His statement, “No pit is dug for the person stoned for fornication,” represents the well-known position of the Hanbali school: that digging a pit for such a person is not recommended. The scholars differed over this issue because of the differing reports concerning it. The reports from the Prophet differ: some explicitly indicate that no pit is to be dug for the person being stoned, since they expressly mention that no digging took place; others indicate that a pit should be dug for him; and still others are inconclusive, mentioning neither this nor that. Hence the scholars differed.

Those who held that no pit should be dug said: the Prophet did not dig one for the woman who had committed fornication with her husband’s hired worker. Rather, he said to Unays, “Go in the morning to this man’s wife, and if she confesses, stone her.” (1) He did not instruct him to dig a pit for her. The omission of an instruction at a time when it is needed indicates that it is not obligatory, for the circumstances would have called for its mention had it been obligatory. He did not say, “Go to her, and if she confesses, dig a pit for her and stone her.”

Moreover, he did not dig a pit for the two Jews who committed fornication: a Jewish man had committed fornication with a Jewish woman, and they came to the Prophet so that he might judge between them. The prescribed punishment in the Torah was stoning; but when fornication became widespread among their elite, they said, “We cannot stone our elite. So what should we do?” They said, “Blacken their faces and parade them among the tribes,” or something similar that would bring disgrace and shame. When the Prophet came to Medina and fornication occurred between one of their men and a woman, they said, “Go to this man”—meaning the Prophet—“perhaps you may find with him something...” He ordered