1. The opening verse persistently stresses ‘We’. The purpose behind this is to vehemently emphasize that this surah was revealed by ‘Us’ [i.e. by God] rather than anyone else. Hence, it ought not to be taken lightly, as. something coming from one who lacks power and authority. It should be appreciated that He Who has revealed this surah is One Who holds everyone’s lives in His grip, Who is so overwhelmingly powerful that no one can go beyond His control.

It is further clarified in the later part of the verse that whatever has been said in this surah is not in the nature of ‘recommendations’ or ‘suggestions’, that may or may not be followed by a person, depending on his own will. They are, instead, categorical commands which must be followed. If someone believes. in and wants to submit himself to God, it is imperative that he acts in conformity with these commands. Furthermore, far from being ambiguous, these commands are couched in terms which are both clear and categorical. As a result, it is not justifiable to make excuses and contend that since the injunctions were incomprehensible it was not possible to act upon them.

This preamble is followed by the commands themselves. The preamble seems to underscore how important the commands are in the sight of God. It is pertinent to point out here that no other surah of the Qur’an has such a forceful preamble.

2. The issue under discussion is hedged in by several legal, moral and historical aspects which need to be explained and elaborated upon. If these aspects were not mentioned in detail, it would be extremely difficult for a person of our own time to appreciate the Qur’anic legislation expounded here. Hence, what follows is an attempt to shed light on different aspects of the Qur’anic legislation in question:

(i) As it is, everyone knows what zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) means, namely that a male and a female have sexual relations without there being any legal sanction for the same. There has been absolute agreement among human beings from very early times that this act is morally wrong, religiously sinful, socially reprehensible and on the whole, condemnable. The only ones who see the matter differently are those who have allowed their carnal desires to overwhelm their reason or who have elevated their eccentricities into philosophy.

What accounts for this universal condemnation of unlawful sexual intercourse is that human nature itself is prompted by an inner impulse to regard it as forbidden. For the very survival of the human species and the sustenance of human society demands that men and women should not come together merely for sensual pleasure and then part company when that purpose has been fulfilled.

Rather, such a relationship should be based on a covenant of mutual fidelity of a durable and abiding nature, a covenant that is well known and enjoys the sanction of society.

Without stable relations of marriage, the human race cannot survive even for a day. This is so because the human baby requires, for its survival and growth, continual compassionate care and nurture for several years in the early part of its life. Now, a woman is not likely to be ready to single-handedly bear the burden of a child’s upbringing unless the male, who was equally responsible for that birth, also shares that burden. Likewise, a society cannot survive without that covenant which creates ties between a man and a woman. In fact, human society cannot even come into being without the matrimonial tie which makes a man and a woman live together and, thus, found a family and thereafter foster further relationships between other families, which in turn gives birth to a community and a society. If a man and a woman were to start freely meeting each other just for the purpose of mutual enjoyment in total disregard of the objective of establishing a family, then this would strike a fatal blow to man’s collective life and demolish the very foundation on which society is built. Hence, uninhibited relations between men and women which are not based on any known and accepted covenant of mutual fidelity are against the very nature of man. It is precisely because of these considerations that fornication has always been looked upon as a grave vice, an act of immorality, and in religious terms, a sin. This also explains why those who have endeavored to encourage people to marry have also sought to prevent the incidence of unlawful sexual intercourse by one means or another. These endeavors, however, differ from one legal, moral, social and religious system to another. This variation stems from the fact that some societies have a strong and clear consciousness about the harmfulness of unlawful sexual intercourse for the human species and human society while the perception of other societies is, relatively speaking, weak and hazy.

(ii) Although there has been general agreement that unlawful sexual intercourse is forbidden, there has been disagreement as to whether it is also a crime which calls for punishment. It is precisely on this point that the Islamic position: radically differs from a number of other religious and legal systems.

Those societies which have been close to human nature have always regarded unlawful relations between a male and a female to be a crime, and have prescribed severe punishments for the same.

As moral corruption made inroads into human society, there developed a lenient attitude, one of tolerance, towards this offence. The first lapse’ in this regard was to make a sharp distinction between fornication and adultery and to consider the former to be an ordinary offence and the latter a punishable one.

For this reason, several legal systems define fornication as the act of sexual intercourse between a male (regardless of whether he is married or not) and a female who is not, one’s wife.

This definition focuses only on the marital status of the woman, and not that of the man. If the woman is without a husband, it is simply a case of fornication rather than adultery, and it is regarded so irrespective of whether the man who commits the act has a wife or not. In ancient Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and India, fornication carried a very light sentence. The same was the case in Greece and Rome and it also influenced Judaic thought. According to the Bible, this offence entails only a monetary compensation. The relevant Biblical command is: If a man seduces a virgin that is not betrothed, and he lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her, and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equivalent to the marriage present for virgins (Exodus 22: 16-17).

The same command is laid down in Deuteronomy, though here it is phrased somewhat differently. It clarifies that the man should pay the woman’s father fifty shekels of silver (Deuteronomy 22: 28-9). However, if a man fornicates with the daughter of a priest, according to Judaic law, he is to be hanged until dead, whereas the girl is to be burnt alive (Everyman’s Talmud, pp. 319-20).

That this view is almost identical with the Hindu code can be seen when we compare it with the laws (Dharma Shastra) of Manu. He says: “Anybody who commits fornication with an unmarried girl of his own caste with her consent, does not deserve any punishment. If the father of the girl is willing, the man should compensate him and marry the girl. However, if the girl belongs to a higher caste and the man is of a lower caste, the girl should be driven away from home and the limbs of the man should be amputated’ (Chapte8r, stanza 365, 366).

If the girl is a Brahmin, the punishment would be to burn the man alive 77).

The fact is that in all these legal systems, adultery which denotes a man’s sexual relations, be he married or unmarried, with a woman who is someone’s wife, is considered the major crime. Once again, what renders this act as a crime is not the mere fact that it is an unlawful sexual act. Rather, the main consideration. is that this act would compel another man to bring up a child who is not his. In other words, fornication as such is not considered a serious offence. Rather, the mixing-up of the parentage of one’s children with those of others is reckoned to be the serious offence which deserves punishment, both in the case of the man.

According to the Egyptians, in such a case the man should be severely beaten with sticks and the woman’s nose amputated. Similar punishments were prescribed in Babylon, Assyria and Persia. In Hinduism, the woman involved in such an act was required to be thrown to the hounds to be torn to pieces and the man put on a hot iron bed and a fire lit all around him. In Ancient Greece and Rome, the husband had the right either to kill the man whom he found having sexual intercourse with his wife or receive damages from him. Subsequently, in the first century B.C., Augustus Caesar decreed that half the property of a man guilty of adultery should be confiscated and that additionally he be exiled.

As for the woman, it was laid down that she would forfeit half her dowry and that one-third of her assets be confiscated and she be banished to a remote part of the Empire. Constantine changed this law and instead laid down capital punishment for both men and women who are guilty of adultery. In the days of Leo and Marcian, the punishment was changed to life imprisonment. Justinian reduced the punishment further and laid down that the woman be flogged and confined to a monastery. Her husband had the right either to obtain her release within two years or leave her there to suffer life-long confinement.

The following represent the legal provisions in Judaic Law pertaining to unlawful sexual relations: If a man lies carnally with a woman, who is a slave, betrothed to another man and not yet ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held.

They shall not be put to death, because she was not free (Leviticus 19: 20).

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death (Leviticus 20: 10).

If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel (Deuteronomy 22: 22).

If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry — ‘for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife: so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But to the young woman you shall do nothing; in the young woman there is no offence punishable by death . . . (Deuteronomy 22: 23-6): By the time of Jesus’ advent, the Jewish rabbis, lawyers, and general public, literally everyone, had consigned this law to oblivion. Even though the law existed. was documented in the Scriptures and considered to be God’s command, still nobody cared to follow it. There is not a single report in Jewish history to suggest that it was ever enforced. When Jesus (peace be on him) embarked on calling people to the truth, he soon attracted a large number of followers, and the different means that were adopted to put a stop to the spread of his Message proved ineffectual.

Faced with this situation, the Jewish leaders and hypocrites thought of a ruse to embarrass Jesus. They brought to him a woman who was guilty of adultery, and asked him to decide her case (see John 8: 1-11).

In so doing, they intended to drive Jesus into one of two difficult positions.

If he pronounced any sentence other than stoning to death, he would be accused of tampering with God’s Law for the sake of worldly exigencies. On the other hand, if he sentenced the woman to stoning, he would put himself in a situation where he could be accused of taking a position that was in flagrant contradiction with the prevailing Roman Law. Moreover, any strict adherence to Mosaic Law by Jesus could be exploited insofar as people would be scared that he would strictly enforce the whole corpus of the Torah.

Jesus (peace be on him), however, turned the tables on his detractors by uttering a short sentence: ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her’ (John 8: 7). On hearing this, the rabbis quietly dispersed, their moral depravity, thus, laid bare. As the guilty woman stood alone, Jesus made her repent. After she repented, he asked her to depart. He did so because in that situation Jesus (peace be on him) was in no position to act as judge, nor had the judicial procedure (such as having witnesses testify to the offence) been followed. Moreover, an Islamic State did not exist at the time which would have enforced the Law of God.

Christians are wont to base themselves on this and a few other statements that Jesus (peace be on him) made on a variety of occasions. In Christian societies an entirely different concept is entertained about unlawful sex. For them, if sexual relations take place between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman (by mutual consent — Ed.) it is certainly a sin but it is not a cognizable offence.

However, if either of the two persons who engage in unlawful sexual relations is married, or if both of them are married, their sexual relations are considered a cognizable offence. Nonetheless, what makes the act a sin is the violation of the marriage contract, rather than the mere fact of unlawful sex, and this makes the’ act an offence in the legal sense. According to Christian doctrine, the married man who engages in unlawful sex is a criminal because he has violated the marital vow which he solemnly made with his spouse at the altar of the church through a priest. However, the only legal consequence of such an act is that the wife of the man so guilty might secure separation from him by charging her husband with being unfaithful to the covenant he made with her. The same is also true of a woman who engages in sexual relations outside of her marriage covenant. At the same time, the husband of the woman who is a party to adultery, also has the right to claim damages from the man who subjected his wife to adultery.

This is the only punishment that Christian Law lays down with respect to married persons, both men and women, who are guilty of adultery. Unfortunately, this punishment is a double-edged sword. For if a woman secures separation from her husband who is guilty of infidelity, she would doubtless be released from him according to Christian Law which stipulates that she may not marry again. The same holds true for the husband who secures separation from his wife who is guilty of infidelity. According to the Christian Law. he too may not marry again. In other words, only those who are prepared to lead the solitary life of monks should brand one’s spouse with infidelity and take the matter to a Christian court.

The modern Western. legal enactments in regard to this question, which are enforced at the present time in most Muslim countries, are based on the very concepts mentioned above. According to Western legal concepts, fornication is regarded at most as a blemish, as an act of immorality, or a sin, but it is certainly not a cognizable offence. It becomes an offence only if one party has resorted to the use of force so that the sexual act took place against the will of the Other-As for having sexual intercourse with someone else’s married partner, the aggrieved party can file for a divorce from the offending party. If adultery is proved. the husband may obtain divorce from his wife and also receive monetary compensation from the man guilty of adultery.

(iii) As distinguished from these concepts, Islam regards the act of illegitimate sexual intercourse as a penal crime per se. Moreover, if such an act is committed by a married person, the severity of the offence increases. This severity does not emanate from the fact that the-adulterer has broken the marital vow, or has violated the sanctity of another person’s bedroom. The offence becomes more severe because of the fact that a legitimate means was available to a married person to satisfy his sexual urge, but he still resorted to unlawful means to so satisfy himself.

Unlawful sex is viewed by Islam as a crime which, if no steps are taken to curb it, strikes at the very root of humanity and civilization. Both the survival of the human race and the continuity of man’s collective existence make it imperative that sexual relations between men and women are confined to their lawful forms alone. Now, such a goal cannot be achieved if such relations between men and women are left to everyone’s own will. For, if the opportunity to satisfy one’s sexual urge is available without being attendant to the responsibility of rearing a family, it would be impossible to confine people to lawful relationships alone This can be well illustrated by an example from our own day-to-day life. If people are given the option to travel with or without buying a ticket, how many people would still volunteer to buy such tickets? If carrying a proper ticket is considered a necessary condition for travelling, then it is obvious that travelling without a ticket should be treated as an offence. However, if someone travels without a ticket owing to his resourcelessness, he may be regarded as an offender of a lesser order Conversely, if a wealthy person simply refuses to buy a ticket even though he has the means to do so, he should certainly be regarded as a greater culprit.

(iv) In order to protect society from the harmful effects of unlawful sex Islam does not confine itself to legal sanctions. Instead, it makes use of a number of reformative and preventive measures as well. Legal sanctions are in fact used as a last resort. Quite obviously, in the Islamic scheme of things it is not at all desirable that people be subjected to flogging for having committed unlawful sexual intercourse. What Islam truly aims at is that people terrain from indulging in unlawful sex so that recourse to penal measures does not arise. Hence, Islam seeks, first of all, to purify people’s lives, seeks to infuse people’s hearts with fear of the Omniscient and Omnipotent Lord of the heavens and earth, makes man conscious of his accountability in the Hereafter, thereby making him realize that he cannot escape the consequences of his actions even in the Next Life, thus, creating a disposition in man to obey God’s Law as a necessary corollary of faith. Moreover, Islam repeatedly reminds man that unlawful sex, and unchasteness are mortal sins for which man will have to face a very strict reckoning from God in the Next Life. This is an idea that recurs time and again in the Qur’an. Furthermore, Islam takes every ‘step to create the conditions that facilitate marriage. If a man does not feel satisfied for some. reason by having just one wife, Islam provides him with the opportunity to have a maximum of four wives. If the spouses find their matrimonial relations incompatible, the male partner may resort to talaq (repudiation of the marriage by the husband) and the female partner may have recourse to khula (separation at the initiative of the wife). If there are serious differences between a husband and a. wife, Islam provides that the two may either approach other relatives with a request that they serve as arbitrators or they may refer their problems to a court of law. This may be done in order to achieve a reconciliation between them, or the two may be freed of their marital tie such that it becomes possible for them to re-marry whomsoever they wish.

These points are clearly expressed in Surahs al-Baqarah, al-Nisa’ and al- Talaq. It should also be noted that the present surah expresses its disapproval of those men and women who abstain from marriage, and that it calls upon them instead to marry. This injunction embraces both the free person and the slave, male and female. Islam also seeks to remove factors which prompt or provoke people into illegitimate sexual relations or which provide opportunities for engaging in the same. Hence, one year before laying down the punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse, women were directed in Surah al-Ahzab to cover themselves with their mantles and draw their outer garments about themselves. The wives of the Prophet (peace be on him), who were the role models for all Muslim women, were directed to stay indoors and not go about displaying their charms. If people wanted to ask anything of them, they were to do so from behind a screen, Muslim women look up to the wives and daughters of the Prophet. (peace be on him) rather than the women of pre-Islamic times who were devoid of the concepts just expressed.

Even before the enforcement of the’ penal laws pertaining to unlawful sexual relations, free-mixing between the sexes had ceased to be the norm in Muslim society. Women too had given up parading their charms in public. Furthermore, those conditions which create opportunities for and facilitate indulgence in unlawful sex had been done away with. It was, then, after these measures had been taken that the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse was prescribed. Thereafter, it was in this very surah that deterrent measures were laid down so that the spread of fahsh (obscenity) would be prevented. Likewise, prostitution was outlawed and those guilty of accusing others of involvement in unlawful sexual relations were liable to a severe punishment if they were unable to substantiate their accusations with due evidence. Moreover, both men and women were asked to lower their gaze So as to put an end to ogling, which all too quickly leads to admiration of beauty and which, in turn, gives rise to love affairs. Women were also told to distinguish between their male relatives, treating their mahram relatives differently from their non-mahram relatives, and to abstain from meeting relatives of the latter category in a state that would make a display of their adornments.

When one takes note of all this, one appreciates the pervasive scheme of reform envisioned by Islam whereby the punishment prescribed for unlawful sexual acts is only one aspect. The idea underlying these penalties is that exemplary punishment should be meted out to the incorrigibly wicked who ignore all reform measures.

These are the ones who are so deeply immersed in evil that they fail to mend their ways despite all the different measures adopted by Islam to mobilize their inner resources to bring about changes in people’s attitude and behavior. Moreover, Islam adopted a number of measures facilitating marriage and the like so that legitimate opportunities were provided to people for satisfying their sexual urges.

Now, if after all this some insist upon satisfying those urges in an unlawful manner, then they deserve to be met with an exemplary punishment. If even one such individual in a society is duly punished, several others with similar propensities will realize how such culprits are treated, and presumably this will act as something of a deterrent. This penalty is not simply meant to chastise an offender, but also declares that Muslim society is not an entertainment park for those bent upon unfettered sexual self-indulgences. It is not a pasture for those who, impervious to all moral restraints, are inclined to let their lasciviousness loose.

When one considers the reformative scheme of Islam it is evident that it is both coherent and well-conceived. Each part is so vital that none can be dispensed with and nothing added. Ideas for altering this scheme often enter the heads of naive simpletons who are wont to throw down the mantle of reform without even comprehending Islam’s own scheme of reform. Alternatively, such ideas come to the minds of those, who out of their own perversity, deliberately seek to subvert the Islamic scheme of things.

(v) Unlawful sexual intercourse was declared an offence in 3 A.H. Nevertheless, it was not the kind of offence against which the Islamic State, or its police, or its courts could take action. By and large unlawful sexual intercourse was considered an offence against the family, or at best against society. Hence, it was members of the family concerned who were entitled to mete out punishment to offenders. The operative injunction at this stage was that if four witnesses testified to seeing a man and a woman engaged in unlawful sex, then both of them should be beaten and the woman confined to the house. This injunction was to remain in operation until the revelation of any further injunction on the subject. (See al-Nisa’ 4: 15-16 and Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. II, al-Nisa’ 4, n. 26, pp.17-19.) The actual injunction which laid down a specific penalty for fornication was revealed about three years after the revelation of this initial injunction: This fatter injunction abrogated the former and henceforth made fornication a cognizable offence.

(vi) The punishment laid down in this verse pertains to unlawful sexual intercourse per se. It is not the punishment which is prescribed for those who are convicted of unlawful post-marital sexual intercourse which is a very grave offence in the sight of Islamic Law. It is evident from the Qur’an that the punishment which is being prescribed here is meant for those unmarried persons who are guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse as indicated by the Qur’an itself.

For it was earlier stated in Sarah al-Nisa. ‘As for those of your women who are guilty of immoral conduct, call upon four from amongst you to bear witness against them. And if four men do bear witness, confine those women to their houses until either death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them (Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. I, al-Nisa’ 4: 15, p. 17).

A further command was laid down in the same surah: ‘And those of you who cannot afford to marry free believing women (muhsanat), then marry such believing women whom your right hands possess . . . Then if they become guilty of immoral conduct after they have entered into wedlock, they shall be liable to half the penalty to which free women (muhsanat) are liable (Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. II, al-Nisa’ 4: 25, p. 28).

The former verse indicates that God would ordain some other commandment for women guilty of fornication and who had, therefore, been sentenced to confinement in their houses till death or until Allah ‘opens some way for them (al-Nisa’ 4: 15). It is clear, then, that the present verse of Surah al-Nur is the command which is alluded to in Surah al-Nisa’. The second verse of Surah al- Nisa’ quoted above mentions the punishment for married slave-girls who are guilty of fornication. The word muhsanat (free believing women) is used twice in the verse and in both cases it occurs in the same context. Obviously it carries the same meaning in both places. In the second instance, (al-Nisa’ 4: 25), while laying down the punishment for married slave-girls reference is also made to those who cannot ‘afford to marry free believing women’ (al-Nisa’ 4: 25). This expression clearly excludes married women and is specifically directed at free believing women who are unmarried. Moreover, at the conclusion of verse 25 of Surah al-Nisa’, it 1s stated that if a married slave-girl commits unlawful sexual intercourse, she would receive half the penalty meted out to a free believing woman guilty of the same offence. It is evident from the context that the expression muhsanat carries the same meaning as in the other verse. In other words, the reference is not to a married woman, but to an unmarried free woman. Taken together, both these verses of Surah al-Nisa’ suggest that the injunction conveyed through this verse of Sarah al-Nar prescribes the punishment to be inflicted on unmarried persons who are guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse. (For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. II, al-Nisa’ 4, n. 46, p. 29.)

(vii) Let us now look at the question of what the punishment is for unlawful sexual intercourse committed by a free woman. The Qur'an, itself, is silent about this. A number of authentic traditions, however, fully establish the point that not only did the Prophet (peace be on him) specify lapidation as its punishment, but he himself put that punishment into effect in a few instances. This practice was also followed by each of the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs during their respective periods of rule. Besides, they openly declared this to be the punishment for such an offence. The Companions and Successors were completely unanimous in their views on this verse. Not a single statement was made by anyone which might lead one to conclude that anyone in the early period of Islam had any doubts about the validity of this punishment. Even in later times, leading Muslim jurists in different parts of the world were unanimous that this punishment was a well-established practice of the Prophet (peace be on him). The reason being that the evidence for its validity is so numerous and so weighty that no scholar worth the name would dare deny it. In fact, in the whole history of the Ummah none except the Khawarij and some Mu‘tazilah have considered it otherwise. Even then they did not reject it on the grounds that it did not have the Prophet’s sanction, but rather because they held it to be contrary to the Qur’an.

Their objection, however, was ill-founded and rested on their misunderstanding of the Qur’an. Such people claimed that the words zaniyah and zani (those who commit ‘unlawful sexual intercourse — whether female or male’) were used in an absolute (mutlaq) sense. Hence, they considered the Qur’anic prescription of flogging each of them with a hundred lashes an addition to the punishment prescribed by the Qur’an with regard to all those who indulge in unlawful sexual relations, regardless of their marital status. They did not see any justification in distinguishing between married and unmarried persons who commit unlawful sex nor in prescribing a different punishment for those who fall into the former category. They considered such a distinction to be opposed to the Law of God.

This line of argument is seriously flawed. It disregards the fact that the Prophet’s explanations of the Qur’an carry the same weight as the Qur’an itself. This is evident from the following example: The Qur’an makes an absolute statement about men and women who commit theft, and prescribes the punishment of cutting off his or her offending hand. If this Qur’anic command is not interpreted in light of its explanation by the Prophet (peace be on him), we will not be able to make any distinction between thieves, and the hand of every thief will be amputated even if he stole only a needle or a fruit. This is bound to happen if we do not restrict the absoluteness of the Qur’anic statement in light of its explanation by the Prophet (peace be on him). On the other hand, if someone who steals millions of rupees and, when arrested, contends that he has repented and mended his ways and that he should, therefore, be set free on the grounds of the Qur’anic verse which makes this absolute statement: ‘But he who repents after he has committed wrong, and makes amends, Allah will graciously turn to him. Truly Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate’ (al- Ma’idah 5: 39). Obviously, this apparently absolute statement has got to be qualified by other considerations, especially by the traditions which have a bearing on the subject.

To take another case, we find that the Qur’an forbids a man to marry his foster mother or foster sister (al-Nisa’ 4: 23) but it does not so forbid marriage to one’s foster daughter. If the above line of argument is followed consistently, one would be justified in contending that forbidding marriage with one’s foster-daughter is opposed to the Qur’an. The Qur’an also forbids a man from marrying two sisters at the same time (al-Nisa’ 4: 23), but it does not specify that he cannot marry two women one of whom is a maternal aunt and the other her niece; or one whom is a paternal aunt and the other her niece. Now, anyone who pursues this argument, is bound to say that to regard the above-mentioned marital ties as forbidden is opposed to the Qur’an. Likewise, marriage with one’s step-daughter is only prohibited if she has been brought up in her stepfather’s house (al-Nisa’ 4: 23). However, if someone were to consider marriage with his step-daughter to be forbidden in toto, he would be regarded, according to the line of argument mentioned above, as holding an opinion in opposition to the Qur’an.

Likewise, the Qur’an grants permission to pledge one’s property in terms which create the impression that this permission is dependent upon the person being a traveler and to whom no scribe is available to commit the loan document to writing (al-Baqarah 2: 2 and 3). If one follows this line of argument, one would consider pledging one’s property while still at home and when a scribe becomes available then commit the loan document to writing.

To consider another example, the Qur’an states in quite general terms: Take witnesses when you sell and buy something’ (al-Baqarah 2: 282). According to this logic, all transactions which take place day in and day out would be regarded as unlawful since no witnesses are brought forth to prove, them.

These examples establish the fallacious position of those who regard lapidation as contrary to the Qur’an. It is undeniable that in the Islamic scheme of things the Prophet (peace be on him) was required not only to convey God’s commandments, but also to explain their true purpose, illustrating how they are to be applied, and whether any exception may. be made in their application. Anyone who denies this role of the Prophet (peace be on him) goes against the very fundamentals of faith itself. Moreover, such a view would land us in ‘awkward situations which are just too many to enumerate here.

(viii) Muslim jurists are at variance with one another as regards what constitutes zina (unlawful sexual intercourse). According to Hanafi scholars, it consists of ‘a man’s frontal sexual intercourse with a woman to whom he is neither married, nor whom is his slave-girl, nor about whom there is any reasonable ground for him to assume that she is his wife or slave-girl This definition of zina excludes sodomy as well as sexual intercourse with animals. It is only sexual intercourse in the vagina of a woman which is reckoned as zina provided it is not done with legal title or under the misunderstanding that one is entitled to it.

By contrast, Shafi‘i jurists define zina as follows: ‘Unlawful sexual intercourse (zina) consists of the act of penetration of a person’s private part into the private part of another provided that it is unlawful to do so but to which people are instinctively inclined.’

According to the Malikis, zina consists in having sexual intercourse, either vaginal or anal, be it with a man or a woman, when one does not have the right to do so, and when there is no ground to assume that one has such a right. According to the last two schools, zina also covers sodomy.

The fact of the matter is that these latter two definitions do not conform with the well-known definition of zina and the Qur’an always uses a term in its widely familiar meaning. Should a particular word be employed as a special term, the Qur’an itself explains its connotation. There is, however, nothing in the above verse to indicate that the word zina is used for some special rather than its ordinary meaning. Hence, the word should be taken in its general, widely-known sense.

In other words, it should be deemed to stand only for what is normally considered as unlawful sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Other forms of sexual perversion, therefore, lie beyond the scope of this above definition.

