of Sunni fiqh (madhab) and by the majority of scholars of fiqh, but the penalty prescribed for adultery in the mus'haf is flogging (in Q.24:2). An explanation for this is that a "stoning verse" (āyat al-rajm) was abrogated but not the ruling. (Another is that hadith calling for the stoning punishment abrogate the flogging punishment in the Quran, see below.) Muhammad's favorite wife Ā'isha , claims that there was a stoning verse in Quran that was lost, as do other hadith. (John Burton quotes a commentary/gloss on Aisha's hadith describing how she might explain the abrogation of text.) However, evidence for the existence of this verse has been criticized as weak, the hadith unreliable, and followers of Maliki and Hanafi fiqh believe evidence for stoning being the proper Islamic punishment comes not from an alleged Quranic verse but from reports of Muhammad calling for execution of adulterers by stoning found in collections of sound (sahih) hadith — meaning that the hadith on stoning abrogate the flogging verse in the Quran. Ahmad Hasan agrees that the punishment of rajm is based on the Sunnah of the prophet and argues that the wording of the Verse of Rajm found in hadith "appears to be manifestly of a different style than that of the Quranic verses". He also believes that 'Umar's explanation for not including it in the mus'haf does not make sense. Sahih al-Bukhari 6829, Book 86, Hadith 56, Hadith 816 states: `Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, ... Roslan Abdul-Rahim argues "the cases of rajm [stoning], and rada [kinship from breastfeeding] do not support this form of abrogation: The trouble with this understanding however is, Q.2:106, the report of Ubayy questioning the Prophet, and the exchange between 'Abd Allah ibn Zubayr with 'Uthman ibn 'Affan, all suggest that naskh is not synonymous with forgetfulness, disappearance of revelations or the exclusion of revelatory texts from the Qur'an. ('Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, once allegedly asked 'Uthman why Q.2:240 was still included in the Qur'an despite having been repealed. 'Uthman reportedly answered, "O my nephew, I will not