Hadith of stoning and exile and lashes related to verse 24:2

 the detailed of The key evidence is the hadith of ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim), in which the Prophet ﷺ said:

“Allah has now made a way for them.”

1. The hadith of ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit (رضي الله عنه)

The report is recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1690, in the Book of Legal Punishments, under the chapter on the punishment for zinā.

Sunnah.com

+1

Arabic text

عَنْ عُبَادَةَ بْنِ الصَّامِتِ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ:

خُذُوا عَنِّي، خُذُوا عَنِّي، قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا، الْبِكْرُ بِالْبِكْرِ، جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ، وَنَفْيُ سَنَةٍ، وَالثَّيِّبُ بِالثَّيِّبِ، جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ، وَالرَّجْمُ.

English translation

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

“Take from me, take from me. Allah has ordained a way for them: an unmarried person with an unmarried person—one hundred lashes and exile for one year; and a previously married person with a previously married person—one hundred lashes and stoning.”

Translation of the report in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1690; wording varies slightly between narrations.

The Hadd punishment for Zina

+1

2. What does قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا mean?

The key expression is:

قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا

Word by word:

Arabic	Meaning
قَدْ	Indeed; already
جَعَلَ	Has made, appointed
اللَّهُ	Allah
لَهُنَّ	For them (feminine plural)
سَبِيلًا	A way, a course, a prescribed means

A close literal translation is:

“Indeed, Allah has appointed a way for them.”

The expression refers to Allah establishing a further ruling or prescribed course for the women mentioned in the earlier legislation.

3. How does it relate to Qur’an 4:15–16?

Qur’an 4:15 states:

وَاللَّاتِي يَأْتِينَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مِنْ نِسَائِكُمْ ... فَأَمْسِكُوهُنَّ فِي الْبُيُوتِ حَتَّىٰ يَتَوَفَّاهُنَّ الْمَوْتُ أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا

Translation:

“And those of your women who commit the indecent act … confine them in the houses until death takes them or Allah appoints for them a way.”

Notice the exact correspondence:

• Qur’an 4:15: أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا — “or Allah appoints for them a way.”

• Hadith: قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا — “Allah has indeed appointed a way for them.”

The verbal correspondence is very strong. The hadith's wording appears to announce the very development anticipated in 4:15. Ibn Kathīr explicitly connects the report to the earlier confinement ruling and the subsequent legislation in Sūrah al-Nūr.

Quran.com

+1

4. What about Qur’an 4:16?

Qur’an 4:16 says:

وَاللَّذَانِ يَأْتِيَانِهَا مِنْكُمْ فَآذُوهُمَا

A close translation is:

“And the two among you who commit it, then cause them both distress or reprimand them.”

The verse is commonly interpreted as an earlier disciplinary ruling concerning sexual misconduct. Classical exegetes discuss it alongside 4:15 and the later legislation.

However, we should not assume that 4:15 and 4:16 necessarily prescribe identical measures: their wording differs, and scholars have discussed their respective applications.

5. Does the hadith prove that 4:15–16 came before 24:2?

It provides strong evidence for the sequence of the legal rulings, but a distinction is necessary.

1. The earlier ruling: Qur’an 4:15 refers to confinement until Allah appoints another way.

2. The announced development: The Prophet ﷺ says that Allah has now appointed that way.

3. The later Qur’anic legislation: Qur’an 24:2 prescribes one hundred lashes for the female and male who commit zinā.

Ibn ʿAbbās (رضي الله عنهما), as cited in Ibn Kathīr's commentary, explicitly identifies Sūrah al-Nūr as superseding the earlier confinement ruling.

Quran.com

+1

An important qualification: the hadith itself does not name Qur’an 24:2 or provide the calendar date on which that verse was revealed. The identification of Sūrah al-Nūr as the later legislation comes from the exegetical reports and the wider legal interpretation.

Also, the hadith's penalty for a previously married person should not be conflated with the wording of 24:2: the verse itself mentions one hundred lashes and does not mention stoning. The relationship between the verse and the hadith is a separate question of Islamic jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The strongest argument is the direct verbal connection between أَوْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا in 4:15 and قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لَهُنَّ سَبِيلًا in the hadith. Together with Ibn ʿAbbās's reported explanation, this supports the classical view that the confinement ruling preceded the later legislation.