Moreover, it is common knowledge that there was some difference of opinion among the Prophet’s Companions regarding the punishment that ought to be meted out to those guilty of sodomy. Had sodomy been considered a part of zina, there would have been no reason for any disagreement among the Companions on this question.

(ix) Legally speaking, a man’s mere penetration of his penis into a woman’s vagina, provided it is unlawful for him to do so, is enough to constitute zina and make him liable for punishment. Full penetration of the penis or having full sexual intercourse are not the necessary constituents of zina. However, if the penetration of a man’s penis does not take place, the mere fact that a man and woman are found lying on the same bed, or that they are engaged in love play, or are found together in a nude position, none of these suffice to convict them of zina. If a man and a woman are found in such compromising positions, the Shari‘ah does not prescribe that they be subjected to a medical examination so as to determine whether sexual intercourse actually took place, and to punish them if it is so established. Those who are found in such shamelessly compromising positions would, however, be subjected to the punishment that might be decided upon by the gddi, depending on the circumstances of each particular case. It is also possible that the Shara of an Islamic State might determine the punishment to be meted out in such cases. However, if it is decided that the punishment consists of flogging, this may not exceed ten lashes.

This because of a hadith in which it is specified that a person may not be - subjected to more than. ten lashes in cases which do not involve hadd punishment. (See Bukhari, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab kam al-Ta‘zir wa al-Adab’, Muslim, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Qadr Aswat al-Ta‘zir’ and Abu Da’ ud, K. al-Hudud. ‘Bab fi al-Ta‘zir’ - Ed.)

Conversely, if someone is not caught committing such an objectionable act [i.e. one which is short of zina] but voluntarily confesses the same from a feeling of remorse, it suffices to exhort him to repent. It is narrated by ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud that someone came and confessed that he had everything possible with a woman in the countryside short of sexual intercourse. So saying, he offered himself for punishment in the manner that was considered appropriate. In response, “Umar said to him: ‘When God has concealed. what you had done, you should not have made it public.’ The Prophet (peace be on him) remained quiet all along and the person departed. He then called for him and recited the following Qur’anic verse: ‘And establish the Prayer at the two ends of the day and in the first hours of the night. Indeed, the good deeds drive away the evil deeds.’ (Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. IV, Hud 11: 114, p. 137.) Someone asked whether this ruling was meant specifically for that person alone. To this the Prophet (peace be on him) replied: ‘No, it is a general ruling.’ (See Bukhari, K. Tafsir al-Qur’an, ‘Bab Qawlihi: wa aqim al- Salah tarafai al-nahar wa zulfan min al-layl ... (Hud 11: 114)’ and Tirmidhi, K. Tafsir al-Qur’an, ‘Bab wa min Surah Hud’ — Ed.) Not only that but if a person voluntarily admits to having committed an offence without specifying it, the Shari‘ah does not permit probing the offence he committed. In this respect, someone once appeared before the Prophet (peace be on him) stating that he was liable to hadd punishment and asking that the Prophet enforce the same. The Prophet (peace be on him) did not ask about the hadd to which the man was liable. After finishing the Prayer, the man rose once again, saying: ‘I am guilty. Punish me.’ Thereupon the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Have you not offered Prayers with us just now?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ The Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Allah has pardoned your mis-deed.’ (See Bukhari, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab idha aqarra bi al-Hadd . . . hal li al-Imam an yastura ‘alayh’ - Ed.)

(x) According to Islamic teachings, a man may not be convicted of zina unless certain conditions, which we shall explain below, are fulfilled. In this regard a distinction is made between conviction for zina as such, and someone’s commitment of that offence after marriage. With regard to someone’s conviction merely for zina, it is necessary that the person be adult and sane. If a minor or - an ‘insane person commits zina, he is not liable for the hadd punishment laid down.

As for convicting someone of zina after ihsan (marriage), some additional conditions have to be met apart from those of adulthood and sanity. These conditions are as follows: first, that the said person be free. There is unanimity among scholars — and this on the grounds that the Qur’an itself indicates (al- Nisa’ 4: 25 — Ed.) — that a slave is not liable to lapidation. We have mentioned earlier that if a slave-girl-is convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, she is liable to half the punishment prescribed for an unmarried free woman. Jurists are unanimous that this also applies to male slaves. Second, such a person should have been duly married. There is unanimity of opinion on this question as well. In accordance with this condition, if a man has had sexual relations with his slave-girl or he has contracted a defective marriage, he is not reckoned "as a married person. In other words, if such a person is convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, he is liable to be flogged rather than lapidated. Third, such a person should not only have been married but should also have had privacy (khalwah sahihah) with his wife [that is, he should have consummated his marriage]. The mere contract of marriage does not place a man or woman in the category of muhsan so that were he or she to commit unlawful sexual intercourse, they might be punished with lapidation. Most jurists are agreed on this point as well.

Abi Hanifah and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani have further added that a man or woman will be considered muhsan only if both of them were free, sane and adult at the time of the marriage and their enjoyment of consummation of the marriage. The difference caused by this additional condition is that if someone married a slave-girl, a female minor or an insane woman and then had sexual intercourse with her, he will still not be lapidated even if he commits unlawful sexual intercourse thereafter. The same applies to women in similar circumstances. That is, if a woman has had sexual intercourse with a minor, insane or slave husband, she will not be lapidated even if she is guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse thereafter. Even a little reflection on this enables one to appreciate that these two authorities, renowned for their intellectual maturity, added something which perfectly stands to reason.

The fourth condition in this regard is that the culprit concerned should be a Muslim. There is, however, considerable disagreement among jurists on this point. Shafi‘t, Abi Yisuf and Ahmad ibn Hanbal do not consider this to be a requisite condition. For them, even if a dhimmi commits unlawful sexual intercourse, he will be lapidated. However, Abi Hanifah and Malik are agreed that lapidation should only be applied to Muslims who commit unlawful sexual intercourse after ihsdn (marriage). Among their argunients, the most reasonable and weighty is that in order for such a severe punishment as lapidation to be inflicted, the culprit should be proved as having committed the error even though he was in a full state of ihsan.

Ihsan means to be fortified so that one may be able to fully protect oneself. This is achieved by three things. The first of these fortifications consists of belief in God and in the accountability of the Hereafter and the acceptance of God’s commands as the binding norms of one’s behavior. The second consists of one being free, rather than a slave, so that.one is immune from any other person’s constraint which might prevent one from making use of the lawful means of gratifying one’s instinctive desires. In other words, a person is not faced with a state of compulsion and helplessness that prompts him to commit sin. Likewise, such a person should also not be devoid of the support that a person receives from his family in safeguarding his morals and honor. The third fortification consists of wedlock, which provides a person with the lawful means to satisfy his desires. It is only when one has these three protective fortifications that one becomes fully secure. It is only after these three conditions have been fulfilled that a person deserves to be lapidated for having merely gratified his lust.

If, however, someone does not believe in God, or in the Hereafter, or in a set of Laws prescribed by God, he is obviously not in a state of ihsan, Hence, committing such an otherwise outrageous act of immorality does not attain the same degree of graveness that warrants his lapidation. This opinion is endorsed by a tradition on the authority of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar which was narrated by Ishaq ibn Rahawayh in his Musnad and by Daraqutni in his Sunan: ‘He who associates aught with God in His Divinity is not a muhsan.’ There is, however, disagreement as to whether the sentence mentions “this tradition is a saying of the Prophet (peace be on him) or simply that Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar. Despite this weakness in the tradition, its content Seems perfectly sound. It is possible though to controvert this view by reference “on case which involved a Jew as the culprit whereby the Prophet (peace be on m decreed that he be lapidated. Such a contention, however, would not be tenable. For if we bring together the authentic traditions relating to this case it becomes evident that the Prophet (peace be on him) did not enforce this provision Islamic Law on the grounds of it being the law of the land, he rather enforced upon the Jew his own religious law. We learn from an authentic tradition in Bukhari and Muslim that when this case was put before the Prophet (Peace be on him), he asked the Jews present: “What is the relevant provision for this [offence] in your Scripture, the Torah?’ (See Muslim, K. al Hadud Ba Rajm al-Yahud Ahi al-Dhimmah’. There is, however, a slight discrepancy between words of hadith quoted by the learned author here. He quotes the words: “we have found that the actual words in Muslim are Ed.) When it became clear that the Torah prescribed lapidation, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘So I decide according to what is laid down in the Torah. (See Abu Daud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab fi Rajm al-Yahidiyin’ — Ed.) According to another tradintion while giving his verdict on this case the Prophet (peace be on him) remarked: “O Allah, I am the first person to revive Your command which they [the Jews] caused to die. (See Muslim, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Rajm al-Yahud Ahl al-Dhimmah’ an Abu Da’ ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab fi Rajm al-Yahidiyin’ — Ed.)

(xi) In order to convict’ someone of unlawful sexual intercourse, it is not only necessary to make sure that he committed that act, but also that he committed it of his own free-will. If someone is compelled into that act, he is neither guilty nor deserving of punishment. In such cases, the person is not liable to punishment in view of the general principle of the Shari‘ah which states: A man acquit of responsibility for acts to which he has been compelled,’ In verse 33 of ne Present surah we should note God’s forgiveness of women who have been subjected to sexual intercourse under duress. Several traditions also establish that in case of rape, it was only the rapist who was punished whereas the victim was spared. According to one tradition a woman who was proceeding to perform Prayers in the darkness of night was overpowered and raped. When she cried for help people came to her rescue and the rapist was arrested. The Prophet (peace be on him) had the rapist flogged while the woman was set free. (See Tirmidhi, k. al Hudud ‘Bab ma ja’ fi al-Mar’ah idha ustukrihat ‘ala al-zina’ and Abu Da ud, k. al Hudud, ‘Bab fi Sahib al-Hadd yaji’u fa yuqirr’ — Ed.) According to another tradition, someone raped a girl during the days of ‘Umar. Umar made the rapist flogged while the girl was free to go. (See Bukhari, K, al-Ikrah, ‘Bab Idha ustukrihat al-Mar’ah ‘ala al-zina fa la Hadd ‘alayha - Ed.) In view of these authentic traditions there is a unanimous ruling that women subjected to the sexual act under duress ought not to be considered guilty. There remains disagreement among scholars, however, on the question of whether a male who is compelled to commit unlawful sexual intercourse is guilty or not.

Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, Shafi‘i and Hasan ibn Salih are of the opinion that if a man is forced into-having sexual intercourse he should also be forgiven. Zufar, however, is of the opinion that such a person ought not to be forgiven on the grounds that sexual intercourse cannot be performed without penile erection and the fact that erection took place shows that the person was motivated by sexual passion. Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that if the State or any magistrate appointed by the State forces someone to have unlawful sexual intercourse, he will not be punished. For if the State itself forces someone to commit a crime, it forfeits the authority to enforce the punishment laid down for it. If, however, someone other than the State forces a person to commit unlawful sexual intercourse, he will be punished. This is so because the culprit could not have committed the crime without sexual passion, and sexual passion cannot be forced on anyone from without.

Of these three, the first position, namely that of the male who is compelled to commit unlawful sexual intercourse, is the most sound. What makes it so is that though erection may indicate the sexual arousal of the person concerned, it does not necessarily show his consent and desire to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse. Suppose a tyrant forcibly casts a person of good moral character into prison, confines him in a room, and then sends to that room a young and beautiful woman, stark naked and forcibly keeps the two confined in that room under lock and key, refusing to release that person until he commits the sexual] act with her. Let us suppose that under such circumstances the two do have ' sexual intercourse and the tyrant is able to produce four witnesses to that effect.

Would it be fair to stone them to death in disregard of the circumstances in which that act was committed? Would it be fair even to have them flogged? It stands to reason and also accords with human behavior that at times a person’s sexual passion might be aroused without his intention having any hand in the matter. Alternatively, suppose a person is imprisoned and is allowed to partake of nothing except wine. Now, if he were to drink Wine in such a situation, would it be fair to punish him for drinking wine even though he drank it under compulsive circumstances? Should we consider him deserving of punishment merely on the grounds that wine could not have gone down his throat unless he had willed it? For a man can be convicted of a crime not merely because of his will, but also because of his free-will which accompanied the crime. If someone is forcibly placed under circumstances which virtually compel him to engage in a criminal act, he should be absolved of all guilt in certain cases, and in others the extenuating circumstances should lighten his offence.

(xii) The Shari‘ah does not permit anyone other than the State to prosecute those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse, be they men or women. Nor is anyone besides the court empowered to punish them. All jurists of the Ummah are agreed that the demand to execute the Qur’anic command of flogging such persons is not given to ordinary people. It is rather directed to the magistrates and judges of the Islamic State. There is, however, disagreement over the question of whether a master has the right to enforce hadd punishment on his slave. All leading jurists of the Hanafi school are agreed that he is not empowered to do so. The Shafi‘is, however, are of the opinion that he has such authority. According to the Malikis, a master is not authorized to amputate the hand of a slave who is guilty of theft. He can, however, enforce the hadd punishment on a slave who is found guilty of zina or gadhf (unsubstantiated accusations of unlawful sexual intercourse) or drinking.

(xiii) Islamic Law declares the punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse to be a part of the law of the State. Hence, this punishment is enforced on all subjects of the State, be they Muslim or non-Muslim. Except for Malik all leading jurists share this opinion. Abu Hanifah though, is of the opinion that non-Muslims cannot be stoned to death. The reason behind not so enforcing this punishment on non-Muslims is that one of the conditions for the enforcement of stoning is that the person concerned be a fully-fledged muhsan. Now, since a person does not become a full muhsan unless he is a Muslim, so non-Muslims cannot be stoned to death. Malik, however, argues that the command to punish those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse is addressed exclusively to Muslims, i.e. the punishment laid down in Islamic Law for this offence is a part of the personal law of the Muslims. A musta’min (the non-Muslim who enters Dar al-Islam with the assurance of security) who commits unlawful sexual intercourse, according to Shafi‘i and Abu Yusuf, is to be subjected to a hadd punishment. But Abu Hanifah and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani are of the opinion that he should be spared even this.

(xiv) Islamic Law does not make it obligatory for people to confess their crimes. Nor does it make it obligatory for them to report offences committed by others to the authorities. However, once the authorities are informed that such an offence has been committed, there remains no room to spare the. culprit the required punishment. According to a hadith, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘He who commits any of these filthy acts, should keep it concealed under the cover that God has placed over it. However, if he exposes it, we will enforce on him the punishment laid down in the Book of God.” (See Malik, Muwatta , K. al-Hudud — Ed.) Abu Da’ud recorded with regard to Ma‘iz ibn Malik al- Aslami that after he had committed unlawful sexual intercourse, he was told by Hazzal ibn Nu‘aym to go to the Prophet (peace be on him) and confess his offence. He accordingly went to the Prophet and confessed what he had done.

Thereupon, the Prophet (peace be on him) subjected him to death by stoning.

At the same time, the Prophet (peace be on him) said to Hazzal: Had you covered his crime by your garment, it would have been better for you. (See Abu Da’ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab fi al-Satr ‘ala Ahl al-Hudud’ — Ed.) There is also a hadith that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Better pardon one another with regard to hudud, because when it reaches me, it becomes obligatory to enforce it.’ (See Abu Da’ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab al-‘Afw ‘an al-Hudud ma lam - tablugh al-Sultan’ and al-Nasa’i, K. Qat‘ al-Sdriq, ‘Bab ma yakunu Hirzan wa ma la yakun’ — Ed.)

(xv) As far as the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse is concerned, it is not liable to mutual settlement. The following incident is found in almost all collections of Hadith. A young man who worked as a laborer for someone committed unlawful sexual intercourse with that person’s wife. The father of the young man obtained the affected person’s consent in lieu of a hundred goats and a slave-girl. However, when the case was put before the Prophet (peace be on him), he said: ‘Your goats and your slave-girl are returned to you.’ (See Bukhari, K. al-Sulh, ‘Bab idha Istalahi ‘ala Sulh jawr fa al-Sulh Mardud’ — Ed.) Thereafter, he enforced on both the convicted man and the woman the punishment laid down for unlawful sexual intercourse. This not only indicates that this question may not be settled by mutual agreement, but also that it does not provide for paying damages in cases which involve the violation of a woman’s honor.

(xvi) In an Islamic State, no one can be subjected to any punishment for committing unlawful sexual intercourse unless that charge can be established by due evidence. Unless there is definite evidence against someone that he/she was guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse, he/she may not be subjected to the hadd punishment regardless of the number of sources from which the rulers come to know about the occurrence of that offence. There was a woman in Madina about whom it was generally said that her sexual immorality was widely known. According to a tradition, she made a display of her wickedness even after embracing Islam. (See Bukhari, K. al-Tamanni, ‘Bab ma yajuz... wa qawlahu Ta‘a la ‘law anna li bikum quwwah’ (Hud 11: 80) - Ed.) In another tradition, it is said that she made her immorality known publicly. (See Bukhari, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab man azhar al-Fahishah’ — Ed.) According to these traditions ‘suspicion was attached to her because of her way of talking, her demeanor and because of the kind of people who frequented her. Nevertheless, since there was no definite proof of her being guilty of this act, she was not punished. This despite the fact that the Prophet (peace be on him) said about her: ‘If I had to stone someone to death without proof, I would certainly have had her stoned.’. (See Ibn Majah, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab al-satr ‘ala al-Mu‘min wa Daf al-Hudud bi al-Shubuhat.’ There is a slight variation between the words quoted by the author and the text we have found in Ibn Majah. The text, according to the author is whereas we have found instead of —- Ed.)

(xvii) The first possible proof of the ‘offence is that there should be witnesses who affirm that the crime was committed by the people in question. What follows represents some of the important aspects of Islamic Law on this question: (a) The Qur’an: specifies that as far as the proof required in connection with sexual intercourse is concerned, there should be at least four eyewitnesses to the act. This point was made in al-Nisa’ 4: 15 and also in the present surah (see verse 13). Without witnesses, a judge cannot decide the case on the basis of his personal information, so much so that he cannot even decide the case had he seen the offence with his own eyes.

(b) Moreover, the testimony of only those witnesses who fulfil the conditions laid down by Islamic Law as being trustworthy can be accepted. These conditions include that the person has not been convicted of making a false testimony or of fraud and cheating; nor should he be a convicted criminal; nor someone well-known for his enmity towards the accused, etc. In any case, no person can be stoned to death or even flogged on the basis of evidence which is not fully reliable.

(c) The witnesses should testify that they saw the man and the woman concerned engaged in the actual state of sexual intercourse, i.e. they saw the act as clearly as a staining needle in a collyrium, or a rope immersed in a well.

(d) The witnesses should be agreed about the time, place and identity of the persons engaged in the act of sexual intercourse. Any variance in their statements on these vital aspects would render their testimony void.

These conditions of evidence clearly show that Islamic Law does not want that tripods be fixed here, there and everywhere and that the flogging of people become a daily spectacle. Instead, punishments are to be inflicted only when, and despite the efforts made to reform people and deter them from such criminal acts, there remains in an Islamic society those who shamelessly commit sexual intercourse before the eyes of at least four other people.

(xviii) There is a difference of opinion on the question of a woman being found pregnant even though she has no husband, or of a slave-girl being pregnant without her having a known master. In this respect, the question is does their pregnancy provide sufficient grounds for them to be prosecuted for unlawful sexual intercourse? ‘Umar considered this sufficient ground as did the Malikis. The majority of jurists, however, do not consider the mere fact of pregnancy a sufficiently strong ground to subject anyone to lapidation or flogging. In order that such a severe punishment be awarded, it is necessary that either the accused should admit guilt or the witnesses bear testimony that the offence was committed. .

One of the basic guiding principles of Islamic Law is that the accused be granted the benefit of doubt. The Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Avoid enforcing hudud as much as you can’ (Ibn Majah). There is another hadith of similar import: ‘Keep Hudud away from Muslims as much as possible. If there is any way to spare people from punishment, let them go. For it is much better that an imam (i.e. ruler) should err in acquitting someone rather than that he should err in punishing someone [who is not guilty]. (See Tirmidhi, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab ma ja’ fi Dar’ al-Hudud — Ed.) In light of these principles, pregnancy might be a very strong ground for suspecting someone of being involved in unlawful sex, but it is certainly not conclusive proof of the same. For there is a one in a million chance that the male sperm might have reached a woman’s womb leading to conception even though sexual intercourse had not taken place. Even this remote possibility is sufficient to save the accused woman from being subjected to severe punishment.

(xix) There is also disagreement among jurists as to what should be done with those who level a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse when witnesses disagree in their statements, or when. their testimonies fail to establish the charge. Should those witnesses who testified to the offence be convicted of making false testimony? Some jurists are of the opinion that in such a case false witnesses should be held guilty of slander (gadhf) and as such flogged with eighty lashes. According to other jurists, they should not be punished for they only appeared as witnesses and not as plaintiffs. Their reasoning being that if such witnesses were liable to punishment then it would deter them from appearing before the courts to testify. In other words, who would take the risk of testifying when a person cannot be sure that his testimony will be considered true by the court, or when the possibility exists that any of the four witnesses might change his mind? In our opinion, this latter view is more reasonable for it allows the same benefit of doubt which is granted the accused to be extended to the witnesses as well. If the evidence of a witness does not necessarily lead to a person’s conviction, it should nonetheless not lead to the prosecution of that witness for slander (gadhf) unless it is conclusively established that he willfully lied.

Two arguments are, however, generally advanced in support of the view that a witness who testifies that someone committed unlawful sexual intercourse but where the crime is not established would be convicted of qadhf First, that the Qur'an itself holds slander to be a punishable offence. This argument, however, is not tenable because the Qur’an itself draws a distinction between a slanderer and a witness. A witness cannot be taken as a slanderer simply because his testimony was not considered sufficient by the court to convict the accused.

The second argument is that ‘Umar convicted Abu Bakrah and two other witnesses of slander in the case pertaining to Mughirah ibn Shu‘bah. However, when one studies the details of this case it becomes clear that it cannot be taken as a precedent for cases relating to insufficient evidence for conviction. The following represent some relevant details pertaining to the above incident.

Relations between Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, the Governor of Basrah, and Abu Bakrah had been strained for quite some time. The houses of both were situated on the same street, each facing the other. One day the windows of their houses were forced open by gusts of wind. As Abu Bakrah rose to shut his window, he glanced at the house opposite and saw Mughirah engaged in sexual intercourse.

At that time, three of Abu Bakrah’s friends — Nafi‘ ibn Kaladah. Ziyad and Shibl ibn Ma‘bad — were sitting with Abu Bakrah. He called to them, saying: ‘Look ‘and be witness to what Mughirah is doing.’ His friends asked him about the identity of the woman. Abu Bakrah told them she was Umm Jamil.

The very next day, the matter was reported to ‘Umar who immediately suspended Mughirah and appointed Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari, as Governor of Basrah. ‘Umar summoned both the accused and the witnesses to Madina. In their testimony, Abu Bakrah and the two other witnesses declared that they had seen Mughirah having sexual intercourse with Umm Jamil. Ziyad, however, said that the woman was not fully observable so he could not say with certainty that she was Umm Jamil.

During cross-examination, Mughirah established that it would not be possible for the witnesses to be completely sure about the identity of the woman they had seen through the window because of the distance between them and the objects of their observation. He also established that his wife and Umm Jamil resembled each other.

It was evident from the circumstances that the Governor of a province in the days of ‘Umar could not have asked a woman to let him commit adultery with her in his official residence where his own wife also lived. The accusation made by Abu Bakrah and his friends about Mughirah that he was seen committing adultery was thus more of a slander than a testimony of what they had observed.

So, not only did ‘Umar acquit Mughirah but also subjected Abu Bakrah, Nafi‘ and Shibl to the punishment prescribed for gadhf (slander). This judgement was obviously specific to the circumstances of this particular case. It cannot be considered as a basis for laying down the general rule that witnesses whose evidence does not lead to the conviction of the accused in a case of zina should necessarily be punished. (For details of this case see Ibn al-‘Arabi, Ahkam al- Qur’an, vol. 2, pp. 88-9.)

(xx) Apart from the testimony of witnesses, the confession of the accused can also lead to conviction. This confession should be couched in clear, unequivocal terms affirming that the person committed sexual intercourse with a woman with whom he was not so permitted to do. The court should also ensure that the culprit made the statement without any external pressure and that he was in full control of his senses at the time. Furthermore, this confession should be made four times and on each occasion the person should clearly admit his guilt. This opinion is held by Abu Hanifah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Abi Layla, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh and Hasan ibn Salih. Other jurists, however, consider a single confession sufficient for conviction. This opinion is maintained by Malik, Shafi’i, ‘Uthman al-Batti and Hasan al-Basri. In a case where a person is convicted -‘only on the grounds of his own confession and where no other evidence is available, revocation of the confession at a later stage should lead to suspension of the punishment. This is so even though it may be evident that such a revocation is made so as to escape the punishment in question.

The judicial precedents from which these rulings have been derived are found in different works of Hadith. The most outstanding precedent of all though is the case of Ma‘iz ibn Malik al-Aslami which was reported by a large number of narrators on the authority of several Companions, and which is contained in most Hadith collections. Ma‘iz was an orphan who belonged to the tribe of Aslam, and was brought up by Hazzal ibn Nu‘aym. Ma‘iz had unlawful sexual intercourse with a freed slave-girl. Hazzal asked Ma‘iz to go to the Prophet (peace be on him) and inform him of the incident. So Ma‘iz went to the Prophet’s Mosque and said to the Prophet (peace be on him): ‘O Messenger of Allah! Purify me. I have committed unlawful sexual intercourse.’ The Prophet (peace be on him) turned his face away from him, saying: ‘Woe unto you. Go back and seek God’s pardon.’ Ma‘iz appeared again before the Prophet (peace be on him) and repeated his plea, but the Prophet (peace be on him) once again turned his face away.

