Second Addendum to the Case of Polyandry

Although not directly related to the case of polyandry, an important issue that relates to several other problems and misconceptions is the "stoning to death for adultery". In this addendum, we are going to discuss whether this application is Islamic or not.

Stoning to death as a penalty for adultery is termed as rajm in the Islamic literature. Here, I am not going to go into the details of this practice but will simply show that it contradicts the teachings in the Quran.

First, it is necessary to indicate that there is no differentiation in the Quran between fornication and adultery. The former, in English, refers to the sexual intercourse between partners, both of which are completely unmarried, whereas the latter refers to the case where at least one of the partners is married to someone else. Common to the both cases is that the partners in the act are not married to each other. The term in the Quran for such acts is zina', without a distinction for the marital status of the involved individuals. This is an important point, because the Muslim scholars do distinguish between fornication and adultery, and the interpretation of the Quran in this matter is made according to this distinction. Regardless, not only is there no explicit support of rajm in the Quran but also is there evidence against it.

Now, let's see what is instructed by God in the holy Quran:

"And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them. And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever Accepting of repentance, Merciful." (4/15-16)

"The woman and the man guilty of zina (adultery or fornication),- flog each of them with a hundred stripes..." (24/2)

In the classical interpretation, it is said that the first verses came, placing an injunction on the matter, but the latter one abrogated the first. In both cases, though, rajm is not mentioned. It is just said that the actors in the matter must be punished. The fact that God mentions repentance and recovery immediately afterwards is further evidence that the punishment cannot be an irreversible one such as rajm but must be a correctional one.

It is interesting that in the aforementioned verses, different nouns are used related to the matter. The first one is fahishatan, the underlined word in 4/15, and is translated as indecency, but in practice refers to inappropriate openness visually or to immoral affairs between men and women. The second one is where zina (adultery) is uttered explicitly. Here, we need to establish a logical and etimological relationship in order to make sense of these verses.

"And come not near unto adultery (zina). Lo! it is an abomination (fahishatan) and an evil way." (17/32)

 First of all, every fahishah is not zina, but every act of zina is fahishah. As a matter of fact, the first verses above (4/15-16) are prescribing an action against fahishah, whereas the second one (24/2) does the same for zina specifically. And if you think about the classical stance about proving zina, where four witnesses are required, it really doesn't make sense. No Muslim with sanity and conscience commits adultery in a situation where four individuals are watching! But, other forms of explicitness may be committed, and it would entail penalty as in 4/15-16, which is not rajm, because it is supposed to be a corrective action per instruction of the One who is accepting of repentance and is merciful.

Another logical consistency check is necessary in order to refuse a narration that is supportive of rajm. It is narrated in some traditions from notable companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that there was a verse about rajm in the Quran, but was omitted. Without a need for who and how, this kind of tradition strikingly contradicts with what Allah promises in His holy book:

"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian." (15/9)

God makes a promise to protect His book. So, claiming that a verse about rajm was somehow excluded due to humans' mistakes means that the promise made in the holy book was not kept. Such an illogical claim cannot be made by anyone who reads, thinks and acts upon the Quran. 

As a side note, some others claim that the mentioned verse about rajm was excluded from the Quran by the revelation from God (abrogation), but that its injunction was meant to remain valid permanently. Without going into detail, this claim can be refused based on the following:

1. If something is not explicitly told in the Quran, Allah has forgiven it from humans; hence, no conclusive claims can be made about them. (5/101-102)
2. This matter is one of argument among the Muslim scholars. If something is vague enough to be a matter of argument, how can it be an order of God?
3. The claim that "its text has been removed but its injunction is permanent" is also a formula produced by the Islamic scholars, and it has no support from the Quran. 

So, it is clear that rajm is not supported by the Quran. Then, we need to come to terms with the injunction of rajm by the words of the prophet. Why, if it is not in the Quran, did he enjoin this punishment for adultery? In order to explain this situation, it is helpful to, first, look at other similar cases. 

A most exemplary one is the prohibition of making statues and pictures. Although there is no such prohibition in the Quran, Prophet Muhammad pbuh talked very strictly against this practice. And in fact, when you think about it, it makes sense, because the Arabs of the time were idol worshippers, and had been so for generations. In order to defeat this practice that had deep roots in people's minds and, instead, inculcate worship of one God without intermediaries, he had to implace such precautions. This is the same thing as avoiding the triggers in order to break the harmful addictions.

Another similar case is the playing of musical instruments and singing. Although not as strict as the previous case, you can find a disapproval of these in the words of the prophet. And in fact, when you think about it, you see that the Arabs at that time had been heavy drinkers in the company of singers and dancers. So, singing was a trigger for the act of consuming alcohol. In order to fortify the ban against such drinks, which is clearly stated in the Quran, the Prophet had to suppress the triggers, too.

Similarly, the state of the women among the Arabs at the time was far from acceptable. Women could find themselves obliged to commit adultery, or men could want to take advantage of them. Aside from these cases, adultery was sometimes done on purpose, such as sometimes a man used to ask his wife to sleep with a certain man so that the woman could bear an honorable and healthy child (!). All these practices had to be stopped for good. 

When there is no explicit order of God in a matter, Prophet Muhammad did one of the following. He looked at either the practices of the People of the Book or the practices of the local people or his own wisdom. And at the time, among the Jews, stoning to death for adultery was present as an accepted religious custom. So, it is possible that one reason the Prophet approved of rajm is to bring an end to the abuse of women in the society. In fact, he himself never executed this punishment, and actually tried to avoid it as much as possible (see the case of Maiz)

Allah knows the best.