Placement, Theme and Relationship with the
Previous Surah
This is the last surah of the third
chapter. It was revealed in Madinah. It does not have a
counterpart and is like a supplement and appendix to Surah al-Mu’minun,
the previous surah. I have explained in the foreword of this
exegesis that a surah which is a supplement and appendix to
the previous one is in fact a part of it, and for this reason
does not need a counterpart. Examples of such surahs can be
seen later as well.
Readers may well look up the first eleven
verses of Surah al-Mu’minun. It has been stated in them that
salvation and success before God is reserved for those
believers whose prayers are marked with humility and
concentration, who abstain from frivolous activities, who pay
zakah, guard their private parts and control their sexual
desires and do not cross limits by being overwhelmed by them,
who are honest in what is entrusted to them and abide by their
word.
As long as the Muslims lived in Makkah,
these consequences of faith could only have found expression
in their individual lives because there was no collective
system in place. However, after migration when they assembled
in Madinah under a political and collective set-up, the time
was ripe that these consequences of faith also find expression
in their social and political spheres. Thus, at the very pace
in which circumstances became conducive, directives related to
their collected reformation and purification were also
revealed. Thereby, this radiance of faith that was hitherto
confined to their individual lives now extended to their
collective lives also.
Surah al-Nur is a surah that reflects this
scenario. Through it, the believers, in accordance with the
specific circumstances of those times, were informed of
directives which could set right the collective affairs of
their society and which were necessary to protect them for the
consequences that conflicted with their faith.
Following is the analysis of the meanings
of the surah so that the correspondence of its components with
its theme becomes evident.
Analysis of Meanings
Verses (1-3): The punishment of fornication
is mentioned, and the prohibition for a Muslim to marry an
idolater or a someone guilty of fornication is stated.
Verses (4-5): The punishment of accusing
someone of fornication and the law of evidence related to
prove this crime is referred to.
Verses (6-10): If a person accuses his wife
of adultery and is not able to present the evidence prescribed
by the shari‘ah, the matter is to be decided through oaths.
This methodology is then explained.
Verses (11-26): The mischief worked by the
hypocrites in the incident of ifk is briefly referred to.
Appropriate directives are given to curb such a disruption.
The hypocrites are exposed and warned. Muslims who showed
carelessness and negligence in this matter and thereby
inadvertently strengthened the propaganda worked by the
hypocrites are also warned to be on guard from them in future.
The hypocrites were after damaging the moral reputation of the
Muslims. Hence it was not allowed for them to believe in
whatever they whispered in their ears to cause harm. On the
contrary, they were to give allowance to their fellow Muslims.
They were not to believe any such accusation unless there was
a solid proof in its favour.
Verses (27-31): If Muslims needed to visit
other Muslims in their houses, they were to abide by a certain
decorum so that the eyes were restrained from taking undue
liberties and Satan was not afforded with any opportunity to
make hay. This decorum is explained and the religious
restrictions imposed in this situation on women present in the
houses are elucidated.
Verses (32-34): It is emphasized that
widows and widowers of the society should be married off. A
similar directive is given regarding slave-men and
slave-women. The purpose was to promote purity in the society.
The directive of mukatabat is given to eradicate the
institution of slavery and bring slave-men and slave-women at
par with free men and women. It is stressed upon Muslims to
financially help slave-men and slave-women who wanted to
undertake mukatabat. People were emphatically asked to refrain
from forcing their slave-women into prostitution.
Verses (35-40): A parable of belief and
disbelief is stated. It is explained that hearts which have
faith in them shine both inwardly and outwardly. On the other
hand, those who are deprived of the radiance of faith are
engulfed by pitch darkness both inwardly and outwardly.
Verses (41-46): People are invited to
profess faith by presenting to them signs from the world
around them. Only God, the one and only, is controlling this
universe. Everything is glorifying and praising Him alone.
Thus, it is the obligation of human beings also that they
profess faith in the one and only God, and not invite His
anger by associating others in His worship and obedience.
Verses (47-54): Opponents of the Prophet (sws)
agreed with him if something was in their interest and if this
was not the case they would leave aside God and His Prophet (sws)
and do what they liked. They are warned that they cannot
divide their loyalties in that way for long. If they want to
achieve success in this world and the next, they are to
devotedly support him only; otherwise, they can wander here
and there. God does not care about them. They are to also
remember that the real thing is faith and obedience. They are
not to try to swear false oaths and deceive the Prophet (sws).
His responsibility is to convey God’s religion which he has
done. It is then left to people to contemplate their fate.
Verses (55-57): The righteous companions of
God’s messenger are given unequivocal glad tidings of
political authority in the land. They are told that their
rivals and foes of their religion cannot the slightest harm
their religion. They should continue to be diligent in the
prayer, pay zakah and strongly adhere to the obedience of the
Prophet (sws). Soon the time will come when God will replace
the current state of fear with peace and security.
Verses (58-61): Earlier in verses 27-31,
directives related to gender interaction were given. Later
some questions arose about them. The current verses answer
them and it is also explained that these verses were revealed
after answers were given to these questions.
Verses (62-64): These are the concluding
verses of the surah. After the elucidatory verses, the
discourse returns to the topic of obedience to the Prophet (sws)
mentioned earlier in verse 57. This grand surah also ends on
this topic. In these concluding verses, Muslims are warned in
general and the Hypocrites in particular. They are told that
when God’s messenger calls them for some collective task, they
must not regard his call to be the call of an ordinary person
in that they may or may not respond to it. They have to
respond to his call come what may and unless given permission,
they must not leave his presence. Their success in this life
and the next depends on this obedience.
The relationship of the components of the
surah with its theme has become fully evident from this
analysis. I now begin in God’s name its explanation.