Exactly the same thing happened a third time, and at this stage Abu Bakr warned Ma‘iz that if he confessed for a fourth time, the Prophet (peace be on him) would have him stoned to death. Undeterred even by this Ma‘iz appeared again before the Prophet and repeated his request. The Prophet (peace be on him) on this occasion turned to him, saying: ‘Perhaps you kissed her, or amorously vexed her, or looked at her with sexual passion.’ Ma‘iz replied that that was not the case. The Prophet (peace be on him) then asked him: ‘Did you lie with her in the same bed?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ The Prophet (peace be on him) then asked him again: ‘Did you have mubasharah with her?’'! Ma‘iz replied in the affirmative. The Prophet (peace be on him) once again made the same query of him. Then the Prophet (peace be on him) asked him if he had had mujama ‘ah with her, a term which clearly means ‘sexual intercourse’ in Arabic usage. He again replied in the affirmative. The Prophet (peace be on him) asked him once again, using a term which means nothing but sexual intercourse and one which even has a somewhat unseemly nuance. This was a term which the Prophet had never used before, nor did he use it again afterwards. Had a person’s life not been at stake, the Prophet (peace be on him) would never have uttered such a word. Ma‘iz, however, once again replied in the affirmative. The Prophet (peace be on him) then asked him again in these words: ‘Did you approach her in such manner that your organ disappeared into her organ?’ He again said: ‘Yes!’ The Prophet (peace be on him) further asked him: ‘Did it disappear as does the staining needle in the collyrium or a rope disappears in a well?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ The Prophet (peace be on him) asked him further: ‘Do you know what zina is?’ To this he replied: ‘Yes! I did with her unlawfully what one does legitimately with one’s wife.’ The Prophet (peace be on him) asked him whether he was married. He replied in the affirmative. The Prophet (peace be on him) then asked him: ‘Are you drunk?’ This Ma ‘iz denied. A person stood up and checked his breath and confirmed that he was not drunk. The Prophet (peace be on him) then inquired of his neighbours ‘about Ma‘iz whether he was insane. This was also denied by them. The Prophet (peace be on him) then said to Hazzal, who was responsible for bringing the incident to the Prophet’s notice: ‘If you had left this matter covered with your garment, it would have been much better for you.’ After all this, the Prophet (peace be on him) then directed that Ma‘iz be stoned to death. Ma‘iz was taken out of the town and there he was stoned. When the stones began to hit him, he ran for his life, saying: ‘Take me back to the Messenger of God. My tribesmen have put me up to this. They betrayed me by telling me that he would not put me to death.’ Yet those who were stoning him continued until he was dead. When this matter was reported to the Prophet (peace be on him) he said: ‘Why did you not release him? You should have brought

The word used here could mean sexual intercourse as well as something less than that.

him to me. Maybe he would have repented and Allah would have accepted ‘is repentance.’ (See Abu Daud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Rajm Ma‘iz ibn Malik’, Bukhari, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Hal Yaqulu al-Imam li al-Muqirr la‘allaka lamazta aw ghamazta’ and Muslim, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab man I‘tarafa ‘ala nafsihi bi alzina’ — Ed.)

Another incident relates to a woman from the clan of Ghamid, a branch of the Juhaynah tribe. She too confessed that she had been guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse, that she was pregnant, and that she was carrying an unlawful baby in her womb. She also confessed on four different occasions that she had been guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse and that she was unlawfully pregnant. When she confessed for the first time, the Prophet (peace be on him) said to her: ‘Woe to you. Go back and seek pardon from God and repent to Him.’ She replied: ‘Do you want to defer me as you did with Ma‘iz? I am pregnant as a result of unlawful sexual intercourse.’ Since her confession was supported by her pregnancy, the Prophet (peace be on him) did not cross-examine her as thoroughly as he had done Ma‘iz. The Prophet (peace be on him) then said: ‘If you insist, go back now and return to me after you have delivered the child.’ After delivering the child she returned with the baby and asked the Prophet (peace be on him) to purify her by carrying out the punishment. The Prophet (peace be on him) again told her to go back, feed the baby, and return after weaning. She again returned to the Prophet (peace be on him) after she had finished’ weaning the child. She was also carrying a piece of bread with which she fed the child whilst saying to the Prophet: ‘O Messenger of God! His suckling is now complete. Look, he is now taking bread.’ The Prophet (peace be on him) then directed someone to look after the child and bring him up and he further ordered that the woman be stoned to death.

Common to both these incidents is the point that the culprit unequivocally confessed on four occasions. The hadith narrated by Buraydah mentions that the Companions generally felt that if Ma‘iz and the woman of the Ghamid clan had not confessed their offence four times they would not have been lapidated. (See Abu Da’ ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Rajm Ma‘iz ibn Malik’ — Ed.) However, in - another instance, we find the following statement made by the Prophet (peace be on him): ‘Go and ask his wife. If she confesses, stone her to death.’ (See Muslim, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab man I‘tarafa ‘ala nafsihi bi al-zina’ — Ed.) There is no mention in this tradition of four confessions. Hence a group of jurists have inferred that one single confession is sufficient to enforce the punishment prescribed for unlawful sexual intercourse.

(xxi) The three cases mentioned above prove that anyone who confesses to having committed an unlawful sexual act will not be asked about the identity of their partner, for that would entail the punishment of two people and the Shari‘ah is not at all eager to so punish people. If the culprit, however, voluntarily discloses the identity of their partner, the other person will be interrogated about the matter. If they too confess, then they also will be subjected to the punishment laid down for the offence. Conversely, if they deny it, only the person who confesses to the offence will be punished.

There is some disagreement among jurists when the second party denies having been involved in unlawful sexual intercourse. In this respect, should the person who confessed be punished for zina or gadhf (unsubstantiated unlawful sexual intercourse)? According to Malik and Shafi‘i, the person concerned should receive the punishment prescribed for unlawful sexual intercourse because by their own confession they are definitely guilty of zina regardless of whether the other person’s involvement in the offence is established or not. Abu Hanifah and Awza‘i, however, are of the opinion that the confessor should be punished for qadhf This because the denial of the other party makes it doubtful that unlawful sexual intercourse actually took place. What is beyond all doubt though is the fact that they accused a person of involvement in zina which they then failed to prove. Hence the gadhf punishment. This view is endorsed by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, and according to at least one report, also by Shafi‘i. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani expressed the opinion and Shafi‘i, according to one version, endorsed this — that such a person should be punished for both zina and gadhf, for they admitted to the former offence but could not establish the involvement of the other party in it.

A similar case was once brought before the Prophet (peace be on him). According to a tradition regarding this incident, as recorded in Abu Da’ud and Ahmad ibn Hanbal on the authority of Sahl ibn Sa‘d: ‘Someone came to the Prophet (peace be on him) and confessed that he had committed unlawful sexual intercourse with a certain woman. The Prophet sent for the woman and asked her. She denied the incident altogether. The Prophet (peace be on him) punished the man but spared the woman.’ This tradition, however, does not specify the exact punishment meted out to the man. According to another tradition on this question, one based on the authority of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, the Prophet (peace be on him) punished the’ man for unlawful sexual intercourse because he had confessed to the offence. He then asked the woman, and upon her denial he inflicted upon the man the flogging prescribed with regard to qadhf (See Abu Da’ud, K. al- Hudud, ‘Bab: Idha aqarr al-Rajul bi al-zina wa lam tuqirr al-Mar’ah’ — Ed.) This tradition is rated as weak in respect of its chain of narration: one of its narrators, Qasim ibn Fayyad, has been declared untrustworthy by several leading scholars of Hadith. Additionally, the tradition does not seem to stand to reason. One finds it hard to believe that the Prophet (peace be on him) would have a person flogged and then go about inquiring about the truth of the incident. Both reason and justice required that the Prophet (peace be on him) should not decide the case without referring the matter to the woman who was allegedly the other party. This view is supported by the tradition narrated by Sahl ibn Sa‘d we mentioned above. In view of this, the second tradition cannot then be regarded as trustworthy.

(xxii) Jurists hold different views on the question of what punishment is to be meted out to those men and women who are convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse. The following is a summary of the leading jurists’ main opinions.

Punishment for Married Men and Women Convicted of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse

Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Da’ud al-Zahiri and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh are of the opinion that they should first be lashed a hundred times and then be stoned to death. All other jurists, however, think that stoning to death should be their only punishment, i.e..the two punishments cannot be combined.

Punishment for Unmarried Persons Guilty of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse

According to Shafi‘, Ahmad, Ishaq, Da’ ud al-Zahiri, Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibn Abi Layla, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and Hasan ibn Salih, the punishment is a hundred lashes and one year’s banishment for both the man and the woman.

According to Malik and Awza ‘i, however, the man is to be lashed a hundred times and banished for a year while the woman is to be subjected to only one punishment, namely a hundred lashes. (All the jurists are of the opinion that banishment in this context denotes that the culprit be driven away from his town to such a distance that it makes it incumbent on him to shorten the Prayer.

However, Zayd ibn ‘Ali and Ja‘far al-Sadiq are of the opinion that imprisonment serves the purpose of banishment.) Abu Hanifah and his disciples, especially Abu Yusuf, Zufar and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani are of the opinion that the hadd punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse for both males and females is a hundred lashes, and that alone.

If any punishment is added to that prescription, such as imprisonment or banishment, then this is ta‘zir rather than hadd. The judge may look at each case on the basis of its merit and if he finds that the culprit is a highly immoral person, or that the amorous relations between the two parties convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse are unusually strong, then the judge may add to the hadd punishment as he finds necessary, such as with banishment or imprisonment. * Hadd is the prescribed punishment that must be awarded to those who deserve to receive that punishment if the required evidence is available. Ta‘zir, on the other hand, is a punishment which is not specifically provided for in the Law - neither its kind nor its quantity. It is made more or less severe depending on the merits of each case which may be determined by the court.

Jurists have supported these variant opinions by adducing different traditions on the question. These are as follows:

A tradition has been narrated by ‘Ubadah ibn Samit (see Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal) according to which the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Take it from me. Take it from me. God has prescribed the ruling for the woman who is guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse. For unlawful sexual intercourse committed by an unmarried man or an unmarried woman the punishment is one hundred lashes and one year of banishment, while the punishment for a married man and a married woman is a hundred lashes and stoning.’ (See Abu Da’ ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab fi al-Rajm’, Ibn Majah, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Hadd al-Zina’, Tirmidhi, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab ma ja’ fi al-Rajm ‘ala al- Thayyib’ and Muslim, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Hadd al-Zina’ — Ed.) Although this hadith has come down through a sound chain of narrators, there are nevertheless many sound traditions which prove that the hadith was never applied either in the days of the Prophet (peace be on him) or of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Furthermore, no jurist has issued any ruling which accords with this tradition. What is, however, beyond doubt is that Islamic Law distinguishes between those who are married and those who are not when awarding punishment for zina. An unmarried man who engages in unlawful sexual intercourse with a married or unmarried woman will be awarded the same punishment, regardless of the marital status of his partner. Likewise, if a married man commits unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman he will be awarded the same punishment regardless of the marital status of his female partner in that act. The same applies to the woman who is guilty of this offence. If she is married she will be awarded the same punishment regardless of whether the male partner to the act is married or not.

A tradition narrated by Zayd ibn Khalid al-Juhani (see Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daud, Tirmidhi, Nasai, Ibn Majah and Ahmad ibn Hanbal), states that two Bedouin appeared before the Prophet (peace be on him). One of them said: ‘My son used to work as a laborer in this person’s house. He had unlawful sexual relations with his wife. I gave him one hundred goats and a slave-girl by way of compensation. I am, however, told by scholars that this is opposed to the Book of God.’ The other person also made the same plea. The Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘I will decide the case exactly according to the Book of God. Take back your goats and the slave girl.

Your son will be lashed a hundred times and be exiled for one year.’ He then asked Unays, a member of the Aslam tribe, to ascertain the truth of this report by asking the woman concerned. He further directed that the woman be stoned to death if she admitted to the crime. She confessed and was so lapidated. (See Bukhari, K. al-Muharibin min Ahl al-Kufr wa al-Riddah, ‘Bab al-I‘tiraf bi al-Zina’, Muslim, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab man i‘tarafa ‘ala nafsihi fi al-zina’ and Abu Da’ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab fi al-Mara’h al-lati amara al-Nabiyu . . . bi Rajmiha min al-Juhaynah’ — Ed.) (This tradition does not mention that the woman was lashed before being stoned to death.) The unmarried man was flogged as well as exiled for having had unlawful sexual intercourse with a married woman.

None of the traditions relating to the cases of Ma‘iz and the woman of the Ghamid clan, as found in the different collections of Hadith, mention that the culprits were lashed before being stoned to death. Nor is there even a single tradition which indicates that the Prophet (peace be on him) ever combined the two punishments. In all cases where a person was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, the Prophet (peace be on him) awarded only one punishment, namely that of stoning to death. (See Bukhari, K. al-Muharibin .. . ‘Bab Rajm al-Habla min al-zina idha ahsanat’ and Muslim, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Rajm al- Thayyib fi al-zina’ - Ed.) The famous sermon of ‘Umar in which he forcefully argued for the punishment of lapidation for a married person, a tradition which is found in the works of Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal with a variety of chains of narration, also does not mention that lashing was combined with stoning to death.

Among the Rightly-Guided Caliphs only ‘Ali combined the two punishments in a case. This incident was-reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Bukhari on the authority of ‘Amir Sha‘bi. A woman named Shurahah confessed that she had become pregnant as a result of unlawful sexual intercourse. ‘Ali had her lashed on a Thursday and stoned to death on a Friday, saying that he had inflicted the former punishment in accordance with the Qur’4n and the latter in accordance with the Prophet’s Sunnah. (See Bukhari, K. al-Muharibin .. . ‘Bab Rajm al- Muhsin . . .” and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 107 — Ed.) This is the only incident where the two punishments were combined.

According to a tradition narrated by Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah, a person committed unlawful sexual intercourse and the Prophet (peace be on him) awarded him only lashes. It later transpired that the man was martied whereupon the Prophet (peace be on him) had him stoned to death. (See Abu Da’ ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Rajm Ma‘iz ibn Malik’ - Ed.) We have already narrated several traditions which show that in the case of unmarried women the Prophet (peace be on him) awarded only the punishment of lashing. This is evade it from the example of a man who raped a woman while she was on her way to Prayers (see Abu Daud, K. al- Hudud, ‘Bab Rajm Ma‘iz ibn Malik’ — Ed.), as it is of the man who confessed to the crime whereas the woman denied it.

When ‘Umar exiled Rabi‘ah ibn Umayyah ibn Khalaf for drinking the latter _ joined ranks with the Romans. When ‘Umar heard of this he decided that in future he would never exile anyone. Likewise, he refused to exile unmarried: men or women who were convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse, saying that it would cause greater harm. (See Ibn al-‘Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 1324, Surah al-Nur and Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 3, p. 261.)

When we consider all these traditions together it becomes evident that the opinion of Abu Hanifah and his disciples is the most sound, If a person commits unlawful sexual intercourse after marrying (ihsan), the only. prescribed punishment for this offence is stoning to death, whereas if a person commits this act before marrying, the only prescribed punishment is a hundred lashes. These two punishments were never combined right from the time of the Prophet (peace be on him) until the time of ‘Uthman. As for combining lashing with exile, we find that on some occasions this did happen but not on others, this further illustrates the soundness of the Hanafi doctrine on this question.

(xxiii) Insofar as the kind of lashing that is required, a clue to the same is provided by the Qur’4n itself. The imperative used in the Qur’an — fa ijladu — is derived from the root j-l-d which itself is derived from the word jild (skin). All linguists and commentators on the Qur’an consider it to mean that flogging whose effect is confined to the skin and which does not reach the flesh. Thus, a _ flogging that tears the flesh into pieces is contrary to the Qur’anic command.

Irrespective of whether a lash or a cane is used for flogging, the instrument should neither be too thick and hard nor too light and soft. According to a tradition in Malik’s Muwatta’, the Prophet (peace be on him) once called for a lash, with which to flog someone. The one he was given had been used many times and had thus become soft. The Prophet (peace be on him), therefore, asked for a harder lash. A new lash was presented to him which had not become soft because it had not been used. He then directed that another lash be given him, one that was midway between the two and which had been used before. The Prophet (peace be on him) then had the person in question flogged with that lash. A tradition of similar import is narrated by Abu ‘Uthman al-Nahdi of ‘Umar which says that he also used an average lash. (See Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 3.) Note that a whip with knots or one with two or three prongs cannot be used for this purpose (See Abu Da’ ud, ‘Bab fi Darb al-Wajh fi al-Hadd’ — Ed.)

As for the flogging itself, it should be of average intensity. ‘Umar used to direct the flogger: ‘Strike in such manner that your armpit is not revealed’. (Ibn al-‘Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 84; Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 3.) In other words, the arm should not be stretched fully nor the flogging be done with full force. Moreover, flogging should not cause any wound and should not be concentrated on any particular part of the body. It should rather be spread all over. Only the face, the private parts and, according to the Hanafis the head, - should be spared while all other parts of the body should be subjected to the flogging. While having someone flogged ‘Ali said: ‘Give each part of the body its due except the face and the private parts.’ According to another tradition, he instructed: ‘Spare the head and the private parts.’ (Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an vol. 3.) In this respect the Prophet (peace be on him) directed: ‘If anyone of you hits someone, he should avoid the face.’ (Abu Da’ud.)

Men should be flogged in a standing position whereas women should be flogged whilst sitting. In the days of Abu Hanifah, Ibn Abi Layla, the Judge of Kufah, had a woman flogged while she was standing. Abu Hanifah took strong exception to this and publicly declared this practice to be wrong. This incidentally, also sheds light on his position regarding the idea of contempt of court. During a flogging, a woman was to remain fully dressed; indeed, her clothes were to be so folded and bound that during the flogging no part of her body was to be exposed. All that was required of such a woman was that she cast aside clothes that were extraordinarily thick. There is some difference of opinion regarding the dress of male culprits. According to some jurists, they should be allowed to wear only such dress as covers their body up to the waist while other jurists insist that their shirts should also not be taken off. Abu ‘Ubaydah once ordered a person who was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse to be flogged The culprit said: ‘Let my sinful body be punished fully’ So saying, he started to take off his shirt. Abu ‘Ubaydah, however, saw to it that he did not do so. (See Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 3, p. 262.) In the time of ‘Ali someone was even flogged while he was wearing a sheet of cloth.

It is further forbidden to flog someone when it is either very hot or very cold. During winter, flogging can be carried out only when it is relatively warm and during summer, when it is relatively cool.

It is not permissible to flog someone after tying him up with something. An exception may, however, be made in the case of a person who tries to flee from his punishment. According to ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud, it is not permissible to flog someone either after having stripped him naked or after tying him to a tripod.

Jurists consider it lawful that a culprit be flogged at least twenty times a day. It is, however, preferable that the full punishment be inflicted in one go.

Flogging should not be entrusted to rough executioners. It should rather be entrusted to persons of knowledge and understanding who are well aware as to what kind of beating accords with the requirements of the Shari‘ah. As reported in the Zad al-Ma‘ad of Ibn al-Qayyim, ‘Ali, Zubayr, Miqdad ibn ‘Amr, Muhammad ibn Maslamah, ‘Asim ibn Thabit and Dahhak ibn Sufyan used to perform this duty in the time of the Prophet (peace be on him). (See Ibn al- Qayyim, Zad al-Ma‘ad, vol. 1, pp. 44-5.) Should the culprit be so sick that there is no reasonable chance of recovery, or if he is too old, he should be hit only once with a branch with a hundred twigs, or with a broom with a hundred straws so as to meet the formal requirements of the Law. In the time of the Prophet (peace be on him), a sick and old person was apprehended for unlawful sexual intercourse and he was awarded the above-mentioned punishment. (See Abu Da’ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab fi Iqamat al-Hadd ‘ald al-Marid’ — Ed.) If a pregnant woman is to be flogged, her punishment should be deferred until she has delivered the child and completed the period of perinatal hemorrhage. If she is to be stoned to death, she cannot be punished before the baby is fully weaned. If the case of unlawful sexual intercourse is supported by due evidence, the witnesses would initiate the flogging, whereas in the case of the culprit’s confession, the judge himself would initiate it. This mechanism was devised to instill into the minds of both witnesses and judges the gravity of the matter. When ‘Ali decided the case of Shurahah and sentenced her to be stoned to death, he said: ‘Had there been a witness to this offence, he should have initiated the strike. However, as she has been sentenced in view of her own confession, I will initiate it.’ According to the Hanafis, it is obligatory for punishments to be performed in this manner. The Shafi‘is, however, do not consider it obligatory.

When one examines these detailed rules about the execution of flogging as _ prescribed by Islamic Law, one is struck by the temerity of those who brand the Law as savage and barbaric. Yet, these very same people have no qualms about the flogging which is common in prisons today. According to present-day laws, not only the courts but even the superintendent of a prison is authorized to award a sentence of thirty cane lashes to a prisoner for mere disobedience or insolent behavior. Harrowing indeed is the manner in which cane-lashing is practiced today for special kinds of cane are even selected for the purpose. The cane is then soaked in water such that when a criminal is lashed, his flesh will be cut into pieces. Moreover, a professional flogger is hired to execute the punishment, the requirement being that he constantly practice the art of flogging so that he might be able to do an efficient job whenever it is required. Furthermore, the prisoner is tied to a tripod in order to ensure that he does not budge even an inch in this state of immense pain. The flogger approaches him at full speed and hits him with all the force possible. The culprit is flogged consistently on his buttocks, as a result of which the flesh is torn into pieces, exposing his bones. The flogging is executed with such vehemence that even the healthiest person falls into unconsciousness before he has received thirty lashes. The wounds thus caused often take a long time to heal. This ‘civilized’ mode of punishment is very much in force in today’s prisons. It is ironic that those very persons who are responsible for the enforcement of this kind of punishment have the cheek to criticize the Islamic Law of flogging and denounce it as barbaric. We are also all well aware that it is not only criminals who are punished in the above manner, but even suspects, especially those suspected of political ‘crimes’, who are subjected to this highly savage torture during interrogation in our prisons today.

(xxiv) When the culprit who has been sentenced to stoning dies as a result of that punishment he has to be buried honorably in a Muslim cemetery following the correct funeral services. No one has the right to speak ill of him.

According to a tradition, ‘Abd Allah al-Ansari narrates that when Ma‘iz ibn Malik died as a result of stoning, the Prophet (peace be on him) spoke well of him and himself led his funeral Prayer. (See Bukhari, K. al-Muharibin min Ahl al-Riddah wa al-Kufr, ‘Bab al-Rajm bi al-Musalli’ - Ed.) There is another tradition which is narrated by Buraydah to the effect that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Seek forgiveness for Ma‘iz. He made a repentance which, were it to be divided over the whole community, it would suffice for everyone.’ (Muslim.) The same tradition mentions that when the woman of the Ghamid tribe died as a result of stoning, the Prophet (peace be on him) also led her funeral Prayer. And when Khalid ibn al-Walid spoke ill of her, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Restrain yourself, Khalid. By the Being Who holds my life in His Hand, she made such a true repentance that had the collector of {unlawful} imposts repented as she did he too would have been forgiven.’ (See loc. cit. — Ed.) A tradition is narrated by Abu Hurayrah that as the Prophet (peace be on him) was going somewhere a few days after the stoning of Ma‘iz he overheard two persons speaking ill of him. As the Prophet (peace be on him) continued on his way, he came across the carcass of a donkey. He halted and said to those two people: ‘Eat some of it [i.e. the carcass of the donkey].’ They said: ‘O Messenger of God, who can eat of it?’ He replied: ‘What you were eating just now was worse than eating this carcass.’ (See Abu Da’ ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Rajm Ma‘iz ibn Malik — Ed.) In another tradition it is stated that on the occasion of the funeral Prayer of the woman of Ghamid, ‘Imran ibn Husayn asked the Prophet (peace be on him) if the funeral Prayer would be made for a person who was guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse? The Prophet (peace be on him) replied: ‘She has made a repentance that were it to be distributed over all the inhabitants of Madina, it would suffice for everyone.’ (See Muslim, K. al-Hudad, ‘Bab man i‘tarafa ‘ala nafsihi bi al-Zina’ — Ed.) Another tradition on the authority of Abu Hurayrah | says: “While someone was being punished for having taken intoxicating drinks a person exclaimed: “May Allah disgrace you.” On hearing this, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: “Do not say so. Do not help Satan against him. (See Bukhari, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab al-Darb bi-al-Jarid wa al-Ni‘al — Ed.) In the tradition as recorded in Abu Daud, one finds an additional sentence to that which is found in the above tradition. This additional sentence was a statement made nS the Prophet (peace be on him) to the effect that: "You should rather say O Allah pardon him and be merciful to him. (See Abu Da’ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Ba - d fi al-Khamr’ — Ed.)

This, then, encapsulates the spirit of punishment in Islam. From an Islamic viewpoint, even the punishment that is meted out to the worst kind of criminal is motivated by good-will for all, including the culprit, rather than by any feeling of hostility or vengefulness. Hence, after the culprit is punished, he is treat with compassion and kindness. It remains for the present civilization to have t unique distinction of taking petty-mindedness to its current heights. It is possible under this civilization alone for someone to be killed by the police or the army, a killing which a judicial inquiry of sorts validates, but not for him to be given a decent burial or for anyone to say a good word about him.

(xxv) We have already mentioned the rules of the Shari‘ah in cases involving sexual intercourse with a woman within the prohibited degrees of marriage. (See Tafhim al-Qur'an, vol. 1, p. 336.) Likewise, we have mentioned the viewpoint of the Shari‘ah pertaining to sodomy. (See Tafhim al-Quran, vol. 2, pp. 51-4.) As for sexual intercourse with animals, some Muslim jurists prescribe the same punishment as laid down for unlawful sexual intercourse between humans.

However, Abu Hanifah, Abu-Yusuf, Malik, Zufar, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al- Shaybani and Shafi‘i do not equate this act with unlawful sexual intercourse, they are of the opinion that the culprit should be subjected to ta‘zir rather than hadd and that the punishment meted out be left to the discretion of the judge. It is also possible that the Majlis al-Shura (consultative council) of the State may prescribe a punishment for this offence if it so desires.

3. What is most striking in the verse is that the expression used for a provision of the criminal law is ‘Allah’s religion’. One, thus, learns that Prayer, fasting, Hajj, and Zakah alone do not subsume ‘religion’. Religion, instead, also embraces law. Hence the Qur’anic expression ‘to establish true religion’ does not mean merely to establish Prayer, etc. but also to implement the Laws of God and the system of life promulgated by the Shari‘ah. If this is not done and Prayer alone is established, this amounts to only a partial establishment of the true religion.

Furthermore, if the Laws ordained by God are spurned in favor of other laws, this amounts to rejecting the religion of God.

