why the verse itself uses the root of iḥṣān in speaking of them.

The precise semantic range of iḥṣān in the Qur’an can be debated linguistically. One point nevertheless remains: the Qur’an describes the punishment for this indecency as capable of being halved.

Preserving stoning requires an additional system to be imposed on the verse: free married women must be excluded from the comparison; women who are not free must remain in a separate category even after marriage; and a death penalty must be assumed for the first group, although the Qur’an mentions it neither here nor in Al-Nur.

That system may be jurisprudence. It is not the wording of the verse itself.

The “Way” That Was to Come

In Al-Nisa, before the ruling in Al-Nur, the Qur’an says of indecency:

وَاللَّاتِي يَأْتِينَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مِنْ نِسَائِكُمْ فَاسْتَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ أَرْبَعَةً مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ شَهِدُوا فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّىٰ يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا

“Those of your women who commit indecency: call four witnesses from among you against them. If they testify, confine the women to their homes until death takes them or The God makes a way for them.”

An-Nisa 4:15 (Not yet published)

It then says:

وَاللَّذَانِ يَأْتِيَانِهَا مِنْكُمْ فَآذُوهُمَا فَإِنْ تَابَا وَأَصْلَحَا فَأَعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمَا إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا

“The two among you who commit it: inflict hurt upon them. If they repent and reform, leave them alone. The God is ever accepting of repentance, Merciful.”

An-Nisa 4:16 (Not yet published)

Verse 15 speaks of a “way” that The God will subsequently provide.

When Al-Nur then explicitly assigns a numerical punishment to “the woman and the man who commit zina,” the Qur’an itself supplies a clear, written answer to that expectation.

In the report attributed to ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit, however, the phrase “قد جعل الله لهن سبيلا”—“The God has made a way for them”—is attached to a ruling that prescribes flogging and banishment for the bikr, or virgin, and flogging and stoning for the thayyib, or previously married person.

Report source: Sahih Muslim 1690a

Here the difference in method becomes unmistakable.

One approach reads the “way” through the Qur’an’s own later, explicit verse.

The other introduces an external report and holds that part of this “way” was a ruling never written in the Qur’an.

The question remains: Why should The God’s written verse be insufficient to identify the way He has provided, while a report outside that written text is considered necessary?

Stoning in the Qur’an: A Divine Command or an Opponent’s Threat?

The contrast becomes sharper when we return to the Qur’an’s use of the word rajm itself.

When Shu‘ayb is threatened in the Qur’an, his opponents say they will stone him.

Noah’s opponents voice the same threat.

The Qur’an thus knows the word and uses it to describe threats of violence against prophets.

Yet no such ruling appears in Al-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published), the passage specifying the punishment for zina.

That absence, alongside the explicit ruling of a hundred lashes, the procedure of li‘ān—the spouses’ reciprocal oaths—and the halving of punishment in Al-Nisa 4:25 (Not yet published), forms a clear pattern.

Had the Qur’an wished to say:

“A hundred lashes for an unmarried person who commits zina, and stoning for a married person,”

Nothing in the language would have prevented it.

But no such sentence appears in the Qur’an.

Can the Sunna “Specify” This Verse?

A common response is that the Sunna is a source of law alongside the Qur’an and can qualify the scope of a general Qur’anic ruling. On this basis, Al-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published) is said to concern the non-muḥṣan offender, while the reports exclude the muḥṣan offender from its scope.

Calling this “specification,” however, names the issue; it does not establish the case.

What has happened in practice is substantial. The verse prescribes a hundred lashes for “the woman and the man who commit zina.” A report then removes a large part of that same category from the ruling and prescribes death for them instead.

This is not an explanation of a minor detail. The kind of punishment has changed.

The question therefore remains: Which Qur’anic text says that “الزانية والزاني” in Al-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published) means only unmarried people?

If the answer is the hadith itself, the hadith first alters the verse’s scope, and that altered scope is then used to demonstrate the hadith’s compatibility with the Qur’an.

The same problem arises with the expression “unrecited revelation.” Even if we accept that the Prophet received guidance beyond the Qur’anic text, it does not follow that every report later generations attributed to him is itself divine revelation.