Section I: Verses (1-10)
بِسۡمِ اللّٰهِ
الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ
سُوۡرَةٌ اَنۡزَلۡنٰهَا وَ فَرَضۡنٰهَا وَ
اَنۡزَلۡنَا فِیۡهَاۤ اٰیٰتٍ بَیِّنٰتٍ لَّعَلَّکُمۡ
تَذَکَّرُوۡنَ (1) اَلزَّانِیَةُ وَ الزَّانِیۡ فَاجۡلِدُوۡا
کُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنۡهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلۡدَةٍ وَّ لَا تَاۡخُذۡکُمۡ
بِهِمَا رَاۡفَةٌ فِیۡ دِیۡنِ اللّٰهِ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ
تُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِاللّٰهِ وَ الۡیَوۡمِ الۡاٰخِرِ وَ لۡیَشۡهَدۡ
عَذَابَهُمَا طَآئِفَةٌ مِّنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ (2) اَلزَّانِیۡ
لَا یَنۡکِحُ اِلَّا زَانِیَةً اَوۡ مُشۡرِکَةً وَّ الزَّانِیَةُ
لَا یَنۡکِحُهَاۤ اِلَّا زَانٍ اَوۡ مُشۡرِكٌ وَ حُرِّمَ ذٰلِكَ
عَلَی الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ (3) وَ الَّذِیۡنَ یَرۡمُوۡنَ
الۡمُحۡصَنٰتِ ثُمَّ لَمۡ یَاۡتُوۡا بِاَرۡبَعَةِ شُهَدَآءَ
فَاجۡلِدُوۡهُمۡ ثَمٰنِیۡنَ جَلۡدَةً وَّ لَا تَقۡبَلُوۡا لَهُمۡ
شَهَادَةً اَبَدًا وَ اُولٰٓئِكَ هُمُ الۡفٰسِقُوۡنَ (4) اِلَّا
الَّذِیۡنَ تَابُوۡا مِنۡ بَعۡدِ ذٰلِكَ وَ اَصۡلَحُوۡا فَاِنَّ
اللّٰهَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ (5) وَ الَّذِیۡنَ یَرۡمُوۡنَ
اَزۡوَاجَهُمۡ وَ لَمۡ یَکُنۡ لَّهُمۡ شُهَدَآءُ اِلَّاۤ
اَنۡفُسُهُمۡ فَشَهَادَةُ اَحَدِهِمۡ اَرۡبَعُ شَهٰدٰتٍ
بِاللّٰهِ اِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الصّٰدِقِیۡنَ (6) وَ الۡخَامِسَةُ
اَنَّ لَعۡنَتَ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡهِ اِنۡ کَانَ مِنَ الۡکٰذِبِیۡنَ
(7) وَ یَدۡرَؤُا عَنۡهَا الۡعَذَابَ اَنۡ تَشۡهَدَ اَرۡبَعَ
شَهٰدٰتٍ بِاللّٰهِ اِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الۡکٰذِبِیۡنَ (8) وَ
الۡخَامِسَةَ اَنَّ غَضَبَ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡهَاۤ اِنۡ کَانَ مِنَ
الصّٰدِقِیۡنَ (9) وَ لَوۡ لَا فَضۡلُ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡکُمۡ وَ
رَحۡمَتُهُ وَ اَنَّ اللّٰهَ تَوَّابٌ حَکِیۡمٌ (10)
Text and Translation
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the
Ever-Merciful.
This is an important surah that We have
revealed and have made its directives mandatory and
have also revealed very clear admonitions in it so that you
fully take heed. (1)
A man or a woman guilty of fornication, flog each of them with
a hundred lashes, and in the implementation of God’s law any
feeling of sympathy towards them should not arise in you, if
you truly believe in God and in the Hereafter.
And let a group of Muslims at the time of their punishmentbe present there. (2)
A man guilty of fornicationshould only marry a
woman guilty of fornication or an idolatress.
And a woman guilty of fornication should only be married to a
man guilty of fornication or an idolater. And this has been
prohibited for the believers. (3)
And those who accuse chastewomen, then do not bring four
witnesses to support their accusation, flog them with eighty
lashes and never accept their testimonyin future. It is these
people who are really defiant. Those who repent and reform
after this, then God is Forgiving and Merciful.And those who accuse
their wivesand have no other
witnessexcept themselves, then
the procedure of their testimony is that
they should swear four times by God and say
that they are truthful and the fifth time they
should say that may the curseof God be on them if
they are lying. And the punishmentcan be averted from the
woman when she swears four times by God that the person is a
liar and the fifth time she should say that may the wrathof God come upon her if
he is truthful. And had not God’s mercyand blessingsbeen upon you and had it
not been that God accepts repentanceand is wise, you would
have been seized by Him. (4-10)
Explanation
سُوۡرَةٌ اَنۡزَلۡنٰهَا وَ فَرَضۡنٰهَا وَ
اَنۡزَلۡنَا فِیۡهَاۤ اٰیٰتٍ بَیِّنٰتٍ لَّعَلَّکُمۡ
تَذَکَّرُوۡنَ (1)
As indicated earlier, this surah is like a
supplement and appendix to Surah al-Mu’minun. For this reason
it begins without any introductory part with an admonition.
When an inchoative (mubtada’) is suppressed, as is the case
here, the purpose is to direct all attention to the
enunciative (khabar). This further reflects the importance of
the surah. The opening words imply that if God has revealed
it, people should not regard it to be something trivial. It
has to be obeyed come what may.
The words “and have made its directives
mandatory” indicate the obligatory nature of the surah’s
directives. They must be followed without any hesitancy and
negligence in any way.
The part “and have also revealed very clear
admonitions in it so that you fully take heed” points to the
admonitions found in the surah that are interspersed
repeatedly in between the directives. Thus verses 1, 15, 17,
20, 24, 46 and 58 can be looked up. The common purpose of
these admonitions is that people should follow these
directives in letter and spirit; otherwise, they should
remember that the punishment of God is very stern.
These admonitions were specially needed in
this surah because the directives given in it about the
family, society and crimes perpetrated by people proved to be
pitfalls for previous nations because of which those nations
earned God’s wrath. It is a favour of God on this ummah that
He, besides giving these directives, has also repeatedly
informed it about the consequences of violating them so that
people remain vigilant. The words “so that you fully take
heed” refer to this.
اَلزَّانِیَةُ وَ الزَّانِیۡ فَاجۡلِدُوۡا
کُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنۡهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلۡدَةٍ وَّ لَا تَاۡخُذۡکُمۡ
بِهِمَا رَاۡفَةٌ فِیۡ دِیۡنِ اللّٰهِ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ
تُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِاللّٰهِ وَ الۡیَوۡمِ الۡاٰخِرِ وَ لۡیَشۡهَدۡ
عَذَابَهُمَا طَآئِفَةٌ مِّنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ (2)
Fornication plays the greatest role in
spreading disorder and anarchy in a society. This is because
its stability depends on the purity of blood relations and on
their protection from every form of disruption. Fornication on
the other hand destroys this purity and plunges a society into
sexual disarray. The consequence of this is that a society is
converted into a herd of animals. Since this disorder and
disarray disrupts the society from its very roots, all divine
religions regard fornication to be a punishable offence. In
the very first phase, Islam too gave directives to stop this
disorder from spreading. Thus verses 15-16 of Surah Nisa’
mention the initial directives given in this regard when
circumstances had not yet become conducive for the
implementation of punishment in the society. At the same time,
it indicated that final and ultimate directives in this regard
will be revealed later. Thus, in the verse under discussion
this promise has been fulfilled, and a man and a woman guilty
of this crime were to be flogged with a hundred lashes each.