It is also noteworthy that God warns the believers against that misplaced compassion which prevents them from enforcing the punishment of men and women who indulge in unlawful sexual intercourse. This is expressed in clearer terms by the Prophet (peace be on him) in the following hadith: ‘A ruler who has waived off even a single lash out of the prescribed punishment will be brought on the Day of Judgement and asked: “Why did you do so?” In reply he will say: “I did so out of mercy for Your servants.” It will be said to him: “Are you more merciful than Me?” He will then be ordered to be cast into Hell-Fire. Then he who added one single lash to those prescribed will be asked: “‘Why did you do so?” In reply he will say: “In order that they cease indulging in acts of disobedience to You.” It will then be said to him: “Are you wiser than Me in regard to them?” Then it will be commanded that he be cast into Hell-Fire.’ (Tafsir Kabir, vol. 6, p. 225.) This will happen when someone either increases or decreases the punishment laid down by God, either because of compassion or in order to deter people from committing acts of disobedience. If someone however, were to alter God’s Laws in consideration of the culprit’s social position, this would surely be considered the very worst kind of offence. There is a statement from the Prophet (peace be on him) which has been narrated by ‘A’ishah to this effect. In the course of a sermon the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘O people! The communities before you perished because when a respectable person of the community committed theft, people spared him and punished him as if he was a weak person.’ (See Bukhari, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Iqamat al-Hudud ‘ala al-Sharif wa al-Wadi’’ and ‘Bab Karahiyat al-Shafa‘ah fi al-Hadd idha rufi‘a ila al-Sultén’ and Muslim, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Qat al-sariq al-Sharif wa Ghayrih wa al-Nahy ‘an al-Shafa‘ah fi al-Hudud’ — Ed.) According to another tradition, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘To enforce one prescribed punishment (hadd) is much more beneficial for the inhabitants of the earth than forty days of rainfall.’ (See Ibn Majah, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab Iqamat al-Hudud’ and Nasa’i, K. Qat' al-Sariq, ‘Bab Targhib fi Iqamat al-Hadd’ Ed.) Some commentators on the Qur’an take the present verse to mean that no one who has been convicted should be released without enforcing the prescribed punishment of a hundred lashes. Other scholars, however, interpret this to mean ‘that the flogging should not be so light that the culprit would not experience any pain. Moreover, it unequivocally makes the point that anyone who is convicted for unlawful sexual intercourse should receive the punishment prescribed for it by God, and that it should not be changed to any punishment other than flogging out of compassion or mercy.

To regard flogging as a barbaric punishment is tantamount to unbelief itself.

Such an outrageous opinion is altogether inconsistent with faith. Only the worst hypocrites can believe in God and at the same time regard a punishment prescribed by Him as barbaric.

4. This means that the punishment should be carried out publicly. This would, - on the one hand, arouse in the culprit a feeling of shame and on the other serve as a lesson to others.

This throws further light on the Islamic concept of punishment. While laying down the punishment for stealing, the Qur’an adds: ‘This is a recompense for what they have done, an exemplary punishment from Allah.’ (al-Ma’idah 5: 38.)

In the same vein, people are being directed in the present verse to publicly enforce the punishment on those guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse. This highlights the three main objectives of punishment in Islam. First, it is to make the culprit suffer for the evil he has perpetrated on some of his fellow human beings or society as a whole. Second, it seeks to deter the people who are inclined towards evil so that they are dissuaded from committing the same offence again. Third, punishment is to be meted out to culprits in order that those members of society who are disposed to criminal acts should. be deterred from actually committing them. Moreover, one advantage of publicly enforcing punishments is that those in authority are likely to shrink from acting either too leniently. or with undue harshness with offenders.

5. A befitting match for a person who is guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse and who does not subsequently repeat the offence could only be either a woman who does not mind unlawful sexual relations or a polytheist. A believing woman of good moral character cannot be a good match for such a dissolute person. It is in fact prohibited for believers to willfully give their daughters in marriage to such persons. Therefore, as far as those women who are guilty of unlawful sex and who do not repent thereafter are concerned, it is in men of the same character or polytheists where they will find appropriate " spouses. For quite obviously such women are not befitting spouses for believers of good character.

In fact, it is not only inappropriate but also forbidden for a good-charactered believer to marry a woman who is known to be morally dissolute, especially in matters pertaining to sex. It is obvious then that this injunction applies to those men and women who persist in their evil ways. As for those who repent and mend their ways after some lapse, this verse is not applicable to them. For those who repent and subsequently mend their ways can no longer be treated as tainted with the guilt of unlawful sexual intercourse.

This verse, which interdicts marriage with a man guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse, is understood by Ahmad ibn Hanbal to mean that such a marriage, even if it is contracted, will be deemed void. The appropriate meaning, however, is that people should not contract such marriages. The verse does not mean that if someone actually contracts such a marriage despite the injunction, that the contract is void and that the contractees would be charged with unlawful sexual intercourse. The Prophet (peace be on him) laid down a general rule, saying: ‘An unlawful act does not render lawful acts unlawful.’ (Tabarani and Daraqutni.) In other words, an illegal act does not nullify other legal acts. Hence, if someone who committed unlawful sexual intercourse in the past marries someone later on, this does not mean that the relationship between the spouses is unlawful or that the partner in the Marriage contract who did not commit unlawful sexual intercourse is guilty of the other person’s earlier offence. As a matter of principle, no illegal act other than open rebellion renders a person an outlaw.

If we consider this verse in light of what has been said above, it is quite clear that its true purpose is to emphasize to believers that deliberately choosing those who are known for sexual immorality as marriage partners is an act of sin which they should stay away from. This because choosing such persons in marriage encourages persons of dissolute character. This is not appropriate because the Shari‘ah likes such people to be worthy of censure and condemnation.

This verse does not lend itself to the conclusion that a sexually deviant Muslim’s marriage with a polytheist woman or that of a sexually deviant Muslim woman’s marriage with a polytheist man is legitimate. Rather, the verse underscores the fact that unlawful sex is an outrageous act and a Muslim who is guilty of it is no longer worthy of having matrimonial relations with good-charactered persons of the Muslim society. If there is any such dissolute person, he should better turn his attention to those of his own ilk — either those who are guilty of sexual immorality like himself, or polytheists who do not consider themselves bound by God’s commands. (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 159 Ed.) This verse can properly be understood in light of the traditions of the Prophet (peace be on him) on this question. In this respect, there is a tradition on the authority of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As that there was a woman called Umm Mahzil who was a prostitute. A Muslim intended to marry her and sought the Prophet’s permission to do so. The Prophet (peace be on him) remained silent at his questioning twice, but when he was questioned for the third time he responded in the negative and recited this verse. (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad and Nasa’i.) According to another tradition, there was a companion named Marthad ibn Abi Marthad who had unlawful sexual relations with a Makkan prostitute before the advent of Islam. Later on, he intended to marry her and sought the Prophet’s permission. He asked the Prophet (peace be on him) twice, but he remained silent on this issue. When he put the same question to him for the third time, the Prophet (peace be on him) recited this verse, saying: ‘Therefore, do not marry her.’ (See Abu Da’ud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab al-Nikah, ‘Bab fi Qawlihi Ta‘ala: al-Zani la yankihu illa zaniyah’ and Tirmidhi, K. Tafsir al-Qur’an, ‘Bab wa min Surah al-Nur’ — Ed.)

There are also several other traditions on the authority of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar and ‘Ammar ibn Yasir to the effect that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘A cuckold can never enter Paradise.’ (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 134 and Nasa’i, K. al-Zakah, ‘Bab al-Mannan bi ma a‘ta’ — Ed.) Both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar used to flog unmarried men and women who were guilty of unlawful sex and would then have them married to each other. It is narrated by ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar that someone approached Abu Bakr in a state of panic. He was in such a state that he could not speak properly. Abu Bakr directed Umar to talk to him in private. On being gently questioned he said that someone had been staying with him as a guest and had developed sexual relations with his daughter. ‘Umar exclaimed: ‘Fie upon you! Why did you not cover up your daughter?’ Eventually a case was brought against the two. Both were punished, then married to each other, and Abu Bakr sent them into exile for one year. Some other traditions of similar import are found in Qurtubi’s Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 86. (See Ibn al-‘Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 1331 — Ed.)

6. This directive aims at putting an end to salacious talk and gossip in society about illicit sexual relations between people. People are required to abstain from -the same because it leads to numerous other evils. The worst effect is that it creates an atmosphere conducive to illicit sex. A person relates to another person the illicit sexual adventures of another person. These tales naturally circulate and in due course a lot of exciting material is added to the original stories. This arouses sexual passions all round. Those inclined to evil ways thus come to know through whom their sexual passions can be gratified.

The Shari‘ah, however, aims to nip this evil in the bud. Therefore, on me one hand, it prescribes that a person convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse be subjected to the most severe punishment to which any criminal would be subjected. On the other hand, it also ensures that the person who accuses others of this grave offence be able to conclusively prove it, and if he fails to do so that he be severely punished with 80 lashes.

This so as deter people from irresponsibly slandering others. Even if one observes someone actually indulging in unlawful sex before one’s own eyes, _ one should not publicize it, this to prevent corruption from spreading. If one can secure the required number of witnesses one may report the matter to the authorities concerned, but one should certainly not go about publicizing it. Only in this manner can one duly prove the person concerned to be guilty and thereby have the authorities punish him.

For a fuller understanding of this provision of Islamic Law, one should take note of the following rulings which pertain to the question: (i) The words used in the verse are: wa al-ladhina yarmuna (and those who accuse). The context, however, makes it clear that not all but only a special kind of accusation is meant here, i.e. that of unlawful sexual intercourse. If we examine the verses from the very beginning of this surah, we note that the punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse was first laid down. A little later, we come across injunctions pertaining to li‘an, The mention of accusation in between the statements about the two matters mentioned above, makes the nature of the accusation quite clear. Moreover, since the verse speaks of accusing chaste women, it implies that the accusation is one that pertains to their chastity. Moreover, the accusers are asked to produce four witnesses in support of their charge. It is common knowledge that this type of evidence is required only in the case of unlawful sexual intercourse. In view of this, there is a consensus among scholars that the above verse aims specifically at enunciating the rules that ought to be followed when someone accuses the other of having committed unlawful sexual intercourse. A special term, gadhf, was used to signify this kind of accusation. Thanks to this term, it became possible to distinguish between accusations to do with sexual conduct and accusations regarding other offences such as theft, drinking alcohol, usury, or disbelief in Islam.

Accusations other than gadhf could be decided upon by the judge at his discretion, or a suitable penalty could be fixed by the consultative assembly of the Islamic State by promulgating a law dealing with cases of libel and contempt. (ii). Although the verse speaks only of accusing chaste and honorable women, jurists are agreed that it also covers accusations against chaste and honorable men. By the same token, although the statement yarmun almuhsanat would ordinarily suggest that the accusers are male, women too can be accusers. Women who are guilty of such an accusation will also be dealt with according to the same Law; gender being of no consequence in gadhf offences. As a matter of Law, whoever slanders a chaste and honorable person will be prosecuted.

It is also worth clarifying that the word muhsanat used here signifies chaste and honorable women rather than just married women although the term is quite often used in this sense. The emphasis here is on the chastity and purity of people subjected to, accusations of sexual misconduct. rather than any women with their marital status. (iii) This penal injunction will be executed only when the accusation is directed at either men or women who are muhsan, that is chaste and honorable, but not otherwise. If a non-muhsan, one notorious for sexual misconduct charged with such unlawful conduct, this cannot be considered an act slander (gadhf). But-if someone who is of good moral character is accuse of sexual misconduct, the judge may punish the accuser who is unable to duly substantiate it. The consultative assembly of the Islamic State may also enact a suitable law on this question. (iv). If someone simply accuses a person of committing unlawful sexual intercourse, without providing any evidence for the accusation, this in itself does not necessarily warrant that the accuser be awarded the i t laid down for qadhf

In order that this punishment be awarded, certain conditions must be fulfilled. These conditions relate to (a) the accuser, (b) the accused, and (c) the offence of which someone has been accused.

As for the conditions which must be found in the accuser in order that he be punished for gadhf, they are as follows: First, the accuser, should be an adult. If a minor is guilty of this offence, he may be punished but not subjected to the hadd (prescribed) punishment. Second, the accuser show be a sane person. An insane person may not be subjected to ha punishment. Likewise, anyone who is under the effect of intoxication by any agent other than wine, for example a person, under the influence anesthetic etc, may not be held guilty. Third, the accuser should have made the accusation of his own free-will. If someone compelled him into unjustifiably accusing someone else of unlawful sexual intercourse, he cannot be held guilty. Fourth, the accuser should neither be the father nor the grandfather of the accused since in such a case he cannot be awarded the hadd punishment for qadhf

The Hanafis add one more condition to these, namely that the accuser be capable of speech. A dumb person who accuses another of unlawful sexual intercourse by gesture is not liable to the hadd punishment for qadhf Shafi‘i, however, disagrees on this point. In his opinion, M gestures of the accuser are clear enough to make everyone fully understand what he means, he will be considered to have committed qadhf This because accusing someone by gesture is as damaging to his reputation as accusing him by word of mouth. On the contrary, the Hanafis believe that gestures are an insufficient means of communicating the accusation and so they lay down a ta‘zir rather than a hadd punishment for such people.

As for the conditions which pertain to the person at whom the accusation is directed, these are as follows: First, that he be sane, i.e. he should be charged with unlawful sexual intercourse at a time when he is in a state of sanity. A person cannot be convicted of gadhf if he accuses an insane person of committing unlawful sexual intercourse, not even if the person accused becomes sane at some later date. For an insane person cannot be expected to guard his chastity. Hence, if it is established by evidence that he committed unlawful sexual intercourse, he will not be awarded the hadd punishment prescribed for zina. Nor will the accusation of unchastity damage that person’s reputation owing to his insanity. The accuser will, therefore, not be punished for qadhf Malik and Layth ibn Sa‘d, however, are of the opinion that anyone who accuses an insane person of unlawful sexual intercourse should also be punished for qadhf because - he brought a grave charge against someone without providing due evidence.

Second, that the accusation is directed at a person who has attained his majority. If the accusation is directed at a minor, or at someone who later comes of age but who was subjected to a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse at a time when he was still a minor, the accuser will not be liable for the punishment laid down for qadhf. The reason being that like the insane person, a minor too cannot guard his chastity, nor is he liable to the punishment for zina if he committed this offence when he was a minor, nor is the reputation of a minor damaged by this accusation. However, Malik is of the opinion that if a boy who is Close to the age of majority is accused of unlawful sexual intercourse, the accuser will not be punished for qadhf. But, if a girl who is close to the age of maturity is accused of having had unlawful sexual intercourse, the accuser will be subjected to the qadhf punishment. The reason for this being that such an accusation seriously damages the girl’s reputation. In fact, it damages the honor of the whole family, and furthermore the girl’s future is jeopardized.

Third, that the accused be a Muslim. That is, the accuser will be convicted of qadhf if he lays a charge of zina against a person who is a Muslim. If the charge is brought against a non-Muslim, or against a Muslim who was charged with the offence whilst not being a Muslim, the accuser will not be convicted of qadhf.

Fourth, that the accused should be a free person. If a charge of zina is laid against a slave, whether male or female, or if a free person is charged with zina before acquiring their freedom, the accuser will not be convicted of qadhf. This because the helplessness associated with slavery makes it difficult for the person concerned to guard his chastity. It is also significant that the Qur’an uses the expression muhsanat in contrast to slave-girls in Surah al-Nisa’ (4: 24-5). This is, however, contested by Da’ud al-Zahiri who is of the opinion that the person who accuses a slave, whether male or female, should also be punished for qadhf

Fifth, that the accused be a chaste person. That is, he should neither have been convicted of the act of zina, nor acts which might be considered to create a suspicion of zina such as follows: that he contracted a defective marriage, or that he married someone secretly, or that he had sexual intercourse with some slave-girl under the misunderstanding that he had ownership rights over her, or that he had sexual intercourse with someone on the wrong assumption that he had contracted marriage with her. Nor should his lifestyle be such that a charge of sexual misconduct could, with some justification, apply to him. Nor should he ever have been convicted of acts of sexual misconduct, even if they be of a lesser order than fully-fledged zina. For if any of these circumstances exist, his chastity no longer remains above board. As a consequence, if anyone accuses a person of such doubtful sexual conduct, he cannot be subjected to the Punishment of 80 lashes. For even if evidence for zina is brought against the accused any time prior to his having received the punishment for gadhf, the latter will be exempted from the punishment. This because the person against whom he no longer be considered a chaste person.

To say that the accuser in the five instances cited above is not liable for the hadd punishment for gadhf does not mean, however, that the person who charges, an insane person or a minor, or a non-Muslim, or a slave, or a person not known to be of chaste character with sexual misconduct, cannot be subjected to any kind of punishment. For such persons may indeed he awarded a ta‘zir Punishment.

Let us now turn to the conditions which should obtain in the act of gadhf itself. If a person accuses someone of committing unlawful sexual intercourse, he is liable to a gadhf conviction if either of the following conditions obtain: (a) that the accused is charged with the kind of sexual act which, if substantiated, renders him liable for the hadd punishment for zina: or (b) that the accused is described as an illegitimate child.

In either case, the accusation should be couched in clear and explicit terms. An accusation which is expressed in metaphorical terms or in allusions will be disregarded. Likewise, the charge should not be expressed in a phraseology which can be construed to mean unlawful sex or illegitimate birth only if it is assumed that the accuser intended those words to mean so. For instance, if a person identifies a person as sinful and dissolute, or calls a woman a prostitute, or calls a sayyid [i.e. descendent of the Prophet] a Pathan [implying that he was not so descended] such statements not regarded as qadhf. Likewise, those words and expressions which people resort to by way of abuse, for example bastard, etc., cannot be considered clear statements which amount to qadhf.

There is however, disagreement, among jurists with regard to innuendoes. For example, a person may say: “Yes, but I am not an Adulterer; or that; But my mother did not give birth to me by adultery. In such cases Malik is of the opinion that if the statement clearly means that the person concerned is accused of having committed zina or of being an illegitimate child then this amounts to gadhf entails hadd punishment. However, Abu Hanifah and his disciples as also Shafi’i, sufyan al-Thawri, Ibn Shubrumah and Hasan ibn Salih grant the benefit of doubt to the accuser on the grounds that the statement is in the nature of a veiled attack rather than a clear accusation. As there is some room for doubt, hadd punishment cannot be awarded in such cases.

Abmad ibn Hanbal and Isbaq ibn Rahawayh are of the opinion that if such a statement is made in the course of a quarrel, it amounts to qadhf while if such a remark is made in jest, it does not constitute qadhf. However, among the Rightly- Guided Caliphs, ‘Umar and ‘Ali enforced hadd punishment in such cases. In the days of ‘Umar there ensued a fight between two people whereby one said to the other: ‘Neither my father was an adulterer nor my mother an adulteress.’ The matter was brought before ‘Umar. He asked the audience what they made of the comment. Some said that the person concerned had paid a compliment to his own parents, without necessarily calling into question the character of the adversary's parents. Others, however, disagreed and took strong exception to the words in which the statement was made. For them, the statement implied that the parents of his adversary were guilty of adultery. ‘Umar concurred with the latter view and awarded the hadd punishment for qadhf to the accuser. (See Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 3.)

There is a difference of opinion about whether one becomes guilty of qadhf when one accuses someone of sodomy. Abu Hanifah does not consider this accusation to be qadhf whereas Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani and Shafi‘i do so. (v) There is disagreement among jurists about whether qadhf is a cognizable offence or not. Ibn Abu Layla is of the opinion that a person guilty of qadhf should be punished regardless of whether the victim of the accusation makes the plea for the accuser's punishment or not. However, Abu Hanifah and others of his school are of the opinion that once someone is convicted of qadhf, he will be awarded the same punishment. The initiation of judicial proceedings against the accuser, However, is contingent upon the wish of the victim. The same view is held by Shafi‘i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Awza‘i. As for Malik, he considers it a cognizable offence if it is committed in the presence of the judge; otherwise the prosecution of the accuser depends upon the victim's claim. (vi) qadhf is not a compoundable offence. If the victim does not ask for the initiation of legal proceedings, then such proceedings will not be initiated. However, once the complaint is admitted, the accuser will be required to substantiate his charge by providing due evidence. If he fails to do so, he will be punished for qadhf. But once legal proceedings start, neither the court nor the accused may pardon the accuser. Nor will the payment of damages be admissible. Nor will the culprit be spared hadd punishment by his repenting or tendering an apology for his offence. We have already mentioned the ruling of the Prophet (peace be on him) in this respect: ‘Settle cognizable offences among yourselves. However, if a case involving hadd is brought to my attention, [a decision on the matter] becomes obligatory.’ (See Aba Daud, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab al-‘Afw ‘an al- Hudud ma lam tabligh al-Sultan’ — Ed.) (vii) According to the Hanafis, the plea to enforce hadd punishment for qadhf may either be made by the victim himself, or in his absence by those whose descent and lineage are adversely affected, for example by his parents, children or grandchildren. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani and Shafi'i, however, consider it a hereditary right. Hence, if the victim dies, any of his heirs may plead that the prescribed punishment be awarded the offender. It is somewhat strange that Shafi’i excludes husband and wife from his category of legitimate claimants on the grounds that death severs the matrimonial tie and that if any of the spouses is subjected to qadhf, the other's descent is not damaged.

Both these points are hardly convincing. Once this claim is recognized as a hereditary right, the contention that death brings the relationship between husband and wife to an end is contrary to the Qur'an itself. For the Qur’an considers each of the two spouses to inherit the other. It is contended that if a spouse is slandered, this does not damage the descent of the other spouse. This may be correct in the case of the husband, but it is certainly not correct in the case of the wife. For if a woman is slandered, the descent of all her children becomes doubtful. Moreover, it is inappropriate to think that the punishment for qadhf prescribed only in consideration of the adverse impact it has on some people. An accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse damages the descent, honor and reputation of the victims to the accusation. It is indeed absolutely dishonorable for a decent person to find that his/her life-partner be branded as morally dissolute and profligate. In short, since the claim for qadhf punishment is a hereditary right, there seems no valid ground to exclude spouses thorn the category of its legitimate claimants. (viii) Once someone is convicted of qadhf, the only thing which can redeem and save him from the hadd punishment is that he be able to produce four witnesses who testify that they saw the person accused of unchastity actually commit unlawful sexual intercourse with such and such a person. According to the Hanafi school, these four witnesses should appear in court together and testify to the same. If they appear one by one, each would be guilty of qadhf, and the acquittal of each would again require a set of four witnesses.

This, however, does not seem that persuasive. The correct legal position is the one held by Shafi‘i and ‘Uthman aI-Batti who state that all that is required of the four witnesses is that they should corroborate the accusation that has been made. Whether these witnesses testify together or separately does not make any material difference. In fact, they are of the opinion that it is even preferable if the witnesses appear and testify separately, one after the other as is usual in other cases. The Hanafis are of the opinion that in order for the accuser not to be punished for qadhf, he is required to produce four witnesses, but it is not essential that they be upright. As long as the accuser is able to produce four witnesses, even four fasiq witnesses, he will be acquitted of qadhf. Similarly, a victim of an unchastity charge will also not be subjected to hadd punishment for zina just because the witnesses were not adil (upright). However, he who is guilty of qadhf may not escape hadd punishment if he produces as witnesses those who are either non-Muslims, blind, slaves, or are of those who have been convicted of qadhf in the past.

Shaf’i is of the opinion that if a person accuses someone of committing unlawful sexual intercourse and produces only fasiq persons as witnesses, both the accuser and his witnesses should be awarded the hadd punishment for qadhf. This opinion is also shared by Malik.

The Hanafi position on this question, however, seems more plausible: if the witnesses are upright (adil) the accuser will be acquitted of the qadhf charge and the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse will be established against the person so accused. But if the witnesses are not upright, their testimonthes become doubtful. Hence, it is no longer certain that the accuser committed qadhf, that the person accused of unchastity committed zina, or that the statements made by the witnesses are necessarily true or false. Because of this element of doubt none will be considered liable to hadd punishments. (ix) If the accuser fails to produce the evidence required to bring about his acquittal from qadhf, the Qur’an lays down three penalties: (a) that he who is guilty of qadhf be flogged 80 lashes; (b) that his testimony not be accepted ever after; and (c) that he be branded as a transgressor fasiq). This mention of the punishment is followed by the statement: ‘Except those of them that repent thereafter and mend their behavior. For surely Allah is Most-Forgiving, Ever Compassionate.’

This naturally raises the question which of the three above-mentioned punishments will be waived if the person convicted of qadhf repents and mends his ways? Jurists are agreed that if a person repents and reforms himself, the first consequence of qadhf definitely applies; that is, the hadd punishment of 80 lashes will not be voided by the culprit's repentance and self-reform. There is also a consensus among jurists that the exception mentioned in the verse pertains to the last-mentioned consequence of qadhf. In other words, he who repents and mends his behavior will no longer be considered a fasiq (transgressor), and that God will indeed pardon him.

The only difference of opinion on this question among jurists relates to whether a person becomes guilty of qadhf as soon as he commits that offence or when the charge of qadhf is established against him. Shafi‘i and Layth ibn Sa‘d are of the opinion that by the mere commitment of qadhf a person renders himself unfit to testify. On the other hand, Abu Hanifah and the jurists of his school as well as Malik believe that a person is to be regarded as a transgressor fasiq) only after he is convicted. Before such a conviction, he may testify. It seems more plausible that one becomes a transgressor fasiq) in the sight of God as a result of indulging in qadhf, but only after being convicted of qadhf does a person become a transgressor in the eyes of the general public.

Now we come to the injunction whereby the testimony of the person found guilty of qadhf should ever, in the future, be accepted. There is considerable disagreement among jurists on whether this applies even to those who repented and reformed themselves after being convicted of qadhf. Some hold the view that while such persons no longer remain transgressors fasiq) in the sight of God and men, nevertheless the first two commandments mentioned here will be applied to them: namely that they will be awarded the hadd punishment for qadhf and their testimony will, henceforth, never be accepted.

This opinion is held by Shurayh, Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab, Hasan al-Basri, Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, Muhammad ibn Sirin, Makhul, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd, Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, Zufar, Mubammad ibn al-Hasan at-Shaybani, Sufyan al Thawri and Hasan ibn Salih.