Here interesting thing is that Allah made us forgotten about the verse 24:2. Here originally have rule of stoning, mentioned of unmarried and married person and exile for 1 year. But Allah wonderfully and miraculously abrogated or deleted the mention of unmarried person, stoning and exile and none can remember clearly except Omar Rta and Prophet SWS. It is great sign of Allah Your reflection raises an important theological question: if Allah revealed a ruling, and later its wording was no longer recited as Qur’an while some of its legal details remained known through hadith, how should Muslims understand that process? In Islamic scholarship, this is discussed under naskh (نسخ, abrogation), particularly the distinction between the abrogation of a ruling and the abrogation of its recitation. There are, however, several important distinctions in the reports about stoning, exile, and Qur’an 24:2. 1. What ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) actually said In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1691a, ʿUmar states that the āyat al-rajm (verse of stoning) was among what Allah revealed to the Prophet ﷺ: فَكَانَ مِمَّا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ آيَةُ الرَّجْمِ قَرَأْنَاهَا وَوَعَيْنَاهَا وَعَقَلْنَاهَا “Among what was revealed to him was the verse of stoning. We recited it, retained it in our memory, and understood it.” Sunnah.com He feared that future people might say they could not find stoning in the Qur'an and consequently abandon what he regarded as an established divine obligation. This is significant: ʿUmar himself acknowledged the distinction between the Qur'an's extant text and the ruling he understood to remain in force. He did not say that the current text of Qur’an 24:2 contains the words about stoning. 2. Was the verse forgotten, or was its recitation abrogated? In the classical Sunni explanation, this is generally discussed as abrogation of recitation while the ruling remains (naskh al-tilāwah maʿa baqāʾ al-ḥukm). That differs from ordinary forgetting: Ordinary forgetting: A person loses something from memory. Abrogation of recitation: The text is no longer recited as part of the Qur'an, according to the traditional theological account. Continuation of the ruling: The legal rule is understood to remain established through the Prophetic Sunnah and its transmission. Thus, within that theological framework, the absence of the wording is not understood as an accidental loss from the Qur'an's final text. It is understood as part of Allah's decree. However, it is important to distinguish this traditional explanation from what the hadith directly establishes. The report records ʿUmar's statement about a previously revealed verse; it does not independently describe the precise process by which its recitation ceased. 3. What about the unmarried person's punishment and exile? The hadith of ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1690 mentions: الْبِكْرُ بِالْبِكْرِ — the previously un-married person with the previously un-married person; جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ — one hundred lashes; وَنَفْيُ سَنَةٍ — exile for one year; الثَّيِّبُ بِالثَّيِّبِ — the previously married person with the previously married person; وَالرَّجْمُ — stoning. Sunnah.com These details should not all be attributed to the abrogation of one particular verse without further evidence. The hadith reports a legal distinction between the two categories, while the classical legal schools discuss how these punishments relate to Qur’an 24:2 and other Prophetic reports. 4. Is this a great sign of Allah? From the perspective of traditional Islamic belief, a believer may indeed see divine wisdom in Allah determining what remains as Qur'anic recitation and what legal rulings continue through the Sunnah. But one qualification matters for your argument: we cannot establish from these reports alone that Allah intended people to forget the wording as a miraculous sign. The reports establish what ʿUmar and the Prophet ﷺ are reported to have said; the theological purpose behind the abrogation is an interpretation. The Qur'an itself says: “We do not abrogate an āyah or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring one better than it or similar to it.” — Qur’an 2:106. The interpretation of this verse and its relationship to abrogation has been discussed extensively by Muslim scholars. Cambridge Core My conclusion: Your reflection is consistent with a classical Sunni theological understanding of abrogation of recitation. The strongest formulation is that Muslims traditionally understand the disappearance of the recited wording and the continuation of certain rulings as occurring by Allah's decree—not as accidental loss. Whether the specific purpose was to make people forget the wording is a further theological claim, rather than something the cited hadith explicitly states.