The word دِیۡنِ
in
وَّ لَا تَاۡخُذۡکُمۡ بِهِمَا رَاۡفَةٌ فِیۡ
دِیۡنِ اللّٰهِ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ تُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِاللّٰهِ وَ
الۡیَوۡمِ الۡاٰخِرِ
refers to the punishment of fornication mentioned here. In
other words, no lenience should be shown in the implementation
of this punishment; softness should be shown to neither a
woman nor a man, to neither the rich nor the poor. The limits
set by God should be observed without granting any alleviation
or showing partiality, for this is a requirement of belief in
God and in the Hereafter. The faith in God and in the
Hereafter of those who show weakness in this regard cannot be
trusted. A noteworthy point in the statement of this
punishment is that the woman is mentioned before the man. One
reason for this is that without a woman’s consent, fornication
cannot take place; secondly, there is a strong possibility
that being the weaker sex, feelings of compassion may arise
for her; the Qur’an, therefore, has mentioned her before the
man so that it becomes evident from the style of the verse
that in the Almighty’s eyes no lenience should be shown to
either the woman or the man.
The reason to emphasize the implementation
of punishments prescribed by God was because the Jews had
practically done away with most of them. The punishment of
fornication in their shari‘ah was stoning to death but in
reality it was only given to the poor and the rich were
spared. And in current times, it has become an established
philosophy that people who perpetrate crimes are mentally
sick; thus, they deserve to be sympathized with and
rehabilitated instead of being punished. As a consequence of
this approach, God’s earth has been filled with barbarians and
ruffians who wreak havoc with the honour of decent and
civilized people. Consider our own country. If the prescribed
punishment of fornication is mentioned before those
responsible for creating law and order, they will call these
punishments barbaric inspite of staking tall claims to faith.
If because of some contingency they do not call them so, in
their hearts they will think that they are in fact barbaric.
Such is the situation of our country that every year thousands
of lives are lost and women are mercilessly raped by savages.
Newspapers are flooded with such heart wrenching news every
day.
On the other hand, such is the sympathy
these people have for thieves and those guilty of fornication
that it is as if they have become more merciful to them than
the Most Merciful God; merely imagining the punishments of
flogging and amputation of hands makes them shudder. However,
the irony is that no emotions of concern and sympathy arise in
them for those who are murdered, raped or looted in large
numbers by these animals.
If these people do not find the need to
abide by the requisites of their faith, then at least they
should learn a lesson from what is happening elsewhere: in the
land of Saudi Arabia, these punishments are implemented.
Statistics can reveal instances of the crimes of theft,
plunder and fornication and how many of those guilty of these
crimes were punished in the prescribed manner. I do not have
these statistics but I have heard what eye-witnesses say in
this regard and at the same time what I myself have observed:
these crimes and their perpetrators are virtually non-existent
there. It is merely due to the awe and fear of Islamic
punishments that neither are there any instances of theft and
fornication nor does the need arise to amputate hands of
thieves or flog those guilty of fornication there. If any such
incident does happen, such are the punishments that are meted
out to the criminals that it becomes a strong deterrent for
the rest. On the contrary, when we see the circumstances of
our own country, we are forced to say what Jesus (sws) is
reported to have said: “You have turned it [–house of God–]
into a den of thieves.” (Matthew, 21:13)
It is evident from the words “and let a
group of Muslims at the time of their punishmentbe present there” that
one of the objectives of Islamic punishments is that others
receive a reminder and learn a lesson. The Qur’an mentions the
word نَکَال
(5:38) for them which means “exemplary
punishment.” Thus, to make them exemplary these punishments
must be given in public. If they are administered in jails,
this purpose is lost. Some exegetes think that the word
“group” also applies to a single individual. God knows what
the source of this unique research is!
As far as the apparent words of this verse
are concerned, it is evident that all types of men and women
guilty of fornication are included in it. However, our jurists
have imposed certain specifications, some of which are correct
and some, in my opinion, not correct and some need
elaboration. Though it is beyond the scope of these people to
discuss juristic issues, it is essential that some important
points raised by them be referred to.
Firstly, this punishment can only be
implemented in an Islamic state. Hence, these directives had
only been revealed when such a state had been set up in
Madinah.
Secondly, this punishment can only be meted
out to mature and adult individuals. Juveniles and those
inflicted with lunacy are exempt from it. This premise is
self-evident. All such people have always been given this
exemption.
Thirdly, slave-men and slave-women will
only be administered half of this punishment. This also seems
correct and is based on verse 25 of Surah al-Nisa’. Actually,
in the times of the jahiliyyah period, the moral character of
slave-men and slave-women had deteriorated a lot. They could
not have been immediately brought at par with free men and
free women. For this reason, in their case, a gradual strategy
was adopted. Once their mental and moral standards were
raised, the law of mukatabat mentioned later in this surah was
revealed. This law ensured the emancipation of every slave who
was able-minded, and thence slaves were regarded to have the
same obligations and rights as the rest. This issue will be
discussed more ahead.
Fourthly, one group of our jurists say that
this punishment will only be implemented on Muslims.
Non-Muslims will be exempt from it. Under an Islamic
government, non-Muslim subjects are indeed exempt from public
laws in their personal affairs; however, how can it be
possible to sustain this exemption in punishments which are
meant to create peace and justice in a society? If a Muslim
criminal is flogged or stoned for committing fornication and a
non-Muslim criminal is totally spared in this crime or given a
lesser punishment, how can fornication be put an end to?
Similar is the case of amputation of hands in the case of
theft. If this discrimination is also maintained in the
punishment of this crime, then it would mean that while an
Islamic state stops Muslims from perpetrating this crime, it
is giving a license to non-Muslims to commit it. This
obviously is illogical and also against the practice of the
Prophet (sws) and the rightly guided caliphs. Both implemented
these punishments on non-Muslims too. I have written in detail
about the rights of non-Muslims in my book The Islamic State.
Those who would like to read about this issue may consult this
book.
Fifthly, almost all jurists are of the view
that this punishment only relates to criminals who are
unmarried or if married, the marriage has not been
consummated. As for those who are married and have also
consummated their marriage, their punishment is stoning to
death. They argue in favour of stoning from the practice of
the Prophet (sws) and the rightly guided caliphs. In this way,
they specify that the punishment mentioned in this verse only
relates to unmarried individuals who commit this crime. Or, in
other words, through the Sunnah, they abrogate this punishment
with regard to married men and women.