Another group of jurists, however, take a different view. According to them, the person guilty of qadhf will be subjected to hadd punishment despite his repenting and reforming himself. However, because of his repentance and self- reform, he will neither be regarded as a fasiq, nor will his testimony be rejected. Those who subscribe to this opinion include ‘Ata’, Taus, Mujahid, Sha‘bi, Qasim ibn Muhammad, Salim, Zuhri, ‘Ikrimah, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, Ibn Abi Nujayh , Sulayman ibn Yasar, Masruq, Dahhuk, Malik ibn Anas, ‘Uthman al- Batti, Layth ibn Sa‘d, Shafi‘i, Abmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari.

In substantiating their viewpoint the latter group adduce, apart from other arguments, the judgement pronounced by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab in the case of Mughirah ibn Shu‘bah. There are some traditions which mention that after the hadd punishment was meted out to the guilty, ‘Umar said to Abu Bakrah and his two associates: ‘If you repent [or, in a variant version, if you admit that you had levelled a false charge], I will accept your testimony in the future; but if you do not, I will not accept your testimony.’ The other two confessed that they had indeed levelled a false charge, but Abu Bakrah stuck to his original position.

Apparently this is a weighty argument in favor of this legal opinion. However, when we carefully consider the available account of this particular case, it becomes quite clear that it is not appropriate to cite the above precedent on the question under discussion. For in this particular case there was no disagreement with regard to the incident concerned and even Mughirah ibn Shu‘bah did not deny it.

The matter under dispute concerned the identity of the woman involved in the incident. Mughirah mistook her for Umm Jamil. It was well established that there was a great deal of resemblance between the two women, i.e. Mughirah’s wife and Umm Jamil, and since the person observed them from some distance and at a time when the light was poor, it was difficult for him to make out who the woman concerned was. Hence, there was some ground to believe that the person concerned was Umm Jamil.

As for the circumstantial evidence, this supposed Mughirah's contention. One of the prosecution witnesses also acknowledged that it was difficult to clearly make out the identity of the woman in question. It was on this basis that ‘Umar decided the case in favor of Mughirah ibn Shu‘bah and not Abu Bakrah. In these circumstances, it can be appreciated that ‘Umar's intention was to impress upon the accusers that they had levelled a serious charge on the basis of a misperception. He also wanted to drive home to them that they should repent for their actions and come forth with the assurance that they would desist from such acts in the future, or their testimony would never again be admitted.

This does not justify the conclusion that even the testimony of the person who is proved to be lying in his charge of unchastity against others will be accepted if he repents. The tact is that on this question the opinion of the former group of jurists seems to carry greater weight. For the truth of a person's repentance is known only to God. Hence, if a person publicly repents, all that we can do is not call him a fasiq in the future. It would be inappropriate though to start trusting the word of the person who proved himself to be untrustworthy simply on the grounds that he publicly uttered the words: ‘I repent.’ Moreover, if we consider the manner in which the relevant Qur'anic verse is phrased, the exception expressed by the words ‘except those of them that repent thereafter’ only pertains to them being called fasiq. We are led to this conclusion by the fact that the command to flog those convicted of qadhf with 80 lashes, and not to admit their testimony thereafter have been expressed in the imperative form. On the other hand, the statement that those who repent of falsely accusing people of sexual misconduct is given as a piece of information: namely that they are ‘transgressors except those of them that repent and mend their behavior.

The sequence of these statements clearly indicates that the exception that is made relates to their being transgressors. That is, had they not repented they would be considered as transgressors. But since they did repent, they cease to be transgressors. Even if we concede that the exception is not strictly confined to the last part of the verse, we can find no reasonable grounds to believe that the exception should apply only to the command to ‘never admit their testimony’ but not to the command to flog them. (x) Here one may ask: why should the exception expressed by the words ‘those who repent and mend their behavior’ not apply to all three things mentioned in the verse: namely, meting out the punishment of flogging, not accepting the testimony of the person guilty of qadhf, and regarding him as fasiq? It may be argued that since qad6famounts to defaming someone, why should the false accuser not be fully acquitted after (a) he confesses his guilt, (b) he tenders an apology to the victim of qadhf, (c) he repents of the wrong that he has done and assures everyone that he will never do the same again? This line of argument is apparently strengthened by the following words of the Qur’an: ‘They are indeed transgressors except those of them that repent thereafter and mend their behavior. For surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Ever Compassionate.’ One may say to this that it would be strange indeed for God to pardon such persons while His creatures should refuse to do so.

In response, it should be pointed out that repentance does not simply consist of uttering a few words of remorse. Instead, it consists of a man's sincere feelings of grief at his fault, combined with a resolve to adopt righteous conduct in the future. Hence, repentance does not enable a man to escape worldly punishments; it may, however, lead him to escape the punishment of the Hereafter. Hence God does not say (in the Qur’an] that if a criminal repents, he need not be punished. What is said instead is that in respect of those who repent, God will be ‘Most Forgiving, Ever Compassionate.’ (xi) It is pertinent to point out that if someone fails to substantiate his charge by due evidence, this does not necessarily mean that he was lying. For it is possible that even though his charge is correct he might be unable to furnish the evidence required to establish it. Is it fair that such a person be held as a transgressor psig) not only in the sight of men but also in the sight of God simply because he was unable to back up his charge, one which might have been true, with the evidence required? The explanation for this is that even if a person saw an act of moral corruption being committed, he is still sinful if he goes about publicizing it or if he accuses the person concerned of the offence without being able to establish it with due evidence. If some act of corruption is confined to a little corner of life, the Shari’ah does not approve of someone embarking on a campaign to bring that knowledge to everyone's attention. If a person knows that such corruption exists, two options are available to him. First, he should let it remain where it is; and second, he should establish with due evidence to the rulers of the Islamic State that corruption exists so that they may be able to root it out. There are, however, only these two options, no more. If someone were to start publicizing such things, he would be guilty of spreading that corruption all around. Furthermore, if he charges someone with an offence as grave as zina without providing due evidence his failure to establish the charge leads to further spread of corruption and it also emboldens the corrupt to engage in acts of corruption. Hence, he who charges someone with unchastity without providing due evidence is certainly a fasiq even though in point of fact he may be telling the truth. (xii) As regards the punishment for qadhf, Hanafi jurists are of the opinion that a person so convicted be flogged more lightly than the person convicted for limit. The number of lashes though should remain 80. This is understandable since it is hot absolutely certain that the accuser was a liar. (XIII) What should the punishment be for the person who commits qadhf more than once? The Hanafis and the majority of jurists are of the opinion that he should only be punished once, regardless of the number of times that he levels the charge against the person concerned before he is punished or during the time that he is punished. Not only that, if he persists in his charge even after the execution of the sentence of punishment against him, the hadd once meted out is deemed enough. However, if he levels the charge of another act of unlawful sexual intercourse against the same person after the punishment has been meted out, a new case will be instituted against him. After being subjected to hadd punishment in Mughirah's case, Abu Bakrah continued to say publicly: ‘I affirm that Mughirah had committed unlawful sexual intercourse.’ ‘Umar considered prosecuting him again. However, since Abu Bakrah was reiterating the same charge he had levelled earlier, ‘Ali expressed the view that a new case could not be instituted against him. ‘Umar accepted this advice of ‘Ali’s. Subsequently, there developed a near consensus among jurists that a qadhf, who had been punished for failing to prove his charge of unchastity could not be prosecuted for repeating the charge for which he had been punished. He may be prosecuted afresh only if he levelled a new charge. (xiv) There is disagreement among jurists about what punishment ought to be awarded to the person who, instead of accusing just one other, accuses a group of people of zina. According to the Hanafis, if someone charges several people with unchastity, regardless of where he uses one word or several words to level that charge, he should be punished only once. This providing he does not come forward with a new charge to the same effect. This accords with the following words of the verse: ‘Those who accuse chaste, honorable women [of unchastity] , . .’ {al-Nur 24: 4). We, thus, learn that he who slanders a whole group of people will be punished only once. This is significant in vthew of the fact that unlawful sexual intercourse involves at least two people. Despite the involvement of those two people, the Shari'ah prescribes no more than a single Hadd punishment rather than one Hadd for accusing a man and another Hadd for accusing a woman. Nonetheless, Shafi‘i is of the opinion that anyone who is guilty of slandering a group of people, either in one or several words, should be punished separately for each and every accusation against all those who comprise that group. The same opinion is held by ‘Uthman al-Batti. However, Ibn Abi Layla holds the same vthew as Sha‘bi and ‘Awza‘i, namely that if someone charges in a single statement a group of people with unlawful sexual intercourse he will be subjected to a single punishment. However, anyone who makes separate statements regarding each member of the group, accusing each of them of committing unlawful sexual intercourse, will be liable to a punishment in respect of each person whom he has accused.

7. There is a time lapse between the revelation of the preceding verses and the present ones. After the punishment for qadhf was laid down in the Qur’an the minds of the people were vexed by a question. They said fat when someone observes that a man and a woman unrelated to him are engaged in acts of immorality, it is not difficult for him to be patient. In other words, someone can easily restrain himself from speaking about the whole incident, indeed disregard it entirely, when no witnesses are available to testify to it. Yet what should be done if this person were to see his own wife engaged in unlawful sex? If he killed her, he would be liable to punishment. If he decided to go and find four witnesses to observe the offence, it is inconceivable that the culprit would stay around long enough to enable this observation to occur. It is not easy, though, for someone to observe such a thing with regard to his wife and still remain patient. True, in such a case, the husband certainly can exercise his option to divorce his wife. But were he to do so neither that perverse woman nor her partner in the adultery would have suffered any punishment whether moral or material. Additionally, if the woman becomes pregnant as a result of that unlawful act, the husband would have to assume responsibility for bringing up that child. This hypothesis was first put forward by Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubadah, i.e. what would he do if he were placed in such an unenviable position? He said that if he so found his wife involved in an act of adultery he would not go about finding witnesses to the act. He would rather bring the matter to an end by having recourse to his sword. (Bukhari, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab man ra'a ma’ Imra'tih Rajulan fa qatalah’ — Ed.)

Shortly after this, several cases arose whereby husbands found themselves in such a position and these instances were reported to the Prophet (peace be on him). It is narrated on the authority of ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud and ‘Abd Allah ibn ’Umar that one of the Ansar, perhaps ‘Uwaymir al-‘Ajlani, came to the Prophet (peace be on him) and said: ‘O Messenger of God! If someone finds another person with his wife and reports it, you will subject him to the punishment for qadhf. If he kills her, you will put him to death. If he remains silent, he will be consumed by rage. What should he do then?’ There upon the Prophet (peace be on him) prayed to God for guidance. (Bukhari, K. al-Tafsir, Surah al-Nur, ‘Bab wa aI-Khamisah anna la‘nat Allah ‘alayh in kana min al-Kidhibin’ and Muslim, k. al-Li'an — Ed.) It is narrated by ‘Abd Allah ibn Abbas that Hilal ibn Umayyah reposed that he had personally seen his wife commit adultery. Upon this the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Bring witnesses or else you will be prosecuted for qadhf.’ This agitated the Companions. Hilal said: ‘By God Who has sent you as a Messenger to us, I am telling the truth. I saw this incident with my own eyes, and heard it with my ears. I am sure that God will reveal an injunction in my ease that will save my back [from flogging].' The present verse was revealed on this particular occasion, (Bukhari, K. al-Tafsir al-Qur’ân, Surah al-Nur, ‘Bib wa yudra’ ‘anha aI-‘Adhab an-tashhad Araba‘a’h Shahadat bi Allah innahu la-min al-Kidhibin’ — Ed.) The method of dealing with this problem is known as Lian. After revelation of this rule the Prophet (peace be on him) dealt with similar cases in accordance with it and detailed reports about the same can be found in works of Hadith. The Hadtih, in any case, are the best source of information on the detailed rules and procedures pertaining to li’an.

The details of Hilal ibn Umayyah's case are available in Hadith works and Tabari's Tafsi‘r. It is related on the authority of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas and Anas ibn Malik that after this verse was revealed both Hilal and his wife were brought to the Prophet (peace be on him). The Prophet (peace be on him) first mentioned God's command which had been revealed, adding: ‘Do you realize that the punishment in the Hereafter is much more grievous than the one in this life?’ Hilal said: ‘My charge against her is absolutely true.’ Hilal's wife, however, totally denied it. The Prophet (peace be on him) then said that the two should take an oath. Accordingly, Hilal rose first, taking the oath in accordance with the Qur’anic rule. While he was so doing the Prophet (peace be on him) repeatedly said: ‘God knows that one of you is certainly a liar. Then will either of you repent?’ Before Hilal took the oath for the fifth time, those present said to him: ‘Fear God. Punishment in this life is lighter than the one in the Next. This fifth oath will incur God's punishment on you.’ Yet Hilal said: ‘God Who has saved me here will not punish me in the Hereafter’, and so saying, he took the final oath.

It was then his wife's turn. Just as she was about to take the final oath, she was interrupted with the following words: ‘Fear God. It is easier to bear punishment in this life than in the Next. This final oath will incur God's punishment on you.’ On hearing this, she paused, hesitating a little. The audience at this point thought that she was about to confess her sin but instead she said: ‘I will not bring abiding dishonor to my tribe.’ So saying, she took the final oath. The Prophet (peace be on him) then effected a separation between them and resolved that her child, whom she had recently conceived, would be known as her child, and not as the child of her husband. Yet no one would be able to accuse her of not being chaste or her child of being illegitimate. If anyone were to do so they would be awarded the punishment for qadhf. Hilal's wife would not be entitled to maintenance or the right of residence in her husband's house during the period of ‘iddah for she was now separated from her husband without this being caused by either divorce or his death. The Prophet (peace be on him) then told people to closely observe the features of the child after its delivery. If it resembled Hilal, it would thus be his child. Conversely, if it resembled the person accused of adultery, it would be his. After the child's birth, it was found that it resembled the person accused of adultery. On learning this, the Prophet (peace be on him) exclaimed: ‘But for these oaths [or the Qur’anic command which has already decided the matter], I would have dealt very differently with this woman.’ (See Bukhari, K. Tafsir al-Qur’an, Surah aI-Nur, ‘Bab wa yudra’ ‘anha al-‘Adhab an-tashhad Araba‘a’h Shahadat bi Allah innahu la-min al- Kadhibin’ - Ed.)

Detailed proceedings of another case which relates to Uwaymir al-‘Ajlani ara recorded in Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah and Ahmad ibn Hanbal on the authority of Sahl ibn Sa‘d al-Sa‘idi and ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar. According to these traditions, ‘Uwaymir al-‘Ajlani and his wife were both called to the Prophet's Mosque. Before they were asked to take an oath against each other, the Prophet (peace be on him) warned them three times: ‘God knows full well that one of you is certainly a liar. Will then either of you repent?’ men neither did so, both were made to take oaths and ‘Uwaymir further said: ‘O Messenger of God, if I ever keep this woman I will be lying.’ Saying this he divorced her even before the Prophet (peace be on him) had effected a separation between them. As reported by Sahl ibn Sa‘d, the Prophet (peace be on him) then said: ‘This separation is for each such couple that resorts to li‘an (mutual cursing).’ Since then it has been the practice that couples who resort to Li‘an are separated with the stipulation that they may never remarry. ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar, however, says only that the Prophet (peace be on him) effected a separation between the two. There is an additional piece of information in Sahl ibn Sa‘d’s account that the woman was pregnant and ‘Uwaymir claimed that the conception was not a result of any act of his. (See Bukhari, K. Tafsir al-Qur’an, Surah al-Nur, ‘Bab wa al-Khamisah anna La‘nat Allah ‘alayh in kana min al-Kadhibin’ and ‘Bab Qawlih ‘azza wa jalla: Wa al-Iadhina yarmuna Azwajahum wa lam yakun lahum Shuhada’ ...'Ed.) Accordingly, the child was ascribed to the mother alone. The legal doctrine since them has been that such a child, to wit, a child whose mother's husband disowns being the father of that child, inherits only his mother and that she alone inherits him (i.e. to the exclusion of the woman's husband).

Several other such cases are reported in works of Hadith. These traditions, however, do not specify the names of the parties concerned. Possibly some are related to the two cases already cited. Some traditions, however, mention additional cases and shed light on important points pertaining to li‘an.

In reporting one case, ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar adds that after the couple had resorted to Ii‘an, the Prophet (peace be on him) effected a separation between them. (See Bukhari, K. al-Tafsir al-Qur’an, Surah al-Nur, ‘Bab Qawlih ta‘ala anna Ghadab Allah ‘alayha in kana min al-Sadiqin’ — Ed.) There is another tradition from the same authority, ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar, to the effect that a husband and wife took the oaths of li‘an. The husband contended that his wife's pregnancy was not by him. Here, too, the Prophet (peace be on him) effected a separation between them, declaring that the child would be ascribed to the mother alone.

There is yet another tradition on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar whereby after the li’an proceedings, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Both of you an accountable to God, and one of you is certainly a liar.’ He then said.to the husband: ‘She is not yours any longer. You have no [conjugal rights with respect to her. Nor may you commit any excesses nor take any vindictive action against her.’ The husband said: ‘O Messenger of God! Help me get back my money [i.e. the bridal- due which he paid her].’ The Prophet replied: ‘You have no right to reclaim your money. If you are true in your charge, then that money is the recompense for the pleasure you legitimately derived from her. On the other hand, if you have lied against her, you are even farther removed from your money; that money is now farther from you than it is from her.’ (Bukhari, K. al-Talaq, ‘Qawl al-Imim li al- Mutala‘inayn inna Ahadakuma Kidhib fa hal minkuma Ta'ib min’ — Ed.)

Daraqutni has quoted the following opinion of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud: ‘The principle that has been established is that spouses who resort to li’an may never come together again [i.e. they may never remarry].’ Daraqutni also narrates a tradition from ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet (peace be on him) himself said: ‘Such a couple may- never come together again [that is they may never remarry].’ It is reported by Qabisah ibn Dhuwayb that someone declared that his wife's pregnancy was not by him. Later he retracted his statement. After the child was born he again claimed that the child was not his. The case was put before ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab who prosecuted him for qadhf and then issued a judgement that the child would be ascribed to him (Daraqutni and Bayhaqi). ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas reported that someone came to the Prophet (peace be on him) and submitted: ‘I have a wife whom I love very much but she does not shrug away anyone's hand.’ It is noteworthy that this was a metaphorical expression meaning either adultery on the part of the wife or something rather less. The Prophet (peace be on him) asked him to divorce her. In response, he said that he could not live without her. The Prophet (peace be on him) then told him to keep her and did not ask him to elaborate upon the implication of his earlier statement. Thus, the Prophet (peace be on him) did not necessarily accept the statement to mean that the person concerned charged his wife with adultery, nor did he order li’an in this case.

Abu Hurayrah reports that a Bedouin came to the Prophet (peace be on him) saying: ‘My wife has given birth to a child of dark complexion. I do not think it is my child.’ The Bedouin’s suspicion was based merely on the child's complexion. He did not have any other grounds to suspect his wife of adultery. The Prophet (peace be on him) asked him: ‘Do you have any camels?’ He replied in the affirmative. The Prophet then asked him to specify the color of his camels. He said that they were of a reddish color. The Prophet then further asked him if he also had any brown camels, and the Bedouin replied in the affirmative. The Prophet (peace be on him) then asked him to explain how the color of the camels had become different from one another. To this the man replied that it might be an hereditary consequence. The Prophet (peace be on him) responded that the dark complexion of his child could also be an hereditary factor. The Prophet (peace be on him) thus, did not allow the Bedouin to disown the paternity of the child. (See Bukhari, K. al-Hudud, ‘Bab ma ja fi al-Tawlid’ — Ed.)

There is another tradition on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace be on him) while commenting on the Qur’anic verse relating to li’an, said: ‘God has nothing to do with a woman who conceives an unlawful child and makes him part of the family though he does not belong to it. God will nor admit her to Paradise. In like manner, the husband who disowns the paternity of his child, the while the child looks on at him, God will conceal Himself from such a person on the Day of Judgement and will humiliate him before the creatures of all times.’ (See Abu Da’ud, K. al-Talaq, ‘Bab al-Taghliz fi al-Intifa — Ed.)

The Islamic Law of li'an is based on the present verse along, with the above- mentioned statements of the Prophet (peace be on him) and the general principles of the Shari’ah. In light of the above, jurists have elaborated a set of laws on this question, the most mentionable of which are as follows: (i) There is disagreement among jurists with regard to the husband who personally observes his wife commit adultery and kills her rather than taking recourse to li’an oaths. One group says that capital punishment will be meted out to him because he was not authorized to execute the punishment of his own accord. Another group, however, say that he is not to be awarded capital punishment. Nor will he be blamed providing his charge is proved to be true. In other words, if it is established that the person concerned murdered his wife and he was provoked into so doing by having observed his wife commit adultery. Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh are of the opinion that the person concerned will have to produce two witnesses to testify that the reason for killing his wife was her act of adultery. Among the Malikis, Ibn al-Qasim and Ibn Habib mention another condition as well, namely that the person so murdered should be married. If an unmarried person is so killed, the murderer will be subjected to qisas. However, the majority of jurists are of the view that he would be spared qisas only if he produces four witnesses who testify to the adultery. The accuser may also be spared qisas if the person whom the accused had killed after observing him commit adultery with his wife admits committing adultery with the accuser's wife or that the person so killed, provided they are unmarried, confessed during their life-time that they had been guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with that person's wife. (ii) Li'an is only effective when it is made under the aegis of the court rather than by the parties concerned via their mutual consent. (iii) If a husband accuses his wife of unlawful sex or disowns the paternity of the child, she has the right to seek the intervention of the court and have her husband take the li’an oath. In this respect her right is the same as her husband's. (iv) Can there be li‘an between every couple, or is it subject to certain conditions? Jurists have different opinions on this question. According to Shafi fi, anyone whose oath is legally admissible and who has the right to pronounce divorce may proceed with Ii’an. In other words, in order to initiate li’an proceedings it is enough that the person concerned be sane and adult. This irrespective of whether the husband and wife are Muslims or non-Muslims, whether they are tree or slave, whether their testimony is trustworthy or not, and whether the wife of a Muslim husband is herself a Muslim or a dhimmi. The views of Malik and Ahmad ibn Hanbal on this question are more or less the same. The Hanafis, however, contend that recourse to li’an may be made only in cases of those free Muslim couples who have not been convicted of qadhf. If both the husband and the wide are unbelievers, slaves, or have been convicted of qadhf, then recourse to li’an may not be made. Moreover, if the wife was previously involved in a relationship which was either clearly of a prohibited nature, or if she is of a doubtful character, then recourse to li‘an is not available.

Hanafi jurists prescribe these conditions in view of the difference between li‘an and qadhf. That is that if any person other than the husband commits qadhf, he is liable to hadd punishment, but if the husband makes the same accusation, he may save himself from the hadd punishment for qadhf by having recourse to li’an. In all other respects, the laws relating to li’an and qadhf are exactly alike. Moreover, the Hanafis believe that since the oaths in li’an have the same status as evidence then those who are not eligible to testify are also ineligible to take the li’an oaths. On this question the Hanafi position seems weak whereas the Shafi‘i position appears sound. The first reason for this is that the Qur’an does not make the question of slandering one’s wife a part of the verse which lays down the law of qadhf. Instead, the Qur’an lays down a separate rule for this. Hence, it is not appropriate to treat li ’ân as a part of the law of qadhf and subject it to the conditions pertaining to qadhf. The words of the verse dealing with li‘an differ from those used in the verse on qadhf. The legal rules of the two also vary. Hence, the provisions relating to li’ân should only be derived from that verse which deals with li’ân. For example, the verse on qadhf r Yes that all those who charge chaste and honorable women with unlawful sex deserve to be punished. Per contra, there is no reference to a chaste wife in the verse about li’ân.

Let us suppose that some woman had at one time been guilty of sexual misconduct after which she repented and married another man. Now, if her husband makes a false charge of sexual misconduct against her, the Qur’an does not grant him the license to accuse his wife of unchasteness, nor to deny the paternity of the child borne by that woman on the grounds that she had once been guilty of unlawful sex. The other highly important reason is that there is a vast difference between one's own wife and any other woman as far as levelling a charge of unlawful sex is concerned. It is natural, therefore, that the spirit of the law with regard to both is bound to vary. For, if a person accuses an unrelated woman with unchasteness, the case is pretty simple because the person has no emotional involvement or emotional ties with her. Furthermore, the charge that he makes against her in no way damages his honor. Nor is there any question of social ties, mutuality of rights and obligations, nor of lineage and descent between him and that woman. If a man is concerned with the moral conduct of such a woman, he is at best moved by the desire to see society free of moral condition.

On the contrary, a man's relations with his wife exist on a variety of levels and are if a very profound nature. For his wife is a repository of his pedigree and honor, of his property and his home. Being his life partner, his wife is well aware of many of his secrets. This in addition to the fact that the two are bound together by some very profound and fine emotional ties. Were a wife to commit an act of sexual misconduct, this injures her husband's honor and dignity, hurts his most vital interests, and jeopardizes the future of his coming generations. Since the two cases are poles apart, they cannot be governed by the same law. IR fact, a person's relationship with his wife is such that even his religious, social and legal status hardly make any difference.

There seems no justification, therefore to distinguish between Muslims and dhimmis, between the free person and the slave, between those whose testimonies are accepted by the court and those whose testimonies are not accepted.