These are two separate questions:

Did the Prophet receive divine guidance?

And does this particular report, with these words and this ruling, reliably transmit that guidance?

One question cannot stand in for the other.

The Report of the “Stoning Verse”

One of the most difficult reports for the doctrine of stoning is a statement attributed to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ بَعَثَ مُحَمَّدًا بِالْحَقِّ، وَأَنْزَلَ عَلَيْهِ الْكِتَابَ، فَكَانَ مِمَّا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ آيَةُ الرَّجْمِ، فَقَرَأْنَاهَا، وَوَعَيْنَاهَا، وَعَقَلْنَاهَا، فَرَجَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَرَجَمْنَا بَعْدَهُ

“The God sent Muhammad with the truth and revealed the Book to him. Among what The God revealed was the verse of stoning. We read it, retained it, and understood it. The God’s messenger carried out stoning, and we did so after him.”

Hadith report: Sahih al-Bukhari 6830

This report is transmitted in Sahih al-Bukhari, the Book of Legal Punishments, hadith 6829.

Source note and reference numbering

The problem is plain: the “stoning verse” is not in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an says of the preservation of the Reminder:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

“We Ourselves sent down the Reminder, and We Ourselves are its guardians.”

Al-Hijr 15:9 (Not yet published)

To resolve this tension, a theory emerged commonly called “abrogation of recitation while the ruling remains”: the verse was removed from the Qur’an, but its ruling continued in force.

This theory, too, must be measured against the Qur’an itself.

On abrogation, the Qur’an says:

مَا نَنْسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنْسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

“Whatever sign We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that The God has power over all things?”

Al-Baqarah 2:106 (Not yet published)

And it says:

وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا أَنْتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

“When We replace one sign with another—and The God knows best what He sends down—they say, ‘You are only a fabricator.’ Rather, most of them do not know.”

An-Nahl 16:101 (Not yet published)

In both statements, abrogation involves bringing something else or placing one sign in another’s place.

The theory of “abrogation of recitation while the ruling remains” claims a different arrangement: the wording of a death sentence is removed from the Book; no surviving verse prescribes stoning; yet that same sentence remains binding forever, and reports become the means of knowing it.

The Qur’an itself describes no such kind of abrogation.

If it is said that The God withdrew the recitation of the stoning verse, the next question is clear: Which verse did He bring in its place to preserve the stoning ruling?

The existing verse on zina is Al-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published), and it prescribes a hundred lashes.

Naming the theory of abrogated recitation does not resolve the issue. The theory itself requires Qur’anic evidence.

The Reports of Ma‘iz and the Woman of Ghamid

Hadith collections contain reports about Ma‘iz and the woman of Ghamid that attribute stoning to the Prophet.

Source for Ma‘iz and the woman of Ghamid: Sahih Muslim 1695a

The existence of these reports does not settle the question. These very reports are what must be evaluated.

Had the Qur’an been silent about the punishment for zina, a report might claim to explain what had been left open.

But there is no such gap here.

The Qur’an has prescribed a hundred lashes.

The same surah brings a married woman into the procedure of li‘ān and speaks of “the punishment.”

Al-Nisa 4:25 (Not yet published) describes the punishment as capable of being halved.

The report of stoning thus enters a field already governed by written law.

The central question is not whether reports about stoning exist. They do.

It is this: Can a human report turn the punishment the Qur’an prescribes for “the woman and the man who commit zina” into a death sentence for some of the people included under that designation?

Proving Zina: What the Qur’an Says and What Was Added Later

The Qur’an also establishes a definite structure for accusations of zina.

Al-Nur 24:4 (Not yet published) requires four witnesses.

If a husband accuses his wife without having the witnesses, the Qur’an does not accept his assertion alone as sufficient. It prescribes li‘ān, with four attestations and a fifth oath for each party.

We cannot turn these verses into a statement the Qur’an never makes—for example, an exhaustive list of every possible form of judicial proof for all time.

Equally, however, these verses do not establish “the judge’s knowledge,” pregnancy, or confession as independent grounds for applying the prescribed penalty for zina.