This last condition imposed by our jurists
is very significant. Whether it is regarded as specifying a
directive or abrogating it, one is not satisfied to see a
directive of the Qur’an being specified or abrogated by a
khabar wahid. Thus, the khawarij do not accept specifying or
abrogating this directive in such a manner. They deny the
punishment of stoning and regard the punishment mentioned in
this verse to be applicable to all types of criminals guilty
of committing it.
More important is the issue of our new
khawarij than those of the previous ones. The latter only
denied stoning and not flogging. The new ones are not even
willing to accept flogging, let alone stoning. Thus, it is
essential that the source of stoning in the Qur’an be
explained and as well as the exact the relationship of the
punishment mentioned in this verse with the punishment of
stoning. I will first present the narratives from which our
jurists have argued in favour of stoning and then indicate its
source in the Qur’an. After that, I will explain to which
criminals the punishment of stoning must be administered and
the type of criminals who were given this punishment by the
Prophet (sws). Though I may be prolonging this discussion, it
is not possible to ignore it. For this reason, I will try to
briefly refer to some important aspects.
The following narrative reported by
‘Ubadah ibn Samit is the one on the basis
of which our jurists have regarded the punishment mentioned in
this verse to be abrogated for married individuals:
خُذُوا عَنِّي قَدْ جَعَلَ اللّٰهُ لَهُنَّ
سَبِيلًا الْبِكْرُ بِالْبِكْرِ جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ وَنَفْيُ سَنَةٍ
وَالثَّيِّبُ بِالثَّيِّبِ جَلْدُ مِائَةٍ وَالرَّجْمُ
The Prophet said: “Preserve what I am now
informing you of. The Almighty has revealed the directive He
had promised for regarding women guilty of fornication. If
both the perpetrators of this crime are unmarried, their
punishment is one hundred lashes and one year exile and, if
both are married, their punishment is lashes and death by
stoning.
If this narrative is deliberated upon, it
will be seen that unmarried individuals guilty of this crime
will be punished by one hundred lashes and also exiled for one
year and, if both are married, their punishment is both lashes
and death by stoning. The question arises that will both of
punishments in each of the two cases be given simultaneously.
The Hanafite and Shafite jurists say that lashes and stoning
cannot be given together and that the flogging punishment
mentioned has been abrogated by the practice of the Prophet (sws)
and his companions; thus for married perpetrators of the
crime, the only punishment is stoning.
It is this narrative of ‘Ubadah ibn Samit
on the basis of which the verse of Surah al-Nur stands
abrogated even though nothing except the Qur’an can abrogate
the Qur’an. Then when this narrative could also not solve the
problem, it was regarded to be abrogated by other narratives.
It is such inferences of our jurists which have created doubts
about religion in the minds of people. I will later show that
if this narrative is deliberated upon in the lighat of the
Qur’an, it is in harmony with it and no need arises for any
sort of abrogation.
The second narrative which is cited in this
regard is reproduced thus with a heavy heart:
عن ابن عباس قال قال عمر قد خشيت أن يطول
بالناس زمان حتي يقول قائل لا نجد الرجم في كتاب اللّٰه فيضلوا
بترك فريضة أنزلها الله وقد قرأنا الشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إذا
زَنَيَا فَارْجُمُوهُمَا الْبَتَّةَ
Ibn ‘Abbas stated: “ ‘Umar ibn al-Khattabsaid: ‘I fear that time
will pass over people until someone will say: “We do not find
the verse of stoning in the Book of God.” So, in this way,
people will be led astray by abandoning a directive revealed
by God. We used to read: الشَّيْخُ
وَالشَّيْخَةُ إذا زَنَيَا فَارْجُمُوهُمَا الْبَتَّةَ
(Necessarily stone to death the married man
and the married woman guilty of adultery).’”
As stated earlier, I have cited this
narrative with great aversion merely to clear doubts spread by
devious elements and thereby reach the truth. The simpletons
among our exegetes and jurists have included such narratives
in their books.
Deliberation on this narrative shows that
it seems to have been fabricated in every way by a hypocrite,
and the purpose of this fabrication was to raise doubts on the
preservation of the Qur’an and implant this notion in the
minds of the naïve that some verses of the Qur’an were taken
out from it.
Let us first reflect on the language of the
narrative. Can any upright person regard this verse to be part
of the Qur’an? Even regarding it to be an utterance of Prophet
Muhammad (sws) is impossible for any person of taste, let
alone regarding it to be a verse of the Qur’an. What relation
can it have with the eloquent style and construction of the
Qur’an?
Secondly, if this was a verse of the Qur’an,
who had the authority of taking it out when its directive was
still operational? What is the sense in expunging a verse and
still keeping its directive intact? If this was a verse of the
Qur’an and later removed from it, this means that the
punishment of stoning was first in place and then abrogated.
Then what was the meaning of arguing in favour of this
punishment?
Thirdly, even if this verse is accepted,
the purpose of our jurists is not fulfilled. They need
evidence for married people guilty of this crime whereas this
verse only mentions old men and old women who have committed
this crime. It is not essential for every married person to be
old. Then what is the relation between the claim and its
proof?
Nonetheless, this narrative is a worthless
one. The irony is that it has been ascribed to ‘Umar (rta). I
am certain that if any person had the audacity to narrate it
in his time, he would have not been spared by his lash. A
weakness among our jurists is that when they indulge in debate
with their rivals, they use all sorts of things that they can
lay their hands on without realizing its far-reaching
consequences.
These are the narratives which are cited in
support of stoning and the criticism they invite has also been
mentioned above. The question now is: what is the source of
stoning in Islam? For what type of criminals is this
punishment prescribed and to whom was it administered by the
Prophet (sws)? It is essential to deliberate on this question
because it is obvious that not only the Prophet (sws) meted
out this punishment to certain criminals but the rightly
guided caliphs too did so. Those who deny this established
fact can deny everything. Hence, I am not much concerned about
them. However, since I am convinced about this punishment, I
feel that it is my responsibility to find its source in the
Qur’an and also try to understand its occasion and background.
To understand this issue, an important
premise must be fully kept in mind:
Criminals are of two types. One of them are
those who are guilty of committing crimes like theft, murder,
fornication and accusing someone of fornication but the manner
in which these crimes are committed is not that they become a
nuisance for the society or create a situation of law and
order for the government. Their second type is of those who in
their individual capacities and as a group become a nuisance
for both the society and the government. For the first type of
criminals, the Qur’an has prescribed certain punishments that
are implemented by an Islamic government keeping view the
conditions stipulated for them by the Qur’an and the Hadith.