Now, if a dhimmi, a slave or anyone who has previously been convicted of qadhf observes his wife engages in the sexual act with someone else, or if he comes to believe that his wife has become pregnant as a result of sexual intercourse with some other man. is there any reasonable ground to deny him the right to initiate li‘an proceedings? If this right is denied him, what legal remedy exists for such people for the redress of their grievance? The intent of the Qur’an is clear enough: it seeks to provide a way out for a couple who have landed themselves in a highly unenviable state. This might either consist of the husband being tormented by belief that his wife is guilty of adultery and/or that she is pregnant as a result of her illicit relations with someone else. Alternatively, the wife might be agonized by her husband's charge of unchasteness against her, or his denial, without justification, of the paternity of her child fathered by him. Such a situation calls for a way out for all those concerned and not only for those who are free, Muslims, and whose evidence is admissible in court. Now, can we find ’any indication in the Qur'an that restricts the application of the li’ân law to any particular group of people to the exclusion of others? It is also argued that the Qur’an has characterized the oath of li‘an as testimony (see verses 6—9). It is contended, therefore, that the conditions of testimony have to be fulfilled in the case of li’ân as well. In view of the above, if an ’âdil (trustworthy) husband whose testimony is admissible in court were to take the oath of li'an while his wife failed to do so, the woman should be lapidated since due evidence has been provided that she was guilty of adultery. It is astonishing that the Hanafis do not believe that in such a case lapidation should be carried out. This goes to show that the Hanafis do not regard the li’ân oath as equivalent to testimony. The fact is that the Qur’an, notwithstanding its use of the word shah0dah for these oaths (see verses 6—9), does not regard them as evidence in the strict sense of the word or else it would have asked the woman to take the oath eight rather than four times. (v) Li’ân is not required, in cases where a charge is made only in a figurative sense, or when it is expressed as something that one suspects rather than something which one is fully sure about. It is required only if the husband clearly and unambiguously charges his wife with adultery, or unequivocally disowns the child borne by his wife to be his. Malik and Layth ibn Sa‘d suggest an additional condition: that at the time of taking the oath the husband should say that he himself saw his wife commit adultery. This addition, however, has no sound basis. Moreover, it is supported neither by the Qur’an nor any hadith. (vi) According to Abu Hanifah and other jurists of his school, if the husband who has charged his wife with adultery refrains from taking the li’ân oaths, he should be imprisoned until he confesses that he has levelled a false charge. He should not be released unless he does so, and once he has he will be awarded the hadd punishment for qadhf. On the other hand, Malik, Shafi’i , Hasan ibn Salih and Layth ibn Sa‘d are of the opinion that his refraining from taking the oath amounts to his admitting that he was lying, and this requires that the person concerned be subjected to the hadd punishment for qadhf. (vii) According to the Hanafis, if the wife declines to take the li’ân oaths after her husband has done so, she should be imprisoned and not released until she either takes the required oaths or confesses that she committed adultery. In the latter case, she should be lapidated. The Hanafis justify this on the basis of the Qur'anic statement that the woman will be spared punishment only if she takes an oath (see verses 7—9). However, since she declines to take the oath, she must of necessity be punished.

This view though is flawed since the Qur’an does not specify any particular punishment. It only speaks of punishment as such. As for the opinion that it can only mean hadd punishment ’for zinâ, it should be pointed out that the Qur’an lays down the condition of four witnesses for such a punishment to be awarded. This condition is not met by the oaths taken by a single person even if they be taken four times. The husband's oaths suffice to save him from the hadd punishment for qadhf and that the laws of li’ân be applied to his wife. Yet, these oaths are not sufficient in themselves to establish that the wife was guilty of adultery. Were she to take counter oaths, this would cast serious doubt on the whole case. Now, as we know, whenever there is any doubt, hadd punishment cannot be awarded.

Such a case should not be considered analogous to the qadhf committed by the husband, for that qadhf is fully established. It is precisely because there is no doubt about his having committed qadhf that he is required to take li’an oaths. However, the oaths of the husband are not sufficient to prove that the wife committed adultery. Such a case can only be conclusively established try her own confession or by the testimony of four witnesses. (viii) According to Ahmad ibn Hanbal, if the wife is pregnant at the time of li’ân, the act of li’ân itself suffices to release the husband from the responsibility of the pregnancy and the child subsequently borne by his wife will not be reckoned as his child, regardless of whether the husband explicitly denied his role in his wife's pregnancy or not. Shafi‘i, however, is of the opinion that the husband's charge of adultery against his wife and his disowning responsibility for his wife's pregnancy are not one and the same. Unless the husband disowns the pregnancy, the child will be reckoned as his notwithstanding the charge of adultery he levelled against his wife. For even if the wide is found to have committed adultery, this does not prove ipso facto that she conceived the child as a result of that adultery. (ix) Malik, Shafi‘i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal grant the husband the right to disown his responsibility from pregnancy during the period of that pregnancy, and permit li’ân on that basis. Abu Hanifah, however, believes that if the husband does not specifically accuse his wife of adultery, but simply claims that he found his wife pregnant in such circumstances that the pregnancy could not have been via him, then li‘an proceedings should be deferred until the child is born. For occasionally eases of false or phantom pregnancy arise. ) In case a father disowns paternity of the child, this is unanimously considered to warrant li’ân. Likewise, there is a consensus among jurists that if a father accepts paternity of the child, even once, whether explicitly or implicitly, he forfeits the right to disown the child later on. If he does so, he incurs the punishment prescribed for qadhf. How long the father has the right to do so, however, is a disputed matter. According to Malik, if the father was present during the period of his wife's pregnancy, he has the right to disown the child during this period. Thereafter, he ceases to have such a right. However, if he was away from his wife and the baby was born during his absence, he may disown the child on learning about its birth. In Abu Hanifah’s view, if he disowns the child a day or two after its birth and initiates li ’ân proceedings, the husband will be exempt from the responsibility of bringing up the child. However, if he disowns the child after some considerable period, for example one year after the child's birth, the responsibility of bringing up that child remains his. In Abu Yusuf's opinion, the father has the right to disown the child up until 40 days after ‘its birth, or up until 40 days after his knowing about its birth. But he loses ‘that right thereafter. The specific limit of 40 days that has been fixed in this connection, however, is pointless. The sound position on this question seems to be Abu Hanifah's, namely that the father should disown the child within a day or two after its birth or after receiving such news. This period may be extended on grounds that are plausible. (xi) If after divorcing his wife the ex-husband still accuses her of adultery, this does not warrant li’ân. Instead he will be prosecuted for qadhf. Since li'ân is a provision for spouses and the divorced wife has ceased to be a spouse, li’an rules do not apply to her. The only exception that can be allowed in this connection is in the case of a revocable divorce, provided that such a charge was levelled within the period during which the husband had the right to revoke the divorce. According to Malik, qadhf only arises if the question of pregnancy or parentage is not at issue. For, in such a case, the husband retains the right to initiate li’an proceedings even after (Talaq ba’in (divorce that nullifies the marriage). He may have recourse to Ii’an not to bring his divorced wife into disrepute, but only in order to be relieved from the responsibility of bringing up a child which he does not consider his own. Almost the same view is held by Shafi‘i. (xii) There is consensus among jurists in the cases of li’an that the spouses become immune from any punishment. They also concur that if the husband disowns the paternity of the child then the child is ascribed to the wife alone. In such a case, it will not be regarded as its father's child. nor will it inherit him. It will inherit Its mother and its mother will inherit it. Jurists also agree that no one will be allowed to call that woman an adulteress, or the child illegitimate even though the circumstances obtaining at the time of li’an might indicate that the woman was indeed guilty of adultery.

Other areas of agreement among jurists are as follows. First, if anyone reiterates the old charge of adultery against the woman, or brands the child as illegitimate after li‘an, he will receive the hadd punishment for qadhf. Second, the wife does not forfeit her bridal-money as a result of li’ân. She is, however, not entitled to maintenance and accommodation which are prerequisites during her iddah. Third, the wife is no longer lawful for her husband; i.e. he no longer has any right to conjugal relations with her.

As regards areas where jurists disagree with one another, the first is as to how the separation between husband and wife comes into effect after li’ân. The next disputed question is whether the couple can remarry after having been separated as a result of li ’ân.

As regards the former question, namely how the separation between the spouses comes into effect after li’an, Shafi‘i is of the opinion that once the husband completes the li’ân proceedings, the wife stands separated from him regardless of whether she has taken the counter oaths or not. According to Malik, Layth ibn Sa‘d and Zufar, however, the separation comes into effect after both the husband and wife have completed the li'ân procedures. Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani believe that li'ân does not in itself bring about separation. It is rather the courts that effect separation. lt is better if the husband himself divorces his wife or else the judge will announce such a separation.

Let us consider the question as to whether the spouses who are separated as a result of li’ân can ever remarry. Malik, Abu Yusuf, Zufar, Sufyan al-Thawri, Isbaq ibn Rahawayh, Shafi‘i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Hasan ibn Ziyad are of the opinion that they stand forbidden for each other for ever. Even if they mutually agree on remarriage, they are not entitled to do so. ‘Umar, ‘Ali and ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud also share the same opinion. On the contrary, Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyab, Ibrahi m al-Nakha‘i, Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, Abu Hanifah and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani argue that if the husband subsequently admitted that his earlther statement was false, and if he received the hadd punishment for qadhf, then they could remarry. In their opinion, what makes the former husband and wife forbidden is li’an. Hence, they remain forbidden for each other as long as the li’ân lasts. However, once the husband admits that he made a false statement and receives his due punishment for the same, the li’ân is voided, and, thus, the restriction on their remarrying ends.

8. This alludes to the charge levelled against ‘A'ishah. The use of the word ifk (calumny) amounts to the total negation of the charge by God Himself. For ifk literally means to revert a statement, or to alter something making it divergent from the fact. Hence, this word is a synonym for a blatant lie or slander. Employed in the context of a charge, it denotes fabricating a calumny against someone.

The present verse marks the beginning of the discourse which relates to the incident which prompted this surah’s revelation. In the introduction to the surah, we have presented a detailed account of the incident in ‘A’ishah’s own words. That account, however, related to the earlier part of the incident. What follows now is the later part of the narration, and it is again given in ‘A’ishah's own words: Reports about the slander had been in circulation in Madina for almost a month. It made the Prophet (peace be on him) suffer great anguish. I and my parents too were in great distress and felt much disturbed. Finally, the Prophet (peace be on him) came and sat beside me. During all this period he had not sat beside me. [My parents] Abu Bakr and Umm Ruman both felt that some decision was at hand. Hence, they too joined me. The Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘O ‘A'ishah, I have received such and such report about you. If you are innocent, I hope God will proclaim your innocence. If you have committed a sin, you should turn to God and seek His pardon. When a servant of God confesses his sin and repents, God pardons him.’ On hearing this my tears dried up. I requested my father to say something on my behalf. He said that he did not know what to say. I made the same request to my mother who said that she was too perplexed to say anything. Then I said: ‘Something has reached your ears which seems to have convinced you. If I plead my innocence — and God knows that I am innocent — you will not believe me. And if I confess something which I have not done — and God knows that I did not do any such thing — you will believe me.’ [I tried to recall the name of Prophet Jacob (peace be on him) but could not do so]. Then I said that in such circumstances I have no other option but to say what had been said by the Prophet Joseph’s father: ‘So I will be graciously patient’ (Yusuf 12: 83). (this statement alludes to the false charge of stealing against Jacob's son Benjamin.] After saying this, I lay down and turned my side to the other direction. I told myself that since God knows my innocence, He will make the truth evident. It had not occurred to me though that God would proclaim my innocence by revealing a surah which would be recited till the Last Day. I did not consider myself worthy enough to be exonerated by God (in such a manner). What I thought was that the Prophet (peace be on him) would see in a dream that God had exonerated me. In the meanwhile, the Prophet was observed to be in the state in which he received the revelation. Even in extreme cold his face used to be covered with sweat. All of us became quiet. I was devoid of all fear. However, my parents were extremely anxious. They were fearful about the revelation, fearing what would come out of it. When the Prophet (peace be on him) recovered from this state he was much delighted. Smiling, he exclaimed: ‘Congratulations ‘A’ishah! God has exonerated you.’ Then the Prophet recited ten verses of this surah i'.e. verses 11—21]. My mother asked me to rise and thank the Prophet (peace be on him). To this I replied: ‘I will neither thank him nor you [my parents]; I thank God Who has proclaimed my innocence. You never even repudiated the slander against me.’ It is worth clarifying that the above account is not drawn from a single tradition; rather it is a summary of all the traditions about this incident narrated by ‘A’ ishah and recorded in various works of Hadith and Surah. (See Bukhari, K. Tafsir al-Qur’an, surah al-Nur, ‘Bab law la idh sami‘tumuh zann al- Mu’ minun wa al-Mu’ minat bi Anfusihim Khayra’ (verse 12) — Ed.) At this point attention should be drawn to a point that is somewhat subtle. The proclamation of ‘A’ ishah’s innocence was preceded by a whole section devoted to injunctions pertaining to zina, qadhf and li‘an. This seems to intend that accusations against anyone regarding their sexual misconduct should not be taken lightly. It is far too grave an allegation to be used for social entertainment. Anyone who accuses another person of adultery should be ready to produce the required number of witnesses to testify to it. If he does so, those convicted of unlawful sexual relations — be they men or women — will be severed y punished. But if the accuser is lying, then he certainly deserves to receive 80 lashes so that he and others like him are deterred from making such fat.se statements. In case such a. charge is levelled by the husband, he will have to go through the procedure of /i 'in in the courts. In other words, no one can hurl such an accusation at others and go about lightly as if nothing serious had happened.

9. Only a few people have been identifthed in the traditions as those who went about spreading rumors. These are ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, Zayd ibn Rifa‘ah (who was probably the son of Rifa‘ah ibn Zayd, a lewish hypocrite), Mistah ibn Uthathah, Hassan ibn Thabit, and Hamnah bint Jahsh. Two of these, namely ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy and Zayd ibn Rifa‘ah were hypocrites. The rest, however, were believers who out of some weakness or error became a party to this mischief. As for any others who might have had a hand in this affair, the works of Hadith and Surah fail to identify them or the roles they might have played.

10. This is intended to comfort the Prophet (peace be on him). He is being assured that this malicious campaign of slander, which had been engineered by the hypocrites, is bound to boomerang upon them, They, themselves, thought that this would be a significant blow to the Prophet. In point of fact, however, it was destined to hurt the enemies of the Prophet and to prove useful for his cause. As we have pointed out in the introductory part of this surah, the hypocrites deliberately mounted this onslaught, seeking to damage the moral esteem of the Muslims, and it is in this very domain that the superiority of the Muslims was incontrovertible. In fact, it was precisely because of their moral superiority that the Muslims had excelled their rivals in every' field. God in His Wisdom turned the tables on the enemies of Islam and made even this incident a blessing for the Muslims. On this occasion, the conduct of the Prophet as well as Abi Bakr's and the members of his family and the Muslims at large proved beyond any shadow of a doubt how far removed the Muslims were from moral evil, how restrained, forbearing, gracious and strongly disposed they were to fairness and justice. The Muslims were so strongly devoted to the Prophet (peace be on him) that even a slight hint from him would have made them behead those who had dared to launch a malicious attack against his honor. Thereafter, after God's proclamation had been made, the Prophet had only three Muslims punished on the grounds that they were guilty of qadhf.

As for the hypocrites, he took no action against them. Mistah, who was a relative of Abu Bakr and from whom he used to receive financial’ support, had taken a leading part in this slander campaign and yet Abu Bakr proved his graciousness and magnanimity by not severing his familial and social ties with him. Nor did he stop his financial aid to Mistah and his family. The other wives of the Prophet (peace be on him) neither provided any encouragement lo the slander campaign against ‘A’ishah nor did they endorse it. Even Zaynab, whose sister Hamnah bint Jahsh was a party to this campaign, if at all she uttered any words about the matter, they were words of praise and appreciation of ‘A’ishah. According to ‘A’ishah’s own account, among all the wives of the Prophet it was with Zaynab whom her relations were mutually rivalrous. Nevertheless, during this period the Prophet once asked Zaynab's opinion about ‘A’ishah, and Zaynab's reply was: ‘O Messenger of God, by God I know nothing in ‘A ishah except goodness.’ (See Bukhari, k. Tafsir al-Qur’an, Surah al-Nur, ‘Bab law la idh sami‘tumuh ...’(verse 12) — Ed.) ‘A’ishah's own graciousness is evident from the fact that she always treated Hassñn ibn Thabit with much respect and consideration. This despite that fact that he had played a prominent role in the campaign launched against her. When some people drew her attention to Hassan's role in maligning her, she silenced them by saying that Hassan's verses had effectively warded off the attacks of the enemthes against Islam and the Prophet (peace be on him). (See Bukhari, K. Tafsir al-Qur’an, Surah al-Nur, ‘Bab ... yubayyinu Allah lakum al-Ayat’ (verse 18) — Ed.) We have so far discussed the role of those people directly involved in the incident. Let us now turn to the generality of Muslims. Their excellent moral standards are brought into sharp relief in the following report about Abu Ayyub al-Ansari and his wife. When she told him about the slanderous charges that were in circulation, Abu Ayyub said: ‘O mother of Ayyub, had you been in A’ishah’s place, would you have done such a thing?’ To this she replied: ‘By God, I would have never done so.’ Abu Ayyub continued: ‘A ishah is much better than you. Had I been in place of Safwan, such an outrageous thought would not have even crossed my mind. And Safwan is a much better Muslim than I.’ Thus, the hypocrites’ hopes were dashed to the ground. Contrary to their expectations, the moral superiority of the Muslims shone even more brightly in the wake of this incident.

Another redeeming feature occasioned by the incident was the addition of several injunctions, laws and social regulations. Thanks to these, it lies within the power of the Muslim society to keep itself immune from the rise and spread of evil and to expeditiously curb such evil if and when it does raise its head.

Another good that ensued from this incident was that it made the Muslims realize that the Prophet (peace be on him), with all his spiritual loftiness and the very special mission bestowed upon him by God, did not have access to the realm that lies beyond sense-perception. All that he knew pertaining to this realm consisted of what God Himself chose to acquaint him with. Unless God revealed anything pertaining to this realm, the Prophet's knowledge was like that of any other human being. We note that for one full month the Prophet (peace be on him) remained in great anguish. Sometimes he would ask his maid servant, then his other wives, and then ‘Ali and Usamah about the matter. Likewise, he told ‘A’ishah: ‘If you have committed this act, you should repent and if you are not guilty, God will proclaim your innocence.’ If he had known the Unseen, he would not have conducted such an investigation, nor would he have asked ‘A ishah to repent. It was only God Who clarified the whole matter and the Prophet (peace be on him) came to know — thanks to His revelation — what he had been unable to know for a whole month.

This enabled the Muslims to learn by direct experience that they should abstain from that exaggerated and excessive veneration which had characterized the attitude of the followers of other religions towards their religious leaders. Presumably God had delayed revealing the truth of this matter for one full month in order to drive this point home to the Muslims. Had the whole matter been instantly revealed this lesson would probably not have been imparted so effectively.

11. This is an allusion to ‘Abd Allah ibn Ubayy who had concocted the calumnious allegation and who was the master-mind behind the slander campaign. Some traditions mistakenly identify Hassan ibn Thabit as the one to whom this verse alludes. However, such a view stems from a misunderstanding on the part of the narrators of those traditions. As for Hassan ibn Thabit, at the very most his lapse constituted no more than his being carried away by the propaganda campaign launched by the hypocrites. Ibn Kathir is quite right in saying that had there not been a tradition in Bukhari on this matter implicating Hassan ibn Thabit it would not even have been worth considering.

The greatest lie, rather the greatest calumny in this connection is the statement by Hisham ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Caliph, that the present verse refers to ‘Ali. It is reported in Bukhari, Tabarani and Bayhaqi that Hisham ibn ‘Abd at-Malik considered the words al-ladhi tawallâ kibrahu to refer to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. However, ‘Ali was not at all involved in the incident. All that happened was that ‘Ali found the Prophet (peace be on him) highly agitated about the matter and that he asked ‘Ali for advice. On this occasion ‘Ali said that God had placed no restriction on the Prophet (peace be on him) in this matter. There were many women and if he so wished, he might divorce ‘A’ishah and marry some other woman. This did not mean at all that ‘Ali endorsed the slanderous charge that had been made against ‘A'ishah. ‘Ali's only concern was that the distress of the Prophet (peace be on him) should come to an end.

12. Alternatively, this may be translated as ‘why did believing men and women not think well of their own folk’. Both translations seem equally sound. Moreover, there seems a subtlety in the phrasing of the verse which we should attempt to grasp. The bare facts of the incident relating to ‘A’ishah and Safwan ibn al-Mu'attal are as follows: A lady,’ who was a member of a caravan, was left behind and so was a male member of the caravan, who later saw her and asked her to mount his camel. Now, for someone to believe that the two necessarily l. Let us disregard for a moment that she belonged to the Prophet's house.

engaged in a sinful relationship assumes other things. First, that if he (or she) had been placed in the same position he/she would necessarily have committed that sin, because if he/she did not commit that sinful act it was because no member of the other sex was available to him/her in a similar circumstance. Had that been available, he/she would certainly have availed himself/herself of the opportunity to engage in sinful conduct. Second, that his/her impression about the society to which he/she belongs is that all its members, male or female, are so degenerate that they would not shrink from making use of any opportunity to act sinfully.

This would be the presupposition if the man and woman were strangers to one another. But the matter becomes far more grave if they happened to come from the same place. For in such a case the woman who was accidentally left behind by the caravan would either be the wife, sister or daughter of one of the man's friends, relatives, neighbors or acquaintances. In that case, it would mean that the accuser holds a very poor opinion of his own society — a society that is absolutely devoid of moral values. For it is unthinkable for a decent person to come across a woman belonging to the family of a friend, relative or acquaintance, and that the first thing he does is violate her honor.

In this particular case, such an assumption is in fact far more outrageous. For the woman in question was none other than a wife of the Prophet (peace be on him) and every Muslim regards the wives of the Prophet as even more honorable than his own mother. In fact, all the wives of the Prophet had been made absolutely forbidden to the Muslims, forbidden in the same way as their own mothers. Moreover, such an assumption was being entertained about a person who was in the same caravan, who was a soldier of the same army, und who was an inhabitant of the same town. Above all, he was a Muslim who believed that the husband of the woman in question was none other than the Messenger of God, one upon whom he looked as his guide and leader, one at whose command he had put his own life at stake in a battle as dangerous as that of Badr.

Viewed against this background, the utter outrageousness of the mental disposition which prompted this accusation can be seen in its full starkness. Hardly anything could have been more degrading and despicable. It is for this reason that God characterizes those who levelled this accusation as those who form a very poor estimate of themselves as well as a very poor estimate of the character and conduct of other members of their society.

13. That is, the idea was too ignoble even to be considered for a moment. Every Muslim should have dismissed it outright as a blatant lie, as a piece of mischievous fabrication, as an outrageous calumny. It might well be asked then, that if it was such an outrageous lie, why did the Prophet (peace be on him) and Abu Bakr not deny it on the very first day and why did they attach such importance to it? A husband and a father in such a situation have a position that is different from that of others. No one knows a woman better than her husband, and a sane husband cannot be misled by a slander campaign against his righteous and pious wife. However, if his wife is made the target of such a campaign, he is not in the best position to dismiss it out of hand, branding it a baseless calumny. Such an attitude is likely to provide grounds for the false notion that the husband is too hen-pecked to be able to dispassionately consider the relevant facts about his wife. In like manner, parents are also exposed to the same difficulty. Their out-of- hand dismissal of an accusation against their daughter helps little to clarify their daughter's position. For their rejection of the charge is likely to be taken as a mere expression of parental love and affection. This then is what consumed the Prophet (peace be on him) as also Abu Bakr and his wife Umm Ruman. Obviously, they did not have the slightest doubt about ‘A’ishah's character and conduct. As for the Prophet (peace be on him), he publicly declared, in his address, that he had seen nothing bad either in ’A ishah's character or in Safwan's. (See Bukhari, K. al-Maghâzi, ‘Bab Hadith al-Ifk’ — Ed.) 14. ‘In the sight of Allah here means ‘according to the Law of Allah’. For God obviously knew full well that the accusation was absolutely false. The falsity of the accusation did not rest on the fact that the accusers failed to produce witnesses. There should be no misunderstanding at this stage that the charge was rejected just on the grounds that it was not substantiated by the evidence of witnesses. Nor are Muslims being asked to regard that charge as a calumnious slander merely on the grounds that it was not borne out by the testimony of four witnesses.

Such a misunderstanding could arise if one fails to grasp the nature of the incident. The accusers had not levelled the allegation because they themselves, or any others, had observed the monstrosity which they claimed had taken place. They built up such a large charge merely on the grounds that ‘A'ishah, who had been left behind, was subsequently brought back by Safwan on his camel.

No sensible person can even consider that ‘A’ishah's being left behind was part of some pre-arranged scheme. Anyone who contrived such a scheme would not have committed the obvious mistake of appearing with ‘A'ishah in broad daylight to rejoin the caravan which had by then pitched camp. The actual chain of events itself points to the innocence of both ‘A'ishah and Safwan. In such circumstances if any charge could have been so ‘levelled it would have been only on the grounds of first-hand observation of the incident. For there was absolutely no prima facie ground, no circumstantial evidence, to support such a serious charge.

15. These verses, and especially God's reproach embodied in these words: why did the believing men and women not think well of themselves ...?’ are very significant. In fact, they provide an important general principle: that all affairs of the Muslim society be based on the reciprocity of good faith. What this means is that unless proved otherwise, a Muslim should hold a good opinion about other Muslims. The basic principle is that a person should be deemed innocent unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty, or at least that there are grounds to suspect him of being guilty. Likewise, every person is true in whatever he says unless there exist grounds to believe otherwise.

16. In this context the meaning of the verse is that those who engage in fabricating and publicizing shameful allegations so that Muslim society succumbs to immoral ways and its moral stature is undermined, deserve to be punished. The words used in the verse embrace all the various forms that might be used to spread moral corruption and lewd behavior including those means employed to awaken sexual passion, be they poetry, song, fiction, pictures, plays and drama. These also include clubs and hotels which provide dancing and other forms of obscene entertainment involving the mixed participation of men and women. The Qur’an declares such people to be criminals, those who deserve punishment not only in the Hereafter but also in this world. It is, therefore, the responsibility of an Islamic State to extirpate all the means which promote obscenity. The penal law of an Islamic State should declare these as cognizable offences since the Qur’an characterizes them as crimes against public order. In the same vein, the Qur'an prescribes punishments for all those who are guilty of such offences.

17. Man might not know, but God certainly does, the adverse effects such acts have on society and Muslims should, therefore, trust God and devote all their energy and resources to putting an end to the evils which have been identified by Him. These are not minor offences which might be overlooked. Rather, they are grave and those guilty of them should be severely punished.

18. Satan is determined to bog man down in the filth of evil. Had God, out of His sheer Grace and Benevolence, not made what is good distinct from what is evil and had He not shown man the Right Way and enabled him to reform himself accordingly, no one would have been able to purify his own life merely on the basis of his native endowments.

19. God does not arbitrarily endow people with the ability to purify themselves. Rather, He does so on the basis of His knowledge as to u ho sincerely seeks the Right Way and who seeks error. So pervasive is God's knowledge that He hears what people say in their own privacy and He knows the ideas that cross a man's mind. Hence, God decides on a sound and solid basis whom He enables to purify himself and whom He does not.