The boundary is therefore clear:

Four witnesses and li‘ān are stated in the Qur’anic text.

Confession, the judge’s knowledge, and other methods of proof are constructions of later juristic systems.

They do not carry the same level of authority.

When the claimed consequence is the taking of a human life, that difference is no minor theoretical disagreement.

Criticizing a Hadith Is Not Rejecting the Messenger

An inquiry of this kind is sometimes met, not with an answer to the verses, but with the declaration: “Whoever rejects hadith is a disbeliever.”

Declaring someone a disbeliever resolves no contradiction.

The question is not whether something should be accepted if The God’s messenger said it. The question is how we establish that this particular report really is what the messenger said.

The messenger and a report about the messenger are not the same thing.

Criticizing a transmitted account is not rejecting the Prophet.

If a report attributes to the Prophet a ruling that conflicts with the Qur’an’s clear law, that report especially needs scrutiny. Falsely attributing a ruling to the Prophet is itself a grave error.

The real disagreement concerns the standard of judgment.

If hadith becomes the standard by which the Qur’an is judged, Al-Nur 24:2 (Not yet published) is restricted through hadith; Al-Nisa 4:25 (Not yet published) is reread through a later juristic definition of iḥṣān; the absence of a stoning verse is explained through “abrogation of recitation”; and the final result is what the report had prescribed from the outset.

If the Qur’an is the standard by which reports are judged, the direction of inquiry is reversed:

Is this report compatible with the Qur’an?

Does it add a ruling to Qur’anic law?

Does it alter the scope of a Qur’anic ruling?

And if so, where is the divine warrant for that authority?

Human Life and the Need for an Explicit Text

The Qur’an says:

قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ أَلَّا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ مِنْ إِمْلَاقٍ نَحْنُ نَرْزُقُكُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ذَٰلِكُمْ وَصَّاكُمْ بِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ

“Say: Come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden you: do not associate anything with Him; be good to your parents; do not kill your children because of poverty—We provide for you and for them; do not approach indecencies, whether open or hidden; and do not kill the person whose life The God has made inviolable, except by right. This is what He has enjoined upon you, so that you may reason.”

Al-An'am 6:151 (Not yet published)

The principle is clear: taking a human life requires a rightful ground.

If zina were one of the acts that established a right to kill, its legal provision should appear where The God states the law concerning zina.

What we find in the Qur’an, however, is:

A hundred lashes.

Four witnesses.

Li‘ān for the spouses.

A punishment that can be halved.

And no command to stone anyone.

Conclusion

The structure of the Qur’anic ruling is clear.

The Qur’an knows and uses the word rajm, but nowhere makes it the punishment for zina.

Al-Nur announces that it is a surah sent down, made obligatory, and containing clear signs. It then prescribes a hundred lashes for “the woman and the man who commit zina.” The ruling makes no distinction between married and unmarried people.

The same surah speaks of averting “the punishment” from a woman whom her husband accuses of zina—a woman plainly within a marriage. It uses the same word applied a few verses earlier to the punishment of a hundred lashes.

Al-Nisa 4:25 (Not yet published) treats the punishment as capable of being halved. Death cannot be halved.

The juristic response that excludes a woman who is not free from the definition of muḥṣanah even after marriage rests on a definition constructed by jurisprudence. The Qur’an itself says in that verse, “فإذا أحصن.”

The reports, by contrast, construct another system: dividing offenders into bikr and thayyib, prescribing stoning, adding methods of proof, and even claiming that there was once a verse on stoning that is now absent from the Qur’an.

The theory of “abrogation of recitation while the ruling remains” was developed to explain that absence, but the Qur’an describes no such kind of abrogation.

The fundamental disagreement, then, goes beyond a single punishment. It concerns what has the authority to define The God’s law.

If reports govern the Qur’an, they can be used to narrow “the woman and the man who commit zina” and devise another ruling for some of them.

If the Qur’an is the measure, however, every report must answer to these clear signs.

Under the Qur’an’s written law, the punishment for zina is a hundred lashes.

Stoning is not the Qur’an’s ruling for zina.

And no human report has the right to impose, in The God’s name, a lethal sentence upon human beings that He has not written into His clear law.