"Stoning is the due punishment in the Book of Allah...." or "Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book...."
The verse of stoning is considered to be abrogated from recitation. If that's the case how come Umar RA said that this ruling IS IN the Book of Allah SWT as if it is still suppose to be part of the text?
Is this one specific text authentically attributed to Umar RA? If it is authentic then did Umar RA believed that the verse of stoning should be part of the Qur'an and that the Book of Allah SWT is missing a passage? Could this be out of ignorance on his part?
Another complication is the Hadith below which state that the Prophet SAW himself did not authorize Umar RA from writing the verse :
"Narrated Zaid Bin Thabit: we used to read: "The old man and the old woman." Marwan said: "Shouldn't we write it down as part of the written Quran?" He replied: "Don't you see that the two young married (adulterers) are to be stoned?" And Umar Bin Al Khattab - may Allah be pleased with him was with us then, so he said: "I will get the answer." We both said: "How?" He said: "From the Prophet, and I will mention such and such to him, and when I get to stoning, I will say: Oh Messenger of Allah, allow me to write the stoning verse." He (Umar) said: "O Messenger of Allah, let me write the stoning verse. He said: "I CAN'T." (Sunan Al-Baihaqi - Classed Sahih By Baihaqi & Sheikh Albani In: Silsilat Al-Sahiha, 6/974. Also In Sunan Nasai, 3046).
This Hadith has been used as evidence that the verse is abrogated from recitation. If that's the case then why did Umar RA say that it IS IN the Book of Allah SWT? Why would he RA try to include the verse into the Mushaf when it was not allowed by the Prophet SAW? Either this narration is inauthentic and al-Albani was mistaken or the text, "Stoning IS IN the Book of Allah...." is A LIE attributed to Umar RA.
Wait there's more. Here's another contention....
Ibn Abi Shaybah reported, concerning al-masahif, from al-Layth bin Sa‘d who said, “The first to collect the Quran was Abu Bakr and Zayd bin Thabit wrote it. And people came to Zayd bin Thabit (with parts of the Quran) (but) Zayd did not write anything (in the Quran) without the testimony of two reliable witnesses. The last part of Surah Bara`ah (Repentance) was not found except with Khuzaymah bin Thabit. He (Zayd) said, “Write it, for the Messenger of Allaah had declared the testimony of Khuzaymah equivalent to that of two men.” So he wrote it. And ‘UMAR CAME WITH THE VERSE OF STONING (rajm) but Zayd would not write it because ‘Umar was alone (in his testimony) (From Al-Suyuti as quoted in ‘Awn al-Ma‘bud 3130 and "The Itqan" by Suyuti Part 1, Page 168).
Now Umar RA came to Zaid RA for the verse to be written but the previous Hadith states that the Prophet SAW forbade it. Again why would Umar RA try to have it written when he himself already made a confirmation from the Prophet SAW that it was not to be?
Additionally, this last Hadith is confusing bcuz it portrays Zaid RA as being clueless to the verse's abrogation when he himself was present among others when the angel Jibril AS reviewed the Qur'an twice during the last Ramadhan of the Prophet's SAW life. It was during this time when everything that was abrogated, made forgotten and substituted was made clear and known. Zaid RA would've known that the verse was abrogated and unhesitatingly denounce it instead of rejecting due to Umar RA being the sole witness.
If the verse of stoning was abrogated from recitation and the hufadh knew this from the final review then what's the point of asking for witnesses for something that's been abrogated unless you want to add it into the Mushaf? The verse was not supposed to be part of it. You don't have to put something into the Qur'an that was abrogated. Therefore you don't need witnesses for it bcuz it's pointless.
Umar RA was not even supposed to add the verse of stoning bcuz the Prophet SAW already negated it's inclusion. So there's a contradiction. The ahadith from al-Bayhaqi and al-Suyuti are in contradiction. Likewise the text in Sahih Muslim/Musnad Ahmad contradicts al-Bayhaqi unless we're to assume that Umar RA and Zaid RA forgot or were unaware and the Hadith of al-Bayhaqi is wrong. However it still doesn't make sense since Zaid RA was present during the final review in Ramadhan which therefore determines his awareness of the verse's abrogation from recitation. Automatically the text of Muslim/Ahmad and the last Hadith are wrong and al-Bayhaqi's Hadith is correct and it correlates with Zaid's RA knowledge of its abrogation when being present in the final review later on.
Is this last Hadith authentic? Can any of these reports be trusted? Was Umar RA unaware of its abrogation during his caliphate and is the narration of al-Bayhaqi of doubtful source? Or is it that the text in Umar's address on the pulpit inauthentic? Which is correct?