Version 2 2024-02-13, 07:25Version 2 2024-02-13, 07:25
Version 1 2022-02-10, 13:30Version 1 2022-02-10, 13:30
journal contribution
posted on 2024-02-13, 07:25authored bySyed Atif Rizwan
The article examines several versions of a
report in which ʿUmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb makes a
public statement asserting the lawfulness of
stoning as punishment for a category of offenders convicted of unlawful
intercourse. The article also analyses certain versions of a report in which ʿUmar makes a public declaration that the
acclamation of Abū Bakr as caliph was legitimate despite the process being
unexpected and in haste. I argue that the motif of ʿUmar
as having made a public statement about the validity of stoning drew upon a
motif about his public declaration regarding Abū Bakr’s caliphate. The
association between these two motifs may have been part of a strategy to link,
under the purview of ʿUmar’s authority and
reputation for insulating the community against internal crisis, the settling
of one contentious matter (the legitimacy of stoning) with another (the
legitimacy of Abū Bakr’s caliphate).