For the second type of criminals, punishments are mentioned in
verses 33-34 of Surah al-Ma’idah, and have been explained
under them. These verses are:
جَزٰٓؤُا الَّذِیۡنَ یُحَارِبُوۡنَ اللّٰهَ
وَ رَسُوۡلَهُ وَ یَسۡعَوۡنَ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ فَسَادًا اَنۡ
یُّقَتَّلُوۡا اَوۡ یُصَلَّبُوۡا اَوۡ تُقَطَّعَ اَیۡدِیۡهِمۡ
وَ اَرۡجُلُهُمۡ مِّنۡ خِلَافٍ اَوۡ یُنۡفَوۡا مِنَ الۡاَرۡضِ
ذٰلِكَ لَهُمۡ خِزۡیٌ فِی الدُّنۡیَا وَ لَهُمۡ فِی الۡاٰخِرَةِ
عَذَابٌ عَظِیۡمٌ. اِلَّا
الَّذِیۡنَ تَابُوۡا مِنۡ قَبۡلِ اَنۡ تَقۡدِرُوۡا عَلَیۡهِمۡ
فَاعۡلَمُوۡا اَنَّ اللّٰهَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ. (5 :33-34)
The punishments of those who wage war
against God and His Prophet and strive to spread anarchy in
the land are to execute them in an exemplary way or to crucify
them or to amputate their hands and feet from opposite sides
or to banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in
this world, and in the Hereafter, theirs will be an awful doom
except those who repent before you overpower them, then you
should know that God is Oft-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful.
(5:33-34)
Reproduced below is what I wrote while
explaining these verses:
The meaning of waging war against God and
His Prophet is that a person or a group blatantly and
obdurately tries to disrupt the system of justice which God
and His Prophet have set up. If such subversive activities are
from an external enemy, the directives of war have been
mentioned in detail independently. Here, instead of the
external enemy, punishments are being prescribed for enemies
residing within the country and as citizens of the state
regardless of being Muslim or non-Muslim challenge the law and
system of the country. One way of violating the law is that a
person perpetrates a crime; in this case, he will be dealt
with through the general principle prescribed by the shari‘ah
for common criminals. Another way is that a person or a group
tries to take the law in his hands, disrupts the peace and
stability of the area through his evil-doing and, people
always feel that their lives, wealth and honour are in danger;
murder, robbery, vandalism, hijacking, fornication,
destruction and other similar crimes create a law and order
situation for the government. For such criminals, instead of
being dealt with through common punishments prescribed, an
Islamic government has the authority to take the following
steps.
After this, I have referred to the source
of the punishment of stoning in the following words:
The words اَنۡ
یُّقَتَّلُوۡا (an yuqattalu) refer
to the fact that the criminals of this type will be executed.
The word taqtil (which is from the from taf‘il) has been used
instead of qatl. In Arabic, taqtil means to execute someone in
such a way that there is severity in the process of killing
him. This implies that not only should the criminals of this
category be executed but the execution should be carried out
in a manner that serves as a severe warning to others. Only
punishments which are prohibited in the shari‘ah like killing
through burning will be an exception to this. Other than
these, all other ways and means which can teach a lesson and
terrorize hooligans and miscreants and at the same time create
respect for law in the eyes of people can be adopted by a
government. In my opinion, the punishment of rajm (stoning to
death) is one form of taqtil. Thus crooks and criminals which
pose a threat for to the honour of decent people, who adopt
fornication and hijacking as a profession, who attack the
honour of people in broad daylight and openly commit rape, for
them stoning is included in the word taqtil.
It is evident from these details that those
who think that the punishment of stoning is not mentioned in
the Qur’an are incorrect. This punishment is based on verse 33
of Surah al-Ma’idah. It is for this reason that the instances
of stoning that took place in the times of the Prophet (sws)
have been mentioned by Imam al-Bukhari in his Al-Jami
‘al-sahih under verse 33 (muharabah verse). He has also
mentioned a narrative in the kitab al-muharabin of this book
from which it becomes evident that some of our past
authorities regarded this verse to be the source of this
punishment.
Now let us take a brief look at the most
famous incident of stoning that took place in the times of the
Prophet (sws): the rajm of Ma‘iz. Narratives about this person
have a very strange type of discrepancy. Some narratives
depict him to be a very decent and upright person and some
show that he was a very wicked scoundrel. For my own guidance,
I find it sufficient that the Prophet (sws) had him stoned to
death and did not even lead his funeral prayer. For this
reason, I give preference to narratives which portray his evil
character that made him deserve this punishment. It is evident
from certain narratives that when the Prophet (sws) and his
companions would go out for a battle, he would quietly hold
back and taking advantage of the absence of men would try to
chase women. Some narratives say that this would be like a
goat chasing does. The Prophet (sws) continued to be informed
of his mischief but he did not take any step to check him
because as yet he had not committed a violation that could
make him liable. Finally, he came under the jurisdiction of
law and was called up by the Prophet (sws), who sternly
questioned him. He then understood that he could not hide his
crime anymore and hence confessed. Upon confession, the
Prophet (sws) ordered that he be stoned to death and did not
offer his funeral prayer. After his stoning, the general
impression of people that is evident from narratives was that
many of them said that his wretchedness caught up with him
until he was doomed. Though the Prophet (sws) had asked people
not to comment about him after his stoning, yet this was the
general impression they did form.
I will now cite some narratives so that
some aspects become absolutely clear:
Firstly, contrary to what an upright person
would do, Ma‘iz did not come to the Prophet (sws) himself to
confess his crime. He in fact came over to him at the
insistence of the people of his tribe hoping that this would
save him from a big punishment. The Prophet (sws) had already
been informed of his crime and his confession was a
consequence of the Prophet’s questioning him.
Secondly, Ma‘iz had a very loose and
immoral character. When the Prophet (sws) and his companions
would go out for a battle, he would chase women overcome with
sexual frenzy.
Thirdly, neither did the Prophet (sws) pray
for his forgiveness nor led his funeral prayer which is
evidence enough that he was regarded a die-hard hypocrite.
