the Prophet ordered that they be stoned, and he said, “This is the ruling of the Torah.” They replied, “We do not find that in the Torah.” He said, “Then bring the Torah.” When it was brought, the ruling was found there, clear and explicit. So he ordered that they be stoned. The narrator said, “I saw the man shielding her from the stones, bending over her.” (1) This proves that no pit was dug for them.

As for the hadith of Māʿiz, may Allah be pleased with him, the narrations in Muslim itself differ. Some explicitly state, “No pit was dug for him,” (2) while others state, “A pit was dug for him.” (3) Some scholars reconciled the two by saying that the negation of digging means that no deep pit was dug for him, while its affirmation means that a pit was dug from which he could escape—for he did escape. Yet some wordings in Sahih Muslim plainly indicate that no pit at all was dug for him.

This calls for weighing the affirming report against the negating report. If the two hadiths are equal in authenticity, the affirming report is given precedence, since it contains additional knowledge. What appears correct to me is that this is left to the judge’s discretion: if he sees that the public interest calls for digging a pit, one should be dug; otherwise, it should be left.

The scholarly views are as follows:

First: No pit is to be dug in any case. This is the established position of the school.

Second: A pit is to be dug in every case. This is the opposing view.

Third: A pit is dug for a woman, but not for a man.

Fourth: A pit is dug if the offence is established by testimony, but not if it is established by confession;