Ibn Majah 2547 reinforces the cross-collection attestation of the Jewish-couple stoning incident. The substantive issues are addressed in entry d02. The Ibn Majah contribution: the teaching is preserved across all major Sunni collections, confirming its canonical status. Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Clarendon Press, 1964), established that the hadd penalty for the married adulterer (muhsan) — stoning to death — belongs to the earliest stratum of Islamic criminal doctrine recognised across all four Sunni schools, making cross-collection hadith attestation of precisely this kind its expected evidentiary form.

The Torah-warrant framing is internally problematic for classical Islamic doctrine. The dominant Muslim position on tahrif (textual corruption of earlier scriptures) hardened after Ibn Hazm (d. 1064), who held that the Torah text itself had been corrupted — not merely misinterpreted. Yet the hadith relies on the Torah as a live, authoritative legal text. Notably, Q 5:44 itself addresses precisely this scenario: Ibn Kathir's Tafsir on Q 5:44 records the classical account that a Jewish interlocutor concealed the Torah's stoning verse with his hand, and that Muhammad ordered it uncovered — the Quran thus presupposing the Torah text was intact and binding. Rudolph Peters, Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law: Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge University Press, 2005), documents how classical jurists resolved the resulting tahrif tension by treating Muhammad's appeal to the Torah as an independent divine confirmation rather than deference to a Jewish text — a post-hoc rationalisation that leaves the contradiction unresolved.

The conflict between this hadith tradition and Q 24:2 (one hundred lashes for zina) is a live debate in Islamic jurisprudence. Jonathan A.C. Brown, Misquoting Muhammad (Oneworld Publications, 2014), acknowledges that classical scholars deployed naskh (abrogation) — arguing the lashing verse covers the unmarried while stoning governs the married — but notes the Quran provides no explicit basis for this distinction, leaving the resolution entirely dependent on hadith authority. The analysis from entry d02 applies fully here.