Here are the narratives:
(1)
... قال يا بن
أَخِي أنا أَعْلَمُ الناس بهذا الحديث كنت فِيمَنْ رَجَمَ
الرَّجُلَ إِنَّا لَمَّا خَرَجْنَا بِهِ فَرَجَمْنَاهُ فَوَجَدَ
مَسَّ الْحِجَارَةِ صَرَخَ بِنَا يا قَوْمُ رُدُّونِي إلي
رَسُوْلَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّي اللّٰهُ عَلَیۡهِ
وَسَلَّمَ فإن قَوْمِي قَتَلُونِي وَغَرُّونِي من نَفْسِي
وَأَخْبَرُونِي أَنَّ رَسُوْلَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّي اللّٰهُ عَلَیۡهِ
وَسَلَّمَ غَيْرُ قَاتِلِي فلم نَنْزَعْ عنه حتي قَتَلْنَاهُ
فلما رَجَعْنَا إلي رَسُوْلَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّي اللّٰهُ عَلَیۡهِ
وَسَلَّمَ وَأَخْبَرْنَاهُ قال فَهَلَّا تَرَكْتُمُوهُ
وَجِئْتُمُونِي بِهِ لِيَسْتَثْبِتَ رَسُوْلَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّي
اللّٰهُ عَلَیۡهِ
وَسَلَّمَ منه فَأَمَّا لِتَرْكِ حَدٍّ فلا قال فَعَرَفْتُ
وَجْهَ الحديث
Jabir (rta) stated: “O Nephew! I know him
the most from among all the people. I was among those who
stoned this person to death. The incident happened thus: We
started to stone him after bringing him into the open. When he
was struck by the stones, he shouted: ‘People! Take me over to
the Prophet (sws); the people of my tribe have had me killed
and they deceived me. They continued to say to me that the
Prophet (sws) would not have me killed.’ However, we ended up
killing him. So, when we returned to the Prophet (sws) and
informed him of his words, he said: ‘Why did you not spare
him? Why did you not bring him to me?’ This he said so that he
could find out the reality. He did not say this to annul the
punishment.” The narrator says: “After this, I understood this
narrative.”
(2)
…فَرَمَيْنَاهُ
بِجَلَامِيدِ الْحَرَّةِ يَعْنِي الْحِجَارَةَ حتي سَكَتَ قال
ثُمَّ قام رَسُوْلَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّي اللّٰهُ عَلَیۡهِ
وَسَلَّمَ خَطِيبًا من العشي فقال أَوَ كُلَّمَا انْطَلَقْنَا
غُزَاةً في سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ تَخَلَّفَ رَجُلٌ في عِيَالِنَا له
نَبِيبٌ كَنَبِيبِ التَّيْسِ علي أَنْ لَا أُوتَي بِرَجُلٍ
فَعَلَ ذلك إلا نَكَّلْتُ بِهِ قال فما اسْتَغْفَرَ له ولا
سَبَّهُ
“Thus we hurled on him stones from the
valley of al-Harrah until he died.” A narrator said: “The same
day the Prophet (sws) delivered a sermon at the time of ‘asr
and said: ‘Was this not the case that whenever we would go out
to wage war for the cause of God, a person would stay behind
among our families and behave like a goat overcome with sexual
frenzy. Listen! It is incumbent upon me that if such a person
is brought before me, I give him an exemplary punishment.’” A
narrator said: “Neither did the Prophet (sws) pray for his
forgiveness nor abused him.”
(3)
عن بن عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّ مَاعِزَ بن مَالِكٍ أتي
النبي صَلَّي اللّٰهُ عَلَیۡهِ
وَسَلَّمَ فقال إنه زَنَي فَأَعْرَضَ عنه فَأَعَادَ عليه
مِرَارًا فَأَعْرَضَ عنه فَسَأَلَ قَوْمَهُ أَمَجْنُونٌ هو قالوا
ليس بِهِ بَأْسٌ قال أَفَعَلْتَ بها قال نعم فَأَمَرَ بِهِ أَنْ
يُرْجَمَ فَانْطُلِقَ بِهِ فَرُجِمَ ولم يُصَلِّ عليه
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas narrated that Ma‘iz ibn Malik came to the
Prophet (sws) and confessed that he had committed fornication.
The Prophet (sws) ignored him. Then he repeated his confession
a number of times. Even then the Prophet (sws) disregarded
him. He asked his people: ‘Is he mad?’ They replied: ‘No, he
is a normal person.’ The Prophet (sws) then asked him: ‘Did
you really commit vulgarity with that girl?’ He replied:
‘Yes.’ Thus the Prophet ordered that he be stoned to death.
Thus, he was stoned and the Prophet (sws) did not offer his
funeral prayer.
(4)
فَأَمَرَ بِهِ فَرُجِمَ فَكَانَ الناس فيه
فِرْقَتَيْنِ قَائِلٌ يقول لقد هَلَكَ لقد أَحَاطَتْ بِهِ
خَطِيئَتُهُ
The Prophet (sws) ordered about Ma‘iz whereby he was stoned to
death. Later, people were divided into two groups about him.
One of them opined that his sin surrounded him from all sides
until he was killed.
(5)
فَأَمَرَ بِهِ فَرُجِمَ فَسَمِعَ النبي
صَلَّي اللّٰهُ عَلَیۡهِ
وَسَلَّمَ رَجُلَيْنِ من أَصْحَابِهِ يقول أَحَدُهُمَا
لِصَاحِبِهِ انْظُرْ إلي هذا الذي سَتَرَ اللّٰه عليه فلم
تَدَعْهُ نَفْسُهُ حتي رُجِمَ رَجْمَ الْكَلْبِ
Thus the Prophet (sws) ordered about Ma‘iz;
so he was stoned to death. After this incident, the Prophet (sws)
heard one his companions say to the other: “Look at this
wretch. The Almighty had stretched a veil over him but his
desire did not leave him until he was stoned to death like a
dog.”
The next incident of stoning is about a
woman called Ghamidiyyah who belonged to the tribe of Ghamid,
a sub-tribe of the tribe of Juhaynah. The details which are
found about her in the narratives do not tell us anything
about her character or her marital status. Among the little
that is mentioned about her has many mutual contradictions
like the incident of Ma‘iz ibn Malik al-Aslami. It is evident
from some narrative that initially the Prophet (sws) tried to
dissuade her but she remained emphatic on her confession. At
this, he said: “If you insist, go and come back after you have
delivered the child.” Later, she came over with the child. At
this, he said: “Go, suckle the child and come after weaning.”
She then returned after weaning the child and had a piece of
bread in her hand which she made the child eat in front of the
Prophet (sws). It was then that he ordered to have her stoned.
On the contrary, some other narratives say that when she
confessed, the Prophet (sws) consigned her to the custody of a
person from the Ansar. When she informed the Prophet (sws)
that she had delivered the child, he said that she could not
be stoned in those circumstances when there was no one to
suckle the little child. At this, a person from the Ansar got
up and took responsibility of suckling the child. After this,
the Prophet (sws) ordered her stoning without any delay.
Not only does this contradiction comes to
light after the narratives are studied, it also becomes
evident that she was a rather independent and free sort of a
woman who neither had a husband nor a guardian who was
prepared to take on her responsibility. She spent her time of
pregnancy at the place of a person from the Ansar. From her
confession to the implementation of punishment on her, no one
from her family or tribe came forward to pursue her case.
Although details about this woman have not been fully
preserved, but in my opinion, her case was similar to that of
Ma‘iz as a result of which she too was stoned to death.
