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 (١) 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 (٢) اَلزَّانِیۡ لَا یَنۡکِحُ اِلَّا زَانِیَةً اَوۡ مُشۡرِکَةً وَّ الزَّانِیَةُ لَا یَنۡکِحُهَاۤ اِلَّا زَانٍ اَوۡ مُشۡرِكٌ وَ حُرِّمَ ذٰلِكَ عَلَی الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ (٣) وَ الَّذِیۡنَ یَرۡمُوۡنَ الۡمُحۡصَنٰتِ ثُمَّ لَمۡ یَاۡتُوۡا بِاَرۡبَعَةِ شُهَدَآءَ فَاجۡلِدُوۡهُمۡ ثَمٰنِیۡنَ جَلۡدَةً وَّ لَا تَقۡبَلُوۡا لَهُمۡ شَهَادَةً اَبَدًا وَ اُولٰٓئِكَ هُمُ الۡفٰسِقُوۡنَ (٤) اِلَّا الَّذِیۡنَ تَابُوۡا مِنۡ بَعۡدِ ذٰلِكَ وَ اَصۡلَحُوۡا فَاِنَّ اللّٰهَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ (٥) وَ الَّذِیۡنَ یَرۡمُوۡنَ اَزۡوَاجَهُمۡ وَ لَمۡ یَکُنۡ لَّهُمۡ شُهَدَآءُ اِلَّاۤ اَنۡفُسُهُمۡ فَشَهَادَةُ اَحَدِهِمۡ اَرۡبَعُ شَهٰدٰتٍ بِاللّٰهِ اِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الصّٰدِقِیۡنَ (٦) وَ الۡخَامِسَةُ اَنَّ لَعۡنَتَ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡهِ اِنۡ کَانَ مِنَ الۡکٰذِبِیۡنَ (٧) وَ یَدۡرَؤُا عَنۡهَا الۡعَذَابَ اَنۡ تَشۡهَدَ اَرۡبَعَ شَهٰدٰتٍ بِاللّٰهِ اِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الۡکٰذِبِیۡنَ (٨) وَ الۡخَامِسَةَ اَنَّ غَضَبَ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡهَاۤ اِنۡ کَانَ مِنَ الصّٰدِقِیۡنَ (٩) وَ لَوۡ لَا فَضۡلُ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡکُمۡ وَ رَحۡمَتُهُ وَ اَنَّ اللّٰهَ تَوَّابٌ حَکِیۡمٌ (١٠)
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 (١)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 (٢)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.3
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).’”4
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.5
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.6
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.”7
(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.”8
(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.9
(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.10
(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.”11
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.”12
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 (٣)13
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 (٤) اِلَّا الَّذِیۡنَ تَابُوۡا مِنۡ بَعۡدِ ذٰلِكَ وَ اَصۡلَحُوۡا فَاِنَّ اللّٰهَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ (٥) 14
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 (٦) وَ الۡخَامِسَةُ اَنَّ لَعۡنَتَ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡهِ اِنۡ کَانَ مِنَ الۡکٰذِبِیۡنَ (٧) وَ یَدۡرَؤُا عَنۡهَا الۡعَذَابَ اَنۡ تَشۡهَدَ اَرۡبَعَ شَهٰدٰتٍ بِاللّٰهِ اِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الۡکٰذِبِیۡنَ (٨) وَ الۡخَامِسَةَ اَنَّ غَضَبَ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡهَاۤ اِنۡ کَانَ مِنَ الصّٰدِقِیۡنَ (٩)15
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 (١٠)16
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
____________________________
1.This is an important surah that We have revealed and have made its directives mandatoryand have also revealed very clear admonitions in it so that you fully take heed.
2. 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 with 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 punishment be present there.
3. Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, 749, (no. 4414).
4. Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 5, 97.
5. Tadabbur-i Qur’an, vol. 2, 505.
6. Ibid., vol. 2, 505-506
7. Abu Da’ud, Sunan, vol. 4, 145, (no. 4420).
8. Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 3, 1320, (no. 1694).
9. Abu Da’ud, Sunan, vol. 4, 146, (no. 4421).
10. Muslim, Al-Jami‘ al-sahih, vol. 3, 1322, (no. 1695).
11. Abu Da’ud, Sunan, vol. 4, 148, (no. 4428).
12. Abu Da’ud, Sunan, vol. 4, 134, (no. 4379).
13. 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 by a man guilty of fornication or an idolater. And this has been prohibited to the believers.
14. 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 the real defiant. Those who repent and reform after this, then God is Forgiving and Merciful.
15. 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 truthfuland the fifth time they should say that may the curseof God be on them if they were lying. And the punishmentcan be averted from the woman when she swears four times by God that this person is a liar and the fifth time she should say that may the wrathof God come upon her if he was truthful.
16.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.