The Theological Dimensions of Hudud Penalties According to Ahl al-Sunnah: An Analytical and Comparative Study on the Issues of Stoning, Amputation, and Qadhf (Slander)

Abstract

This research examines three issues from the Hudud chapter in Islamic jurisprudence: the stoning of a married adulterer, the amputation of a thief's hand, and the penalty for slander (qadhf). This is undertaken from a theological perspective by tracing their inclusion in the creedal works of Ahl al-Sunnah, alongside a comparative jurisprudential study between the four Sunni schools of law and opposing sects. The study aims to highlight the interconnectedness of creed (aqidah) and jurisprudence (fiqh) among early scholars, demonstrating that the deviations of sects like the Khawarij and Mu'tazilah extended to legal rulings. These groups denied stoning based on the apparent meaning of Surah al-Nur, enforced hand amputation from the shoulder due to literal linguistic generalities, and nullified the punishment for slandering men by restricting the Quranic text solely to women. Utilizing inductive, analytical, and comparative methodologies, the researcher concludes that the majority position (jumhur) is correct in all three issues, supported by the Qur'an, Sunnah, consensus (ijma'), and sound reason, while thoroughly refuting the opponents' arguments. The research establishes that early Imams included these jurisprudential issues in creedal books to counter deviant innovations and distinguish the Sunni creed, affirming that these Hudud penalties are matters of consensus and that opposing views are anomalous and carries no legal weight.