A study of those times shows that in the
times of jahiliyyah there were many women who ran dens of
prostitution. It was mostly the Jews under whose patronage
this was done. They received a part of the income generated.
Once an Islamic state was set up in Madinah, this evil
practice was greatly checked. However, such criminals do not
easily desist from their wrongdoings. It seems that some men
and women of this sort continued to carry out this practice in
secrecy and did not stop even after warning. Finally, when
they came under the jurisdiction of the law, they were stoned
to death in accordance with the verse of Surah al-Ma’idah
cited earlier.
Since the punishment of rape is also of the
category of spreading anarchy in the society and waging war
against God and His Prophet (sws), criminals guilty of it were
stoned to death in accordance with this verse by the Prophet
Muhammad (sws) and were not administered the punishment of a
hundred lashes which was meant for common criminals of
fornication. Since in this crime, the criminal did not deserve
any lenience because he had raped a woman going to offer the
prayer, the Prophet (sws) never inquired about his marital
status. This incident is mentioned thus in a narrative:
عن عَلْقَمَةَ بن وَائِلٍ عن أبيه أَنَّ
امْرَأَةً خَرَجَتْ علي عَهْدِ النبي صَلَّي اللّٰهُ عَلَیۡهِ
وَسَلَّمَ تُرِيدُ الصَّلَاةَ فَتَلَقَّاهَا رَجُلٌ
فَتَجَلَّلَهَا فَقَضَي حَاجَتَهُ منها فَصَاحَتْ وَانْطَلَقَ
فَمَرَّ عليها رَجُلٌ فقالت إِنَّ ذَاكَ فَعَلَ بِي كَذَا
وَكَذَا وَمَرَّتْ عِصَابَةٌ من الْمُهَاجِرِينَ فقالت إِنَّ ذلك
الرَّجُلَ فَعَلَ بِي كَذَا وَكَذَا فَانْطَلَقُوا فَأَخَذُوا
الرَّجُلَ الذي ظَنَّتْ أَنَّهُ وَقَعَ عليها فَأَتَوْهَا بِهِ
فقالت نعم هو هذا فَأَتَوْا بِهِ النبي صَلَّي اللّٰہُ عَلَیۡہِ
وَسَلَّمَ فلما أَمَرَ بِهِ قام صَاحِبُهَا الذي وَقَعَ عليها
فقال يا رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ أنا صَاحِبُهَا فقال لها اذْهَبِي
فَقَدْ غَفَرَ اللّٰه لَكِ وقال لِلرَّجُلِ قَوْلًا حَسَنًا قال
أبو دَاوُد يَعْنِي الرَّجُلَ الْمَأْخُوذَ وقال لِلرَّجُلِ الذي
وَقَعَ عليها ارْجُمُوهُ
‘Alqamah ibn Wa’il reports from his father that in the times
of the Prophet (sws), a woman came out of her house to go and
offer the prayer. A person saw her on the way. He got hold of
her and fulfilled his sexual desire from her. At this, she
shouted and cried out. So, he took to his heels. Meanwhile a
person chanced by. The woman told her how she had been
molested by a person. When this conversation was taking place,
a group of the Muhajirun too came over there. She narrated her
tale to them as well. So they ran and caught hold of the
person who the woman had indicated. They brought him over to
her and she said: “Yes this is the same person.” They then
took him to the Prophet (sws). At this, the Prophet (sws)
immediately ordered his punishment. Thereafter, the real
criminal stood up and said: “O Messenger of God! It was I who
molested this woman.” At this, the Prophet (sws) told the
woman: “Go, God has forgiven you,” and expressed favourable
words for the person who had been caught as a suspect. After
that, regarding the person who had raped her, he said: “Stone
him.”
It is evident from this discussion that all the incidents
mentioned in the books of Hadith are not related to common
criminals of fornication. They are about such scoundrels who
because of their sexual misdemeanor and dissolute practices
were a severe threat to decent women and were guilty of raping
them. In fact, they would adopt this heinous act as a
profession. Then when they thought that they were being
grabbed by the law, they would confess their crime in
accordance with the common psyche of such criminals in order
to gain the sympathy of both the society and the law. As to
why the Prophet (sws) ascertained the marital status of
criminals of these types, it was to determine the
circumstances of the criminals as to whether they deserved any
lenience in the punishment – a principle upheld by the Islamic
shari‘ah too just as it is upheld by other penal systems. A
court must give due regard to the age, marital status, mental
condition, environment, in short every factor that can become
a motive or hindrance in committing this crime. The words
ثيب and بكر
occur in the narratives. In Arabic, just as these words are
spoken for married and unmarried individuals respectively,
they also refer to middle aged people and to the budding
youth. The mistake of our jurists is that they have regarded a
state of the criminal to be the basis of the directive,
whereas, it has no relationship with its basis. Such factors
are always kept in consideration in the implementation of
every punishment. Thus, those who regard the verse under
discussion to be abrogated are not correct in my view. No
verse of the Qur’an has ever been abrogated by any other thing
except Qur’an itself, and both the abrogating and the
abrogated verses are present in the Qur’an. Even if the sphere
of a verse is curtailed or made specific, then indications of
this are either found in the context or occasion of the verse
or in other instances of the Qur’an.
If the narrative reported by ‘Ubaah ibn Samit (rta) is
understood in the light of this discussion, it has a certain
meaning. The letter و here is for
division and not for addition. In other words, the real
punishment for any person guilty of fornication whether
married or unmarried is a hundred lashes but if an unmarried
person cannot be stalled by the punishment of lashing, a
government, in accordance with the verse of Surah al-Ma’idah
referred above, can also exile that person for a year if this
is more expedient because the authority of exiling a person
has also been given to the government. Similarly, the real
punishment of a married person guilty of this crime is also a
hundred lashes, as is evident from the narrative. However, if
such a criminal cannot be stalled by the punishment of lashing
and has become a nuisance for the society, a government can
administer the punishment of taqtil (stoning) in accordance
with this very verse of Surah al-Ma’idah.
اَلزَّانِیۡ لَا یَنۡکِحُ اِلَّا زَانِیَةً
اَوۡ مُشۡرِکَةً وَّ الزَّانِیَةُ لَا یَنۡکِحُهَاۤ اِلَّا زَانٍ
اَوۡ مُشۡرِكٌ وَ حُرِّمَ ذٰلِكَ عَلَی الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ (3)
The words لَا
یَنۡکِحُ are not meant as a
description of a situation. They are meant as a negative
imperative. When a negation is meant to both stop as well as
to urge and exhort people to refrain from something, it will
be mentioned as a description of a situation. I have explained
this style under verse 272 of Surah al-Baqarah. Here the
purpose is to exhort and rouse the faith of a Muslim society:
it should abhor a person guilty of fornication marrying among
it and as guardians not let its daughters wed such people;
such people should only have the option of marrying women
guilty of fornication or idolatry. No believing woman should
be prepared to marry such people. Similarly, a woman who has
committed this crime should not find a man prepared to marry
her. Only a man guilty of this crime or an idolater should be
available to her. No believer should bring home this filth.
