Ibn Majah 2546 reinforces the canonical stoning framework with cross-collection attestation. The substantive issues are addressed in entries d10, t03, n06. The Ibn Majah contribution: completing the canonical attestation. The stoning ruling is established across all major Sunan collections. Rudolph Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge University Press, 2005), notes that the classical jurists reached consensus (ijmāʿ) that stoning to death is the mandatory penalty for a free, married adult convicted of unlawful intercourse, and that this consensus rested squarely on the hadith corpus rather than the Quran — since Q 24:2 specifies flogging, not stoning.

The tension between the Quranic flogging verse and the hadith stoning command is not incidental. It generated the doctrine of the "abrogated verse": the second caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb reportedly declared that a verse prescribing stoning had been part of the Quran but was no longer in the written text, adding — per Bukhari 6830 — "had it not been that people would say Umar has added to the Book of Allah, I would have written it in." Jonathan A. C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet's Legacy (Oneworld, 2014), acknowledges this as a genuine classical problem: the rajm ruling is treated by the jurists as a case of naskh al-tilāwa dūna al-ḥukm ("abrogation of recitation while the ruling remains") — a doctrinal move that implicitly concedes the written Quran is textually incomplete on this point. Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford University Press, 1964), the foundational Western survey of the classical legal schools, observed that the entire hudud system — stoning included — rests on the hadith corpus rather than direct Quranic command, with the jurists treating the Prophet's practice as the authoritative supplement to a Quran that is silent on the precise penalty. The analysis from those entries applies fully here.