20. ‘A’ishah reports that after her exoneration by the Qur’an, Abu Bakr discontinued the financial help he provided to Mistah ibn Uthathah. This he did because Mistah showed neither consideration for kinship nor felt ashamed in acting so wickedly towards his daughter despite Abu Bakr's munificence to him and his family. It was against this backdrop that the above verse was revealed. On hearing it Abu Bakr instantly cried out: ‘Yes, Allah! We do want You, Our Lord, to forgive us.’ (See Bukhari, k. Tafsi‘r al-Quran, Surah al-Nur, ‘Bab inna al-ladhina yuhibbun ‘an tashi’ al-Fahishah — Ed.)

He then resumed his financial help to Mistah anal did so on an even bigger scale.

According to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, some other Companions, in addition to Abu Bakr, vowed not to extend any help to those who had taken part in the slander campaign. But after the revelation of this verse they too recanted their vow. Thus the bitterness and hostility which had been engendered by the slander campaign instantly dissipated.

Here we may also consider a legal question: if someone takes a vow and later realizes that there is no good in it, should he honor the vow or break it and make expiation for it? According to some jurists such expiation (kaffarah) is not required. That a person opts for that which is good in itself constitutes the expiation for breaking the vow. They support this opinion by referring to this verse and point out that God directed Abu Bakr to break his vow without asking him to make any expiation for so doing. Moreover, they cite the following statement made by the Prophet (peace be on him) in support of their view: ‘If someone vows and later realizes that the other option is better, he should go for the better option and that constitutes its expiation.’

Another group of jurists, however, refer to the categorical injunctions of the Qur'an about breaking a vow (see al-Baqarah 2: 225 and al-Ma'idah 5: 89). The verse under discussion neither abrogates nor categorically modifies this injunction. Hence, it should be considered as still being in force. Moreover, in the verse under discussion God asked Abu Bakr to break his vow but He did not specify that he was exempt from the expiation necessitated by such an act. As for the Prophet's statement, it implies that the sin incurred by making an improper vow is atoned for by opting for that which is better. The statement does not mean though that if one adopts the preferable option, one need not expiate oneself for breaking the vow. In another hadith the Prophet (peace be on him) says: 'He who vows and later realizes that something is better than that, he should follow what is better and make expiation for his broken vow.' We thus learn that expiation for breaking a vow is one thing, but expiation for the sin of not doing good is quite another. Taking a better option when one realizes that such is available in preference to what one had vowed constitutes the expiation for the earlier mistake. As for the expiation for breaking one's vow, this is laid down in the Qur'an. > (See Tafhim al-Qur'an, vol. 4, Surah Sad 38, n. 46.)

21. The word ghafilat is used in this verse to characterize believing women [who have been subjected, despite their excellent character, to outrageous accusations]. They are described here as simple, straightforward, honorable and decent women who are void of all the cunning that characterizes women of bad character. They are essentially so good that they are not even aware of devious ways of corruption and how people go about them. Being essentially (25) On that Day Allah will justly requite them, and they will come to know that Allah - and He alone - is the truth, the One who makes the truth manifest. (26) Corrupt women are for corrupt men, and corrupt men for corrupt women. Good women are for good men, and good men for good women. They are innocent of the calumnies people utter.22 There shall be forgiveness for them and a generous provision.

good they are unable to imagine that people would make them targets of outrageous accusations of sexual misconduct. The Prophet (peace be on him) branded the slandering of chaste women as among the seven deadly sins. A tradition in Tabarani on the authority of Hudhayfah mentions that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'To slander a chaste woman nullifies all one's good deeds of one hundred years.'

2la. For further details, see Tafhim al-Qur'an, vol. 4, Ya sin 36, n. 55 and Fussilat 41, n. 25.

22. This verse expounds a general principle: that evil men and evil women make a good match. Likewise, righteous men are instinctively drawn towards righteous women in their choice of life-partners. Anyone who is disposed towards evil, never stops at doing just one evil act. Instead, his conduct and habits embrace the whole gamut of evil that supports and nourishes him. For it is not possible for evil to overtake someone who is otherwise a good person. It is inconceivable for evil to suddenly burst forth from a man whose general conduct and pattern of behavior display no indications of it.

This psychological fact about people is well known. Now, how can anyone believe that a man of such outstandingly excellent character as the Prophet would put up with and have tender feelings for a woman guilty of gross sexual misconduct? It is, therefore, all the more surprising that some Muslims gave credence to a report which insinuated that someone as pure as the Prophet (peace be on him) had put up with such a woman. How could the Prophet spend such a long time with her and yet her ways, her gait, her mode of conversation and her gestures not betray her true character? By the same token, is it conceivable that a man possessed of purity of soul and excellent moral character would live happily with a woman of such low character? (27) Believers!23 Enter not houses other than your own houses until you have ascertained the approval24 of the inmates of those houses and have greeted them with peace. This is better for you. It is expected that you will observe this.25>-

This point is made so as to caution Muslims against blindly accepting similar charges in the future. In other words, they would be well advised to critically look into the conduct of the accused, to consider the nature of the accusation and to arrive at some judgement as to whether the incident reported could indeed have taken place or not. There should at least be some prima facie ground for the charge that is made. A report cannot be given credence simply on the basis that it has been narrated by someone. If there is some ground for the accusation one may believe it, or at any rate regard it as within the range of possibilities. But if something strange is reported - something for which there seems no supporting basis — it should not be accepted merely because someone - who at any rate might be a fool or scoundrel - has reported it.

Some commentators of the Qur'an interpret the present verse to mean that evil things are for evil people, meaning thereby that evil things are worthy of evil people. Conversely, good things behoove good people, implying that they are to be exonerated of the evil acts attributed to them by their opponents. Other scholars consider this verse to mean that evil deeds are done by evil people whereas good deeds are worthy of being done by good people. Good people are far above the level of evil conduct that is ascribed to them by evil people.

Other scholars interpret the verse to mean that evil deeds are committed by evil people and good deeds by good people. Good people cannot engage in the evil deeds which are ascribed to them by slanderers.

All these meanings may be derived from this verse. It appears, however, that the first meaning is the correct one, especially in view of the context in which it occurs.

23. The injunctions laid down in the early part of this surah aimed at remedying evils after they had appeared in society. They suggest how to deal with mischief once it has erupted. The injunctions that follow, those laid down w the present and following verses, aim at preventing the rise of evil and mischief. They aim at reforming man's collective life and at removing the causes which give rise to such evil.

Before studying these injunctions, it is necessary to clearly grasp the following points: (i) The laying down of these injunctions immediately after commenting on the slander incident clearly indicates that God viewed the levelling of an utterly false accusation against a person as august as the Prophet's wife and the spread of that accusation to be related to the social milieu, i.e. one which was charged with excessive sexuality. In order to change this sexually-charged milieu, it was necessary that people no longer be free to enter each other's houses; that men and women who were not related to each other should no longer be free to mix with each other; that women not be allowed to appear before unrelated males in a state that might allure the latter; that prostitution be altogether banned; that both men and women be discouraged from leading unmarried lives, and that even slaves, male and female, should be encouraged to marry. In other words, in 'God's sight the public appearance of women in an alluring manner and the presence of a large number of unmarried people in society were the two main causes which endowed the social milieu with excessive sexuality. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Bab fi al-Isti'dhan' - Ed.) Precisely because of these reasons, people were more willing to indulge in and enjoy scandals, be they real or imaginary. So in order to reform this situation, God in His wisdom laid down injunctions that were most-appropriate, most suitable, and most effective. (ii) The concerns of the Shari'ah are not confined to forbidding evil and prescribing punishment for those who so commit evil. The Shari'ah rather seeks to remove the causes which either prompt, or create opportunities, or even compel people to indulge in those evils. Apart from forbidding offences, the Shari'ah also seeks to do away with the causes of those offences, as also with the factors that prompt people to commit them. This is done in order to prevent men from getting even close to evil. The role of the Shari'ah is not simply that of a prosecutor, but also of a sincere guide and counsellor. It, therefore, has recourse to all possible educational, moral and social measures so as to help people stay away from evil.

24. The words that are actually used in this verse are hatta tasta 'nisu. They are, however, generally taken to mean hatta tasta'dhinu. There is, however, a subtle difference between the two expressions which should not be overlooked. Had the Qur'an used the latter expression it would have meant: 'Do not enter others' houses unless you have obtained the permission of those who live in them.' The Qur'an, however, opted for the former expression: hatta tasta'nisu. As it is, the expression is derived from the root word (alif nun sin), and signifies one's having become familiar and friendly. Taken in this sense, the verse means: 'Do not enter others' houses unless you have become familiar with the inmates of those houses, or until you have ascertained that they feel at ease [at your entering their houses].' In other words, before entering a house one should make sure that the host is favorably disposed to oneself and one's visit. Our translation makes allowance for this subtle nuance. Moreover, in our opinion this interpretation is closer to the import of the verse.

25. In the days of Jahiltyah, the Arabs were accustomed to greeting the occupants of a house with expressions such as ('good morning' or 'good evening'). So saying, they would barge into each other's houses. Because of this sudden entry into the houses of others, accusationally they would find the occupants, especially women, in improper states. In order to avoid this, God laid down the rule that everyone has a right to privacy in his own house and it is not lawful to enter anyone's private quarters without the latter's consent.

Soon after the revelation of this verse the Prophet (peace be on him) promulgated certain laws and rules of behavior, which are mentioned below:

(i) The Prophet (peace be on him) declared the right to privacy a general rule. The result is that a person may not enter someone else's house without the prior consent of its occupant. This right to privacy became quite pervasive. As a result, people were also forbidden to peep into others' houses, or to look at them from the outside, so much so that people were not allowed to read letters addressed to anyone else without his/her permission. According to Thawban, a freed slave of the Prophet, the Prophet said: 'If someone's sight enters [a person's house] then there remains no occasion for seeking permission [to enter the house].' (Abu Da'ud, see loc. cit. - Ed.) According to Huzayl ibn Shurahbil, someone came to the Prophet's house and sought permission while standing right in front of the door to the house. The Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Stand aside. The permission solicited is the permission to see' (Abu Da'ud). When the Prophet (peace be on him) visited someone he used to make a point of not standing in front of the door for in those days there used to be no curtains at the doors. He would stand on either side of the door and seek permission to enter. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Bab al-kam Marrah yusuallim al-Rajul fi al-Isti'dhan' - Ed.) Anas, who had the honor of serving the Prophet, says that once someone peeped into the Prophet's chamber and that at that moment the Prophet (peace be on him) had an arrow in his hand. The Prophet advanced towards him as though he was about to pierce the arrow into his belly. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Bab fi al-Isti'dhan' - Ed.) It is also reported by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Whoever looks at the letter of his brother without his permission, it is as though he was peeping at the fire.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Salah, 'Bab al-Du'a' - Ed.)

In works of Hadith one also finds the following tradition from the Prophet (peace be on him): 'If someone peeps into the living quarters of others, and if the latter knocks out his eye by throwing grit, they will not be taken to task for the loss of that person's eye.' (See Bukhari, K. al-Diyat, 'Bab man ittala'a ft Bayt Qawm fa faqa'u 'Aynah . . .' and Muslim, K. al-Adab, 'Bab Tahrim al-Nazar fi Bayt Ghayrih' - Ed.) Another hadith makes almost the same point: 'If a man peeps into a house, and the dwellers of the house gouge out his eye, they will not be held accountable for the loss of the eye.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Babfi al-Isti'dhan' -Ed.)

Shafi'i takes this hadith in its literal sense, considering it permissible to gouge out the eye of one who peeps into your house. The Hanafis, however, interpret the verse somewhat differently. They contend that the Qur'anic injunction is not applicable in the case of simply casting a glance. Rather, if someone enters a house without permission and fails to stop though asked to do so by the members of that household, it is permissible for them to restrain him and they will not be taken to task if, during the course of their efforts his eye or any limb is damaged (Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 3).

(ii) Some jurists are of the opinion that the interdiction against looking into someone's house also applies to trying to hear conversations which take place in that house. For example, if a blind person enters someone's house without the latter's permission, he would, of course, not be able to see anything but he could listen to the householder's conversation without their permission. This too constitutes a violation of another's privacy.

(iii) The injunction to seek permission before entering is not specific to entering the houses of strangers. One is required to do the same while entering the homes of close relatives. In fact, one is required to seek permission even from such close relatives as one's mother and sister. Someone asked the Prophet (peace be on him): 'Should I seek the permission of my mother when I visit her?' The Prophet (peace be on him) replied in the affirmative. He again submitted: 'There is no one besides me to attend to her. Should I seek her permission every time I visit her?' The Prophet (peace be on him) replied: 'Would you like to see your mother naked?' (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari has cited this mursal tradition on the authority of 'Ata' ibn Yasar, Muwatta', K. al-Isti 'dhan - Ed.) 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud's own opinion about the question is as follows: 'One should seek permission while visiting one's mother and sister' (Ibn Kathir). 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud also says that even when one goes to one's wife in one's own house one should give some indication of one's approach, by for example, clearing one's throat before entering. His wife, Zaynab, reports that before entering the house 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud used to indicate that he was about to enter, thus avoiding any suddenness (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari).

(iv) The only exemption from the requirement to obtain prior permission before entering someone's house is in situations of emergency. For example, in the event of fire or burglary, etc., one may enter a house without seeking prior permission.

(v) When the practice of seeking permission to enter someone's house was introduced, people were not familiar with its niceties. Once someone visited the Prophet (peace be on him) and while standing at the door he yelled: 'Should I enter?' The Prophet (peace be on him) told his slave-girl that the visitor was not aware of the proper way of seeking permission to enter someone's house. He asked her to tell the visitor that the proper way to seek permission was to say: 'Al-Salamu 'Alaykum. May I enter?' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Bab kayfa al-Isti'dhan' -Ed.) Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah narrates that once he went to the Prophet's house in connection with the debts of his late father and as he knocked at the Prophet's door the latter asked: 'Who are you?' I replied: 'This is me.' The Prophet (peace be on him) repeated the statement 'This is me', two or three times, meaning that it could not be made out from such a statement who the visitor was. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Bab al-Rajul yasta'dhin bi al-Daqq' - Ed.) Kaldah ibn Hanbal visited the Prophet (peace be on him) and took his seat without greeting him. The Prophet asked him to go out and re-enter after a proper greeting. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Bab kayfa al-Isti'dhan' - Ed.) The correct way to seek permission is to first mention one's name and then seek permission to enter the house. It is said that whenever 'Umar came to the Prophet (peace be on him) he would say: 'Peace be on you, O Messenger of God! May 'Umar enter?' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Bab fi al-Rajul yufariq al-Rajul thumma yalqah a-yusallim 'alayh' -Ed.) The Prophet (peace be on him) also stated that a person should seek permission no more than three times. If there was no response after that, the visitor should go away. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Bab kam Marrah yusallim al-Rajul fi al-Isti'dhan' - Ed.) The Prophet (peace be on him) himself followed this practice. Once he went to visit Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah and sought permission twice after greeting him. Still there was no response. When the Prophet (peace be on him) repeated the same for a third time and there was no response, he was about to leave. It was then that Sa'd ibn 'Ubadah rushed out, saying: 'O Messenger of God! I was listening. I thought that the greater the number of times that your blessed tongue mentions the Prayer of peace and mercy for me, the better it is. I, therefore, answered you in an almost inaudible voice.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Adab, 'Bab kam Marrah yusallim al-Rajul fi al-Isti'dhan' - Ed.) Likewise, one should not seek permission intermittently. There-should rather be a pause after the permission is sought so that if the host is preoccupied with something, there is enough time for him to free himself of it and respond.

(vi) The owner of the house or any other person authorized by him, such as a servant or any other responsible person, should grant the visitor permission to enter. If only a child tells the visitor to enter, the latter should not enter on that basis.

(vii) It is not proper for a visitor to insist that permission necessarily be granted; indeed, one should go away if permission is refused. If one seeks permission three times and yet fails to obtain it, or if the host refuses to meet with one, the visitor should better return at some later date.

26. It is not permissible to enter someone's house unless the master of the house has granted prior permission to do so. For example, it would even be proper for a visitor to enter a house if the master of the house were absent providing such permission had been granted. However, it would not be proper for a visitor to enter a house without obtaining due permission from the master.

27. A person should not feel offended if someone refuses a meeting. For a person is perfectly within his rights to refuse meeting someone or to excuse himself from such a meeting if he is preoccupied with something else. According to jurists, once permission is refused, the visitor should not remain standing in front of the house. He should rather move away. No one has the right to force anyone to meet with him or to bother him by adamantly standing at his door.

28. This refers to public places such as hotels, guest houses, shops and other places which everyone is entitled to enter without obtaining any specific permission to do so.

29. The words used here are yaghuddu min absarihim. Literally the word ghadd denotes reducing or lowering something. The words ghadd al-basar, therefore, are usually translated as 'lowering one's gaze' or 'keeping one's gaze downwards'. This Qur'anic directive does not mean, however, that one should always gaze downwards. What it really means is that one should not look thoroughly at a certain thing; that one should not allow one's eyes to be unfettered in looking. In other words, one should avoid looking at things which it is improper to look at. This may be achieved either by avoiding looking at something by turning one's gaze away or by lowering it. Once again, the words min absarihim signify that some, rather than every kind of looking needs to be avoided. The use of the preposition min implies this. In other words, God does not intend that people should not look thoroughly at anything. God only wants that they should exercise restraint in looking at certain things. It becomes evident from the context that this directive is addressed to those men who focus their gaze on women, or who cast their glances at others' private parts, or who intentionally look at obscene objects.

Let us see then how this Qur'anic injunction is explained by the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be on him):

(i) It is not permissible for a male to fix his gaze on a woman other than his wife or on women who are forbidden him in marriage. If he sees someone accidentally, then he is not blameworthy. What is reprehensible, however, is that he should cast his gaze at women towards whom he feels attracted, and that he repeats this act. In the Prophet's view, this is tantamount to adultery of the eye. He said that a person can indulge in unlawful sex through all his senses. To fix one's gaze on someone is the unlawful sex of the eye. To woo and cajole a woman constitutes an act of unlawful sex by the tongue. To seek enjoyment via a woman's charming voice is adultery of the ears. To touch someone with sexual passion and to proceed towards someone under the influence of sexual passion represents adultery of the hands and feet. After these preliminary acts comes the role of the sexual organs: they either go forth to the stage of culmination of the sexual act or they abstain from doing so. (See Bukhari, K. al-isti 'dhan, 'Bab Zina at-Jawarih dun al-Farj', Muslim, K. al-Qadar, 'Bab Qadar 'ala ibn Adam Khatar min al-Zina wa Ghayrih' and Abu Da'ud, K. al-Nikah, 'Bab fi ma yu'mar bih min Ghadd al-Basar' - Ed.)

According to a tradition narrated by Buraydah, the Prophet (peace be on him) told 'Ali ibn Abi Talib: 'O 'Ali Let the first glance not be followed by the other. You may cast the first glance, not the second.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Nikah, 'Bab fi ma yu'mar bih min Ghadd al-Basar' and Tirmidhi, K. al-Adab, 'Bab ma ja' fi' al-Nazar min al-Mufaja'ah' - Ed.) Jarir ibn 'Abd Allah said that he asked the Prophet (peace be on him): 'What should I do if I see a woman by sheer chance?' He replied: Turn your gaze away or lower it.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Nikah, 'Bab fi ma yu'mar bih min Ghadd al-Basar', Tirmidhi, K. al-Adab, 'Bab ma ja' fi al-Nazar min al-Mufaja'ah' and Muslim, K. al-Adab, 'Bab Nazar al-Faj'ah' - Ed.) It is narrated on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'God says: "Glance is one of the deadly arrows of Satan. He who forsakes it out of fear for Me, I shall grant him in lieu of that a faith whose sweetness he shall find in his heart".' (Tabarani.)

Abu Umamah narrates that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'There is not a Muslim who, after observing the attractions of a woman turns his gaze away, but Allah will cause his worship to become palatable to him.' (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 5, p. 264 - Ed.) According to a tradition on the authority of Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah al-Ansari narrated by al-Sadiq and his father, Muhammad al-Baqir, the Prophet's cousin, Fadl ibn 'Abbas, who was a young man at that time, was riding a camel with the Prophet while returning from al-Mash'ar al-Haram on the occasion of the Prophet's Farewell Pilgrimage. When women began to pass, the Prophet (peace be on him) put his hand on Fadl's face and turned it in the opposite direction. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Manasik, 'Bab al-RajulYahujj 'an Ghayrih' - Ed.) Another tradition states that during the same Farewell Pilgrimage a woman, belonging to the Khath'am tribe, stopped the Prophet (peace be on him) and asked him to clarify a point about Pilgrimage while Fadl ibn 'Abbas fixed his gaze on her. The Prophet (peace be on him) thus held him by the face and turned it in the other direction. (Bukhari, K. al-Hajj, 'Bab Wujub al-Hajj wa Fadlih . . .' and Abu Da'ud, K. al-Manasik, 'Bab al-Rajul Yahujj 'an Ghayrih' - Ed.)

(ii) This should not, however, give rise to the misunderstanding that the Qur'anic command to lower one's gaze was prescribed at a time when women were allowed to move around with their faces uncovered. Some have argued, for example, that if the faces of women were already covered, the directive would be pointless. Such a view is both irrational and contrary to the actual facts. The assumption underlying this argument is not tenable because even in a society where women kept their faces covered, there were occasions when a man and a woman might quite accidentally come face to face. Moreover, even a woman who kept her face covered might uncover it for one reason or another. Furthermore, even if Muslim women covered their faces, non-Muslim women were likely to move around with uncovered faces. Hence, the injunction that people should lower their gaze does not warrant the conclusion that the injunction concerned could have been given only in a society in which women did not keep their faces covered.

Our contention that such a presupposition is incorrect is established by the fact that the covering of their faces by women was a part of the lifestyle which came into vogue in Muslim society after the revelation of the injunctions about hijab in Surah al-Ahzab. Moreover, sufficient historical evidence is available to show that women covering their faces was practiced by Muslim women in the time of the Prophet (peace be on him). This point is borne out by an authentic tradition narrated by 'A'ishah in connection with the slander incident. This tradition has also been reported by chains of reliable narrators. 'A'ishah says that after her return from the open space, away from the camp, where she had gone to answer the call of nature, she discovered that she had been left behind and the caravan had moved ahead. She sat down and was so overcome with fatigue that she lay down and slept. Safwan passed that way in the morning and spotted someone lying on the ground as he drew closer. As soon as he saw her he recognized her, for he had seen her before the [revelation of the injunction regarding] hijab. When he recognized her and exclaimed inna lillah wa inna ilayh' raji'un she woke up and covered her face with her jilbab. (See Bukhari, K. al-Maghazi, 'Bab Hadith al-Ifk' - Ed.) (The Arabic text quoted here does not mention inna lillah - Ed.)

According to another tradition, the son of Umm Khallad had attained martyrdom in a battle. To enquire about him, she went to the Prophet (peace be on him) with a veil covering her face. This amazed some Companions who said to her in astonishment: 'Even in this state your face is covered?' What they meant was that the calamity with which she had been afflicted usually makes a woman oblivious to such things as dressing herself properly. To this she replied: 'I have lost my son, not my modesty.' (See Abu Da'ud, Kitab al-Jihad, 'Bab Fadl Qital al-Rum 'ala Ghayrihim min al-Umam' - Ed.) There is yet another tradition narrated by 'A'ishah that someone presented a paper to the Prophet (peace be on him) from behind a curtain. The Prophet asked whether that hand was of a man or of a woman. On being told that it was the hand of a woman, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'If she is a woman, she should have dyed her nails with henna.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Tarajjul, 'Bab fi al-Khidab li al-Nisa" - Ed.)

As for the two incidents during the Farewell Pilgrimage they cannot be cited as proof that veiling of the face was not observed in the days of the Prophet (peace be on him). For in the state of ihram, it is forbidden to use niqab to cover the face. In fact, some women who are sensitive about veiling do not uncover their faces before unrelated males even during the state of ihram. 'A'ishah narrates that during the Farewell Pilgrimage while they were on their way to Makka in the state of ihram, they covered their faces when other pilgrims passed by but once they had gone they uncovered their faces. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Manasik, 'Bab fi al-Mahramah tughatti Wajhaha' - Ed.)

(iii) The only exceptions to this rule are those circumstances in which there is a genuine need to see a woman, e.g. seeing a woman whom one intends to marry. In this case, it is not only permissible to see her; it is in fact desirable that one should do so. Mughirah ibn Shu'bah narrates: 'I proposed to someone. The Prophet (peace be on him) asked me whether I had seen my prospective bride. When I replied in the negative, he said: "You better see her, for it might prompt a better understanding between the two of you." ' (See Tirmidhi, K. al-Nikah, 'Bab ma ja' fi al-Nazar ila al-Makhtubah' -Ed.)

Abu Hurayrah narrates that someone proposed to a woman. The Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'You better see her because the Ansar women [usually] have some defect in their eyes.' (See Muslim, K. al-Nikah, 'Bab Nudb al-Nazar ila Wajh al-Mar'ah wa Kaffayha li man yurid Tazawwajaha' - Ed.) Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah narrates that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'When any of you makes engagement with a woman, he should see whether she has something that would prompt him to marry her.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Nikah, 'Bab fi al-Rajul yanzur ila al-Mar'ah wa huwa yurld Tazwajaha" - Ed.) A tradition on the authority of Abu Humaydah states that the Prophet (peace be on him) was asked whether one could see his prospective bride. According to Abu Humaydah the Prophet (peace be on him) replied that there was no harm in it. He also allowed that a person may even see her without her knowledge. (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 5, p. 424 - Ed.) Accordingly, jurists have inferred that it is permissible for a person to see a woman whenever there is any need to do so, for example, to see a suspect woman during interrogation. Likewise, a judge may see a female witness at the time she gives evidence, or a doctor may examine a female patient.

(iv) The purpose of this command, to look away, also implies that no one should look at the satr (the parts of the body which ought to remain covered) of a male or female. The Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'No male should look at the satr of another male or a female at the satr of another female.' (See Muslim, K. al-Haya, 'Bab Tahrim al-Nazar ila al-'Awrat' and TirmidhI, K. al-Adab, 'Bab fi Karahiyat Mubasharat al-Rijal al-Rijal wa al-Mar'ah al-Mar'ah' - Ed.) 'All said that the Prophet (peace be on him) said to him: 'Do not look at the thigh of a person, be he alive or dead.' (Abu Da'ud, K. al-Hammam, 'Bab al-Nahy 'an al-Ta'arri' - Ed.)

