So I turn to Allah, the High, the Wise, the superbly Merciful, and I pray that He increase me, and all our students, teachers, and staff in light, knowledge, understanding... in Iman. I ask that He makes us firm in our adherence to the sunnah of His Beloved (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and that by the tremendousness of this sacred month that He bestow on us the confidence and clarity that only true faith brings forth and that He protect us from everything that displeases Him until we meet Him. And this is easy for Allah, the Mighty, the Wise.

Amin.

"By the afternoon! 

Surely Man is in the way of loss, 

save those who believe, and do righteous deeds, and counsel each other unto the truth, and counsel each other to be steadfast."

Quran 103

So if when I say extremism you can only think of either, a bearded man killing without right, or a Muslim politician who announces covering her head is "optional", then you are an extremist. Or, you've been badly influenced by them.

The middle path is described in Sura Fatiha, it is the path of the prophets (Allah bless them all with peace) and the righteous, and it is between the excesses of zealotry and lawlessness.

May Allah make us firm and unwavering on the Path of Uprightness. Amin.

I had mentioned a hadith from the Sunan Bayhaqi al Kubra and the Marasil of Abu Dawad (neither of which is translated as far as I'm aware) on the matter, not as proof (as the probative status of such mursal hadiths is subject to significant interdisciplinary difference of opinion), but as a sort of indication in the hadith literature for the rulings conveyed by the Jurists of the the Hanafi school.

In the course of explaining the matter it occurred to me how widespread the notion has become that Fiqh as a science should somehow be subservient to Hadith which, in reality, is not the same as the Sunnah but very much a science like Fiqh. The fact of the matter is that the proofs of the Jurists will never be fully appreciated by those who assume that the science of Hadith is the Sunnah, neatly contained in a few translated works. This is a gross over-simplification of things.

The Sunnah is not a book nor a collection of books. It is a way, the way of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his companions, and the believers. Hadith is important because it examines statements and stories attributed to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and assesses their probability of accuracy. Understanding those statements and stories and applying them to everyday life is the realm of Fiqh, however, and not Hadith. This has to be understood.

Fiqh is another science that need not always confirm to the standards of the science of Hadith (the opposite is true also). So there isn't always a hadith for what is recorded in Fiqh. In fact Fiqh is most useful when it comes to matters where there is no specific highly graded Hadith such as if someone asks, "I was confused and washed my feet first in wudu before my face, then I prayed. What of my prayer?" or "I accidentally prostrated once in my first unit of prayer and then added an extra prostration in my final unit. What of my prayer?" There are answers to these questions but not in a verse of the Quran nor in a (highly authenticated) hadith. It is in our Fiqh.

He also mentioned that being pleased with the self is the root of every evil trait of character.

We ask Allah, Most High, for wellbeing.

What concerns me though is the misunderstanding that is often manifest among Muslims when we become offended and defensive upon hearing stoning described as brutal, awful, savage and the like. Stoning to death is a preventative punishment not a daily ritual act of devotion. Were it not describable in such terms it would be pointless. This is where we need to stop and think least we miss the point.

I'm not going to apologize. As someone reading Sharia Law I know that it comes from God and so it's not my place to do that. What I will do though is make a small point about why Muslims should not be offended or displeased to see honest, sensible people, outraged at the idea of stoning others to death. No one but a sick individual should find pleasure in the idea of stoning a child of Adam. Stoning to death is savage and awful. That's precisely the point. That is why in the Sharia it is associated with something even more savage, even more awful- adultery, a heinous sexual act characterized by deceit; selfishness; and intemperance, a rejection of the order of God, the antithesis of marital sex.

The Sharia does not seek to stone people and Muslims should not behave as if that is the case. Rather, what is sought is the prevention of adultery, the reprehensibility of which is expressed in the most patent legal terms that anyone can identify with. Yet why is it that the laws relating to stoning are the way that they are? Why should the judge drop the punishment at the slightest shubha (doubt)? Why is it a requirement that four upright witnesses see the act of penetration? Why is it that the witnesses themselves should be the first ones to throw the stones, and if they refuse, or are absent, or die, the punishment is dropped? Why are accusers flogged if they lack evidence? Because it's not about the brutality of stoning, it's about the savage indecency it seeks to prevent. So when people are outraged at the thought of stoning others to death, Muslims should be pleased; there is common ground. We don't like it either, any more than we do the act of adultery.

And that is where the common ground ends and the misunderstandings step in. People who think that stoning to death is "normal", and who delight at the sight of a man or woman half buried, and about to die are corrupt and disturbed yet no more so than the ones who think that pre and extra marital sex are "normal" and who delight at the sight of a man or woman half dressed and seeking "a good time". The former group trivializes life while latter group trivializes honor; neither is prepared to appreciate the Sharia, which seeks to protect both life and honor. Muslims, if no one else, need to understand that society should not be a place where the blood of the children of Adam is spilled every week and due (Sharia) process is ignored, nor should it be a place where honor, chastity, and purity are meaningless abstractions of little practical and certainly no legal consequence.

Yet I fear that this point is lost on us as the debate on this matter continues to be dominated by those who can't or won't grasp the balance the Sharia seeks to achieve. Thus it may be that the only death to result from all this stoning is that of morality itself. And it is that outcome that should outrage Muslims more than anything else.

We ask Allah for steadfastness.

Allah bless Shaykh Ahmad al-Hasanat, and increase him in every good and spread his benefit. Amin.

Yes, because revelation tells us that God also determined that those who He determined will go to Heaven are those who have faith and do works. So not having faith and not doing works makes as much sense as choosing to go to Hell.