This is because believers are prohibited to marry men and
women guilty of this crime.
The mention of a man guilty of fornication
with an idolater and a woman guilty of fornication with an
idolatress is very meaningful. I have been referring to the
similarity of fornication and polytheism at many instances in
this exegesis. Ancient divine scriptures compare an idolater
to a harlot. This comparison carries great eloquence in it.
Fornication is the same type of moral filth as is the filth of
polytheism with regard to faith. It is for this generic reason
that polytheism and polytheists are called filth (9:28).
The need to awaken the faith of the society
from its slumber was that mere imposition of law, however
unbiased and sagacious it may be, cannot protect the society
until the society itself has an aversion to sin. In the
implementation of law, especially when it is a stern one,
there necessarily are conditions because of which many
criminals succeed in protecting themselves from it. It is the
responsibility of the society to thwart the activities of the
criminals by hating what they do, and forcing them to live a
life of humiliation wherever they are. If they want to marry
an upright Muslim woman, she should reject such proposals; so
much so, such people do not have the courage to even think of
marrying among them. This vigilance is essential to check
crimes. Among the various pitfalls of modern times is that it
is not merely that the penal code is not Islamic, a more
situation of concern is that feelings for Islam have vanished.
If in these times, a person wants to find a match for his
daughter, he mostly looks for highly regarded worldly
qualities and very few people care for qualities that are
referred to in this verse.
وَ الَّذِیۡنَ یَرۡمُوۡنَ الۡمُحۡصَنٰتِ
ثُمَّ لَمۡ یَاۡتُوۡا بِاَرۡبَعَةِ شُهَدَآءَ فَاجۡلِدُوۡهُمۡ
ثَمٰنِیۡنَ جَلۡدَةً وَّ لَا تَقۡبَلُوۡا لَهُمۡ شَهَادَةً
اَبَدًا وَ اُولٰٓئِكَ هُمُ الۡفٰسِقُوۡنَ (4) اِلَّا الَّذِیۡنَ
تَابُوۡا مِنۡ بَعۡدِ ذٰلِكَ وَ اَصۡلَحُوۡا فَاِنَّ اللّٰهَ
غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ (5)
These verses mention the law of evidence
and the punishment of accusing a person of fornication (qadhf).
It should be kept in mind that in an Islamic society,
regarding someone’s evidence to be inadmissible forever is no
ordinary thing. It means that a person’s reputation has been
permanently dented. The real status of this ummah is that they
bear evidence to the truth before God on earth. Therefore, if
a person’s evidence is regarded to be inadmissible, it would
mean that he has lost his status as an individual of this
ummah.
Though the demonstrative pronoun
الَّذِیۡنَ is
used for the masculine gender, there is no reason that women
be exempted from punishment if they are guilty of this crime.
Hence this word will include both genders. The reason that men
have been addressed is because of being the dominant gender
(‘ala sabil al-taghlib).
In such a context, the word
مُحۡصَنٰتٌ is
used for free women in contrast to slaves. For this reason,
well-argued is the opinion of those who believe that slave men
and women will receive half of the punishment.
After repentance and making amends, the
sins of such individuals will be forgiven by God but the
in-acceptability of their testimony will still stand. The
reason for this is that the matter of repentance of a person
relates to his heart and only God knows a person’s heart. It
is also evident from the words of the verse that forgiveness
relates only to repentance and not to testimony. Hence, such a
person’s testimony will never ever be accepted.
وَ الَّذِیۡنَ یَرۡمُوۡنَ اَزۡوَاجَهُمۡ وَ
لَمۡ یَکُنۡ لَّهُمۡ شُهَدَآءُ اِلَّاۤ اَنۡفُسُهُمۡ
فَشَهَادَةُ اَحَدِهِمۡ اَرۡبَعُ شَهٰدٰتٍ بِاللّٰهِ اِنَّهُ
لَمِنَ الصّٰدِقِیۡنَ (6) وَ الۡخَامِسَةُ اَنَّ لَعۡنَتَ
اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡهِ اِنۡ کَانَ مِنَ الۡکٰذِبِیۡنَ (7) وَ
یَدۡرَؤُا عَنۡهَا الۡعَذَابَ اَنۡ تَشۡهَدَ اَرۡبَعَ شَهٰدٰتٍ
بِاللّٰهِ اِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الۡکٰذِبِیۡنَ (8) وَ الۡخَامِسَةَ
اَنَّ غَضَبَ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡهَاۤ اِنۡ کَانَ مِنَ الصّٰدِقِیۡنَ
(9)
If a person accuses his wife of fornication
and he has none but himself as a witness to this crime, the
matter will be decided through oaths. In the shari‘ah, this is
called Li‘an. The verse describes its procedure.
The word
الۡعَذَابَ in
وَ یَدۡرَؤُا عَنۡہَا الۡعَذَابَ
obviously refers to the punishment referred to in verse 2. It
is against the principles of Arabic language to regard it to
refer to any other punishment.
Our jurists are of the opinion that if such
an incident takes place between a husband and wife, a court of
law should annul their marriage. This seems to be a wise
opinion because when matters reach this extent, it cannot be
expected that the harmony that is needed between a husband and
wife in a marriage can remain intact.
وَ لَوۡ لَا
فَضۡلُ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡکُمۡ وَ رَحۡمَتُهُ وَ اَنَّ اللّٰهَ
تَوَّابٌ حَکِیۡمٌ (10)
This verse is meant to warn and remind
people, as has been indicated earlier. The answer to the
condition it states is suppressed in accordance with
linguistic principles. Verse 14 ahead reveals this
suppression. The implication is that it is a consequence of
God’s blessings and mercy and of the fact that He accepts
repentance that He has given people these clear directives
replete with wisdom to guide them to repent and mend their
ways; otherwise, the attitude they adopted would have only
earned His wrath.
It may be kept in mind that these
directives were revealed in the times when, because of the
conspiracies of the hypocrites, great weaknesses had arisen
among the Muslims, as will become evident in the succeeding
verses. However, instead of punishing people for these
weaknesses, God, out of His grace and mercy, used these
circumstances to reveal directives that were necessary to
protect an Islamic society from the conspiracies and
connivances of the devils and hypocrites.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ
|