30. The directive 'to guard one's private parts' does not simply aim at dissuading people from engaging in unlawful satisfaction of their sexual passions. It also seeks to prevent people exposing their satr before others. For men, the satr denotes the entire part of the body from the naval to the knee. (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 187 - Ed.) It is forbidden to deliberately expose one's satr before anyone other than one's wife. Jarhad al-Aslami reports that once his thigh became exposed while he was sitting in the Prophet's company. The Prophet (peace be on him) said to him: 'Do you not know that the thigh should be covered?' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Hammam, 'Bab al-Nahy 'an al-Ta'arri' - Ed.) 'All reports that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Never expose your thigh [before others than your wife].' (See loc. cit.) It is prohibited to be naked even when one is alone, let alone in the presence of others. The Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Beware! Do not remain nude. For there are angels of goodness and mercy who never part your company except when you go to answer the call of nature or when you approach your wives. Be shy of them [i.e. those angels] and hold them in respect.' (See Tirmidhi, K. al-Adab, 'Bab fi al-Istitar 'ind al-Jima" - Ed.) According to another tradition, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Guard your satr except when you are in the company of your wife or slave-girl.' Someone asked the Prophet (peace be on him) what should one do when one is all alone? The Prophet (peace be on him) replied: 'God has greater rights over His servants that they should be shy of Him.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Hammam, 'Bab ma ja" fi al-Ta'arri and Tirmidhi, K. al-Adab, 'Bab ma ja' fi Hifz al-'Awrah' - Ed.) (31) And enjoin believing women to restrain their gaze31 and guard their private parts32 and33 additionally not to reveal their adornment34 except that which is revealed of itself;

31. On the whole, the rules pertaining to restraining one's looks are to be followed by men as well as by women. So similarly, if women accidentally happen to see a male, they should look away. Like men, they should also refrain from looking at the satr of others.

There is, however, a slight difference in the detailed ruling about women looking at men as compared with men looking at women. For in one hadith we come across an incident whereby Umm Salamah and Maymunah are sitting with the Prophet (peace be on him). Ibn Umm Maktum also arrived there. The Prophet (peace be on him) asked both of his wives to observe hijab from him. The wives said: 'O Messenger of God, is he not blind? He will neither see nor recognize us.' The Prophet replied: 'Are you also blind? Do you not see him?' Umm Salamah clarifies that this incident happened after the Qur'anic command about hijab was revealed. (See Tirmidhi, K. al-Adab, 'Bab ma ja' fi Ihtijab al-Nisa' min al-Rajul' - Ed.) This point is further reinforced by a tradition in Muwatta' whereby when a blind person visited 'A'ishah, she observed hijab. It was pointed out to her that there was no need to do so since he could not see her. To this she replied: 'But I see him.'

On the other hand, there is a tradition also narrated by 'A'ishah. In 7 A.H. a delegation of Negroes visited Madina and presented a show in the precincts of the Prophet's Mosque. On this occasion the Prophet (peace be on him) asked 'A'ishah to join him and see the show. (See Bukhari, K. al-Salah, 'Bab Ashab al-Hurub fi al-Masjid" and Muslim, K. al-Salat al-'Idayan, 'Bab al-Rukhsah fi al-La'b al-ladhi la Ma'siyah fih fi Ayyam al-'Id' - Ed.) Moreover, when the husband of Fatimah bint Qays divorced her three times, she was faced with the problem of where to spend the period of her 'iddah. The Prophet (peace be on him) first told her to stay with Umm Sharik of the Ansar. Later on he said to her: 'Many of my Companions visit her. [Since Umm Sharik was a very rich and generous lady, she received many guests and played host to them.] You should therefore stay with Ibn Umm Maktum instead. He is a blind person and you can stay there without any difficulty.' (See Muslim, K. al-Talaq, 'Bab Mutallaqah Thalathatan la Nafqata laha" - Ed.)

When we bring all these traditions together, they suggest that the rules regarding women looking at men are not as strict as those regarding men looking at women. For example, women are not allowed to look at men in close proximity, say sitting in an assembly, but they can look at men from a distance, or look at men who are taking part in a lawful play or show. Additionally, if there is genuine necessity, they may look at men even if they are in the same house. Almost the same view has been derived from the relevant traditions by Ghazali and Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani. Ibn Hajar says: 'The permission [for women to look at men] is supported by the fact that it was always held permissible for women to go out. The women who went to mosques or market places or on journeys covered their faces with niqab so that men may not see them. But men were never commanded to cover their faces so that women could not see them. This shows that the rules with regard to the two vary.' (Shawkani, Nayl al-Awtar, vol. 6, p. 101.) Having said this, it must also be pointed out that women are not allowed to freely gaze at men, satisfying the thirst of their eyes with men's attractiveness.

32. Believing women are asked to shun any unlawful gratification of their sexual urges and to refrain from exposing their satr before others. These directives are applicable to both men and women, though the parts of the body that constitute satr for men are different from the parts of the body that constitute satr for women. Likewise, the parts of a woman's body which may not be exposed before men differ from the parts of a man's body which may not be exposed before women.

A woman may not expose any part of her body other than her hands and face before men. No other part of her body should be exposed before anyone other than her husband, and this prohibition applies even to her father and brother. Nor should a woman wear such transparent or tight clothes that expose her body or reveal its shape. According to 'A'ishah, when her sister Asma' visited the Prophet (peace be on him) she was wearing a semi-transparent dress. As soon as the Prophet saw her, he turned his face away, saying: 'O Asma'! When a girl attains puberty, it is not appropriate that any part of the body other than this and this should be visible.' So saying he pointed to his face and cuffs. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Libas, 'Bab fi ma tubdi'u al-Mar'ah 'an Zinatiha' - Ed.) A similar tradition is narrated by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari on the authority of 'A'ishah. The daughter of 'A'ishah's uterine brother, 'Abd Allah ibn al-Tufayl had come to visit her. When the Prophet (peace be on him) came home and saw her, he turned his face away. 'A'ishah introduced her, saying that she was her niece. The Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'When a girl attains puberty, it is not permissible for her to reveal any part of her body except her face and except what is less than this.' Then he clasped his forearm, leaving between the spot he had clasped the measure of another clasp. Thus, he identified the exact position of the forearm which might remain uncovered.

Some relaxation on this count may be made by a woman with those of her close relatives with whom for her marriage is forbidden (such as her father and brother). For example, she is permitted not to cover those parts of her body whose use is required in connection with domestic chores. She may thus expose her arms for kneading bread, or she may fold up her clothes a little above the usual position while washing the floor [which would also expose a part of her legs].

As for the satr of women in the presence of other women, this is the same as the satr of men in the presence of other men. This consists of the whole part of the body between the navel and the knee. This does not, however, mean that a woman may remain semi-naked in the company of other women. Rather, the point is that while it is obligatory to cover the whole body from the navel to the knee, it is not obligatory to cover other parts of the body.

33. It is worth noting that the requirement of the Shari'ah with regard to women is different to what it requires of men. The Shari'ah requires men to keep their looks away from the opposite sex and to guard their chastity. Women, however, are required to abide by some additional rules as well. This makes it quite clear that in this particular regard the sexes are not alike.

34. We have translated the word zinah in this verse to mean 'adornment'. This essentially consists of those means used by women to make themselves look attractive: (i) good dress; (ii) ornaments, and (iii) other cosmetics used by women the world over to beautify their heads, faces, hands and feet. As for the question as to before whom can a woman display or not display these adornments, we shall discuss this later. (See nn. 37 ff. below.)

35. Even though this verse is quite clear in its meaning, its true import has become somewhat ambiguous because of the numerous interpretations to which it has been subjected by Qur'anic commentators. Women are asked in the present verse not to reveal their adornments. This is followed by giving expression to exceptions in the words ilia ma zahara minha ('that which is revealed of itself).

Obviously, the intent of the verse is that women themselves should not intentionally display their charms and beauty. However, it is possible that certain attractive objects about them might nevertheless be revealed: for example, the outer garment might be blown up by the wind causing some of a woman's adornments to be exposed. When such things happen, the women concerned are not to be blamed. This meaning of the Qur'anic verse is ascribed to 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, Hasan al-Basri, Muhammad ibn Sinn and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i.

On the other hand, some commentators tend to interpret the latter part of the verse to mean permission to uncover that which it is customary to keep uncovered. They include the face and hands along with all that is used to beautify them. According to them, it is perfectly permissible for a woman to wear make-up on her face and hands and adorn them with ornaments and display them publicly. 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas and his disciples are credited with this opinion which is also shared by the majority of Hanafi jurists. (See al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an, Surah al-Nur, comments on verse 31 - Ed.)

It is, however, totally beyond us as to how the Qur'anic expression mentioned above can be stretched to justify such an interpretation. Were one to accept this interpretation, one would be considering the words ma zahara as equivalent with mayuzhiru. There is a world of difference between revealing something and something being revealed of itself. The Qur'an, no doubt, makes allowance for something which is revealed of itself. To interpret the verse to signify granting women permission to go about deliberately displaying their adornments which are attractive to men runs counter to the intent of the Qur'an let them draw their veils over their bosoms,36 and not to reveal their adornment to any save37 to their husbands, or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands,38 ^

Such a view is also discordant with the authentic traditions which indicate that after the Qur'anic commands pertaining to hijab were revealed, women did not appear in public with their faces uncovered. The hijab injunction included the requirement to cover the face, and the veil thus assumed the position of an indispensable part of the female attire except in the state of ihram.

What is more intriguing is the argument put forward in support of the view that the face and hands do not constitute the prohibited parts (satr) of the female body. For the injunctions regarding satr and hijab are two entirely different things. As for the injunction to keep one's satr covered, this applies even in the case of those men with whom marriage is forbidden. On the other hand, hijab is an additional requirement laid down for women in respect of unrelated men. It should be emphasized that the point under discussion in this verse is hijab rather than satr.

36. In the days of Jahiliyah women had their hair tied with a kind of headband which was fastened by a knot at the rear of the head. The front slit in their shirt remained partly open, thus revealing their neck and the upper part of their bosom. They wore nothing except this shirt to cover their breasts. Their hair was worn in two or three plaits which dangled freely behind. (See Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf, vol. 2, p. 990 and Ibn Kathir, vol. 3, pp. 283-4.) Consequent upon the revelation of this verse, the practice of wearing a veil came into vogue among Muslim women. This veil was not used then in the manner Muslim women have begun to use it in our own time - as if it were a garland of cloth adorning their necks. Instead, it fully covered their head, waist and breasts.

No sooner had this verse been revealed than Muslim women hastened to change their dress sense. Praising believing women in this regard, 'A'ishah said: 'When Surah al-Nur was revealed and the Prophet's Companions returned to their homes and recited its verses to their wives, daughters and sisters, there was not a single woman among the Ansar who was not moved by the words ". . . let them draw their veils over their bosoms" (verse 31). Immediately every one of them made veils out of whatever they had: a waist-band or a sheet of cloth. The next day, all Muslim women were present in the Prophet's Mosque for Fajr Prayers with their veils.' Another tradition from 'A'ishah contains the additional information that Muslim women cast away their transparent and semi-transparent clothes and especially selected thick material for their veil. (Ibn Kathir and Abu Da'ud, Kitab al-Libas, 'Bab Qawl Allah ta'ala: yudnin 'alayhinna min Jalabibihinna' and 'wa la-yadribna bi Khumrihinna 'ala Juyubihinna' - Ed.)

That the veil should not be of thin material is something which conforms with the spirit of these injunctions, and no one had any difficulty in arriving at that conclusion. The Ansar women understood full well what kind of cloth should be used for the veil. Nonetheless, the Prophet (peace be on him) did not leave this matter to the understanding of the people, Rather, he made it clear in quite unmistakable terms. Once the Prophet (peace be on him) was presented with a thick material made in Egypt. He divided it into two and presented it to one of his Companions, saying: 'One is for your shirt, and the other is for your wife's veil. You should direct her to use an additional material inside so that the features of the body are not revealed.' (See Abu Da'ud, Kitab al-Libas, 'Bab ma ja' fi Libs al-Qabati li-al-Nisa' - Ed.)

37. The relatives mentioned here form the social circle of close relatives among whom a woman is perfectly free to go about adorned with make-up and cosmetics. However, she is not allowed to display her beauty in front of anyone other than those here mentioned regardless of whether they are related to her or not. The Qur'an commanded women '... not to reveal their adornment except that which is revealed of itself...' (verse 31). Here that very injunction is elaborated upon. This consists of emphasizing that a woman should not display her adornment, either deliberately or out of negligence, before anyone outside this well-defined circle of very close relatives. Nonetheless, if any lapses occur, despite a woman's efforts not to display her attractions and without her intent, or because it was not possible for her to keep herself covered despite her wanting to do so, God extends His assurance to such believing women that He will pardon them.

38. The word aba' used in this verse covers one's father, both maternal and paternal, as also grandfathers and great-grandfathers. A woman may, therefore, appear before these elders of either her own family or of her husband's family in the same manner as she may appear before both her father and father-in-law.

39. The abna'ihinna ('their sons') covers, apart from their own sons, their grandsons and great grandsons, i.e. those born both of one's sons and daughters. Furthermore, no distinction is made between one's own sons and one's step¬ sons. A woman may appear freely before the children of her step-sons as she may appear before her own children and grandchildren.

40. 'Brothers' here covers both real and step-brothers.

41. This refers to a woman's nieces and nephews, whether they are born of her brother or sister, and whether those brothers and sisters are real or are step¬ brothers and step-sisters.

42. Here the discussion about relatives is concluded. What follows is a discussion on how a woman is to appear before non-relatives. It seems necessary at this stage to fully comprehend three things, for without this confusion is bound to arise.

The first and foremost point is that some people consider that a woman is free to appear before only those relatives who are specified in this verse. They believe that a woman is obliged to observe full hijab with all others including even her own uncles, both maternal and paternal. They cite the present Qur'anic verse in support of this view, saying that in the verse no other relatives are mentioned.

This is not, however, the correct position. The Prophet (peace be on him) did not let' A' ishah observe hijab with her foster uncles, let alone her own uncles. In the six most authentic works of Hadith and in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal we find a tradition from 'A'ishah herself that Aflah, Abu al-Qu'ays's brother, visited her and sought permission to enter the house. Since the Qur'anic command about hijab had already been revealed, 'A'ishah did not grant him such permission. Aflah sent word to her that she was his niece, being the foster daughter of his brother's wife. 'A'ishah was unsure about whether such a relative belonged to that category specified in the Qur'an with whom it was not necessary to observe hijab. Meanwhile the Prophet (peace be on him) arrived and told 'A'ishah that Aflah may visit her. (See Bukhari, K. al-Tafsir, 'Bab Tafslr Tanzil al-Sajdah', 'Bab Qawlih: in-tubdu Shay'an aw tukhfuh fa inna Allah kana bi-kull Shay'in 'Alima' and Muslim, K. al-Rida'. 'Bab Tahrim min ma' al-Fahl' - Ed.)

One, thus, learns that the Prophet (peace be on him) did not interpret this verse to mean that a woman was required to observe hijab with all her relatives except those mentioned in the present verse. He rather derived from this verse the general rule that a woman need not observe hijab with all those relatives with whom for her marriage is forbidden. This category of relatives includes her uncles, both maternal and paternal, her sons-in-law and foster relatives. Among the Successors, Hasan al-Basri held the same opinion, one which Jassas supported in his work. (See Ahkam al-Qur'an, Tafsir Surah al-Nur (verse 31), 'Bab ma yajibu min Ghadd al-Basar 'an al-Muharramat' - Ed.)

The second point that might cause some confusion pertains to those relatives with whom neither marriage is permanently forbidden (which would make it permissible for a woman to freely appear before them) nor whom are total strangers so that it would be required to observe strict hijab. The position with regard to such people has not been specifically laid down by the Shari'ah. Therefore, a categorical ruling about them cannot be given. For such a ruling is contingent upon many considerations such as the nature of their kinship, their age, the age of the woman concerned, the nature of the relations between the two families, and the living conditions of the persons concerned (such as sharing a house or living separately, etc.). Since these circumstances vary from case to case, the ruling will also differ from one case to another. Furthermore, this is the guidance that we receive from the Prophet's own conduct. We learn from many ahadith that Asma' bint Abi Bakr, 'A'ishah's sister, used to appear before the Prophet (peace be on him) and even in the very last days of his life she did not cover her face and hands in his presence. We have also found a tradition to this effect which pertains to the time of the Prophet's Farewell Pilgrimage, i.e. only a few months before he passed away. This shows that the practice mentioned above also obtained till the very last days of the Prophet's life. (See Abu Da'ud, Kitab al-Hajj, 'Bab al-Mahram Yu'addibu Ghulamah'.) Likewise, Umm Hani, the Prophet's cousin and Abu Talib's daughter, appeared before the Prophet (peace be on him) and she covered neither her face nor her hands in his presence. She narrates an incident that took place at the time of the conquest of Makka which substantiates this. (See Abu Da'ud, Kitab al-Sawm, 'Bab fi al-Niyah fi al-Siyam wa al-Rukhsah fih' - Ed.)

There is also a tradition to the effect that 'Abbas sent his son Fadl and Rabi'ah ibn Harith ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib (the Prophet's cousin) to the Prophet. He directed them to ask the Prophet (peace be on him) for employment, this because they were new adults and so should work in order to render themselves suitable for marriage. Both of them called on the Prophet at Zaynab's house. Zaynab, one of the Prophet's wives, was the maternal cousin of Fadl. She thus had the same relationship with Rabi'ah as she had with Fadl, and yet she did not appear before them, and in the Prophet's presence she talked to them from behind a curtain. (See Abu Da'ud, Kitab al-Kharaj, wa al-Imarah wa al-Fay', 'Bab fi Bayan Mawadi' Qasm al-Khums wa Sahm dhi al-Qurba" - Ed.) When we consider the two types of traditions mentioned above, it seems that the correct position is that which we have just documented.

Third, whenever there is any doubt regarding the kinship between a woman and any of her relatives, it is preferable for her to observe hijab, even if the man happens to be among those with whom marriage is forbidden. We learn that Sawdah, one of the wives of the Prophet (peace be on him), had a step-brother (being the son of his father from a slave-girl). Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas's brother, 'Utbah, left a will addressed to Sa'd wherein he urged him to patronize this boy, considering him his own nephew because he was 'Utbah's son. The case was presented before the Prophet (peace be on him), but he rejected Sa'd's claim saying: The child belongs to the one on whose bed it was born, and he who committed adultery will be lapidated.' At the same time, the Prophet (peace be on him) told Sawdah to observe hijab since there was doubt about whether he was her brother or not.

43. The words used are nisa 'ihinna which translate as 'the women with whom they associate'. We shall consider a little later on who these women are.

The first point which merits attention here is that the word al-nisa', which has a highly general connotation, has not been employed in this verse. For had it been used it would have been permissible for a Muslim woman to appear and display her attractions before all kinds of women. Instead, the words nisa 'ihinna are used which has a relatively restricted connotation implying some restrictions, regardless of what they are, on a Muslim's freedom to associate with other women.

So who are the women to whom the words nisa 'ihinna apply? Commentators on the Qur'an and jurists hold different opinions on this matter. According to some, the expression signifies only Muslim women. A Muslim woman is required to observe hijab with non-Muslim women, whether they are dhimmis or otherwise, in the manner she is required to observe hijab with men. They support this opinion by reference to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid and Ibn Jurayj whose views are the same. They also cite the incident that 'Umar documented in writing to Abu 'Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah: 'I have come to know that some Muslim women have been visiting public baths along with non-Muslim women, this although it is not lawful for any woman who believes in God and the Last Day to allow those belonging to some other faith to see her body.' When Abu 'Ubaydah received this letter he was greatly upset and exclaimed: 'By God, a Muslim woman who visits the public bath merely to develop a fair complexion will have her face blackened on the Last Day.' (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Bayhaqi and Ibn Kathir.)

Other jurists are of the opinion that the expression, nisa'ihinna, embraces all women. This is the view of Fakhr al-DIn al-RazI. It is, however, hard to appreciate this since had all women been meant, why was the restrictive expression nisa'ihinna used? If that had been the case, it would have been appropriate to use al-nisa'.

There is a third opinion which seems both reasonable and in consonance with the spirit of the Qur'an whereby the expression signifies all those women with whom a Muslim woman enjoys acquaintanceship or friendship, all those women who share with her the burden of domestic chores, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim.

It seems that the purpose of this Qur'anic verse is to exclude unrestricted association with those women who are total strangers or whose character and conduct are either not known or who are of doubtful character, making them unworthy of trust. This view seems to be corroborated by those authentic traditions which mention that non-Muslim women used to visit the wives of the Prophet (peace be on him). In such matters the main consideration should be the character of the women concerned rather than their formal affiliation with one religious community or another. Muslim women may mix freely with all women of good character, with all women who are modest, good-mannered, and belong to families that are well known and are considered trustworthy regardless of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. On the other hand, no decent woman should mix freely with women who are devoid of modesty and a sense of honor and are, on the whole, women of low character, even if they are 'Muslims'. This because to mix with women of this type would be no different than a woman freely mixing with men. In our view, a Muslim woman should treat women whose character and conduct are not known to her in the manner she would treat her non-mahram relatives. That is, a Muslim woman may appear before them without covering her face and hands, although all other parts of her body should be fully covered. (See also n. 42 above - Ed.)

44. Jurists have a variety of opinions regarding the import of this injunction. Some consider ma malakat aymanuhunna ('those that are in bondage') to signify only those slave-girls whom a woman owns. According to these jurists, a Muslim woman may display her adornments before her slave-girls regardless of whether they are polytheists or followers of the Scriptures. However, with male slaves, a woman should observe the same restrictions as apply to free men who are not related to her. This opinion is held by 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, Mujahid, Hasan al-Basri, Muhammad ibn Sinn, Sa'Id ibn al-Musayyab, Ta'us and Abu Hanifah. A statement to this effect has also been reported on the authority of Shaffi’i. These scholars argue that a male slave cannot be considered the mahram of the woman who owns him. If the slave becomes free, he may marry the woman who previously owned him.

It may be asked why the words ma malakat aymanuhunna, which are of general significance denoting slaves of both the sexes, are interpreted restrictively to mean only slave-girls to the exclusion of male slaves? in response, scholars point out that even though the words used here are of general significance, it is the context that makes them specific to slave-girls only. For, it is evident from the words nisa 'ihinna used in the verse that a woman may freely mix with those women who have either kinship with her or with whom she is acquainted. This could have led to the misunderstanding that a woman's slave-girls were excluded from the category of those women with whom she may freely mix. All grounds for any such misunderstanding were removed by employing the words ma malakat aymanuhunna, suggesting thereby that a Muslim woman may freely mix with her slave-girls without having to conceal her adornments from them, in the way that she may do with free women.

According to another group of scholars, both female and male slaves are included in the category of persons before whom a Muslim woman is not required to conceal her adornments. This opinion is attributed to 'A'ishah, Umm Salamah and some leading jurists among the descendants of the Prophet (peace be on him). It is also generally considered to be the opinion of Shafi'i. These scholars support their opinion by reiterating that the expression ma malakat aymanuhunna is of general significance. Additionally, they argue, on the basis of the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be on him), that reference is made to a visit the Prophet (peace be on him) made to his daughter Fatimah along with a male slave, 'Abd Allah. At that time, she was wearing a sheet of cloth which was not long enough. If she had covered her head with it this would have left her feet uncovered and vice versa. On observing Fatimah's embarrassment, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: "There is no blame on you. It is only your father and your slave who are here.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Libas, 'Bab fi al-'Abd yanzur ila sha'r Mawlatih' - Ed.) In his Ta 'rikh Dimashq, Ibn ' Asakir states that the Prophet (peace be on him) had presented this slave to Fatimah who first brought him up and then set him free. (Curiously enough, this slave repaid Fatimah for the good she had done him in a strange way. He became 'Ali's worst enemy and a staunch supporter of Mu'awiyah during the Battle of Siffin!) These jurists also cite the following saying of the Prophet (peace be on him) in support of this opinion: 'When any of you women enter into mukatabah with your slave and he is in a position to repay the amount stipulated in that regard, it is required of such a woman that she observe hijab with that slave.' (See Abu Da'ud. K. al- 'Itq, 'Bab fi al-Mukatib yuwaddi Ba'd Kitabatih fa ya'jiz wa yamut' and Tirmidhl, K. al-Buyu', 'Bab Ba'd ma ja' fi al-Mukatib idha kan 'induh ma yuwaddl' - Ed.)

45. The expression: means 'the male attendants in their service who are free of sexual interest'. These words indicate that a Muslim woman may display her adornments to any males other than her mahram (i.e. those with whom for her marriage is permanently forbidden), only when two conditions are fulfilled. First, that such a person should be in a state of subservience and subordination to her, and second, that he should be free of sexual desire either owing to his advanced age, physical infirmity, imbecility, utter destitution, or owing to his subordinate status which renders him unable even to think of any sexual relations with the wife, daughter, sister or mother of the master of the household. Anyone who studies this injunction with the intent of following the commands of God, rather than simply finding loopholes that provide him with a pretext to violate the purpose of the Law, will readily observe that cooks, bearers, chauffeurs, and other youthful male servants with whom women in our time tend not to observe any restrictions of hijab cannot be considered a part of this definition.

Let us now see how different scholars have interpreted these words:

(i) 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas regards these words to signify imbeciles who have no interest in women.

(ii) Qatadah considers these words to mean a destitute who remains inalienably attached to someone because of his need for daily bread.

(iii) Mujahid considers these words to denote an idiot who is concerned with bread rather than women.

(iv) Sha'bi believes these words to mean a person who is subordinate to and dependent on the head of a family, and who lacks the courage even to look at women.

(v) According to Ibn Zayd, these words denote a person who persists with a family, in which he has been brought up, to such an extent as though he has become a member of the family. He does not cast amorous glances at the women of the family and even lacks the courage to do so. He persists with the family for the sake of his daily bread.

( vi) Ta' us and Zuhri believe that these words signify a stupid person who neither has any desire for women, nor the courage to seek them. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, vol. 18. pp. 95-6 and Ibn Kathir, vol. 3, p. 285.)

Much more illuminating than all this is the following incident which took place in the time of the Prophet (peace be on him). This has been narrated on the authority of 'A'ishah and Umm Salamah. There was a eunuch