 Here interesting thing is that Allah made us forgotten about the verse 24:2. Here originally have rule of stoning, mentioned of unmarried and married person and exile for 1 year. But Allah wonderfully and miraculously abrogated or deleted the mention of unmarried person, stoning and exile and none can remember clearly except Omar Rta and Prophet SWS. It is great sign of Allah

Your reflection raises an important theological question: if Allah revealed a ruling, and later its wording was no longer recited as Qur’an while some of its legal details remained known through hadith, how should Muslims understand that process?

In Islamic scholarship, this is discussed under naskh (نسخ, abrogation), particularly the distinction between the abrogation of a ruling and the abrogation of its recitation.

There are, however, several important distinctions in the reports about stoning, exile, and Qur’an 24:2.

1. What ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه) actually said

In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1691a, ʿUmar states that the āyat al-rajm (verse of stoning) was among what Allah revealed to the Prophet ﷺ:

فَكَانَ مِمَّا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ آيَةُ الرَّجْمِ قَرَأْنَاهَا وَوَعَيْنَاهَا وَعَقَلْنَاهَا

“Among what was revealed to him was the verse of stoning. We recited it, retained it in our memory, and understood it.”

Sunnah.com

He feared that future people might say they could not find stoning in the Qur'an and consequently abandon what he regarded as an established divine obligation.

This is significant: ʿUmar himself acknowledged the distinction between the Qur'an's extant text and the ruling he understood to remain in force. He did not say that the current text of Qur’an 24:2 contains the words about stoning.

2. Was the verse forgotten, or was its recitation abrogated?

In the classical Sunni explanation, this is generally discussed as abrogation of recitation while the ruling remains (naskh al-tilāwah maʿa baqāʾ al-ḥukm).

That differs from ordinary forgetting:

• Ordinary forgetting: A person loses something from memory.

• Abrogation of recitation: The text is no longer recited as part of the Qur'an, according to the traditional theological account.

• Continuation of the ruling: The legal rule is understood to remain established through the Prophetic Sunnah and its transmission.

Thus, within that theological framework, the absence of the wording is not understood as an accidental loss from the Qur'an's final text. It is understood as part of Allah's decree.

However, it is important to distinguish this traditional explanation from what the hadith directly establishes. The report records ʿUmar's statement about a previously revealed verse; it does not independently describe the precise process by which its recitation ceased.

3. What about the unmarried person's punishment and exile?

The hadith of ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1690 mentions:

• الْبِكْرُ بِالْبِكْرِ — the previously un-married person with the previously un-married person;

• جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ — one hundred lashes;

• وَنَفْيُ سَنَةٍ — exile for one year;

• الثَّيِّبُ بِالثَّيِّبِ — the previously married person with the previously married person;

• وَالرَّجْمُ — stoning.

  

  Sunnah.com

These details should not all be attributed to the abrogation of one particular verse without further evidence. The hadith reports a legal distinction between the two categories, while the classical legal schools discuss how these punishments relate to Qur’an 24:2 and other Prophetic reports.

4. Is this a great sign of Allah?

From the perspective of traditional Islamic belief, a believer may indeed see divine wisdom in Allah determining what remains as Qur'anic recitation and what legal rulings continue through the Sunnah.

But one qualification matters for your argument: we cannot establish from these reports alone that Allah intended people to forget the wording as a miraculous sign. The reports establish what ʿUmar and the Prophet ﷺ are reported to have said; the theological purpose behind the abrogation is an interpretation.

The Qur'an itself says:

“We do not abrogate an āyah or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring one better than it or similar to it.” — Qur’an 2:106.

The interpretation of this verse and its relationship to abrogation has been discussed extensively by Muslim scholars.

Cambridge Core

My conclusion: Your reflection is consistent with a classical Sunni theological understanding of abrogation of recitation. The strongest formulation is that Muslims traditionally understand the disappearance of the recited wording and the continuation of certain rulings as occurring by Allah's decree—not as accidental loss. Whether the specific purpose was to make people forget the wording is a further theological claim, rather than something the cited hadith explicitly states.