شادی شدہ زانی و زانیہ کی سزا رجم یا سو کوڑےمولانا اصلاحی کے نقطہ نظر کا جائزہ

Amin Ahsan Islahi’s view on rajm departs fundamentally from the established Prophetic and juristic understanding of Islamic criminal law. He argues that rajm was not a fixed legal punishment (ḥadd) for married adulterers but a discretionary penalty imposed only on habitual offenders who posed a threat to social order. This reinterpretation, however, lacks explicit textual support from the Sunnah. Authentic hadith literature consistently shows that the Prophet ﷺ treated marital status (iḥṣān) as the decisive legal criterion in cases of zinā. In several rigorously authenticated narrations, the Prophet ﷺ explicitly asked whether the accused was married before determining the punishment. No report indicates that habitual criminality, public nuisance, or professional immorality was investigated or treated as the legal cause of rajm. Islahi’s claim that Maʿiz b. Mālik was a habitual offender is based on inference rather than clear evidence. The strong language used by the Prophet ﷺ in certain narrations serves as general admonition and deterrence for the community, not as a factual description of Maʿiz’s character. Other authentic reports explicitly affirm the sincerity and عظمت of Maʿiz’s repentance, which contradicts the notion of persistent criminal behavior. Furthermore, the absence of immediate supplication after the execution does not indicate condemnation; it reflects a juridical context, as other narrations confirm that the Prophet ﷺ later praised the repentance of those who were punished. In sum, Islahi’s theory redefines the legal cause of rajm without prophetic precedent and stands in opposition to the consistent practice of the Prophet ﷺ and the unanimous understanding of the classical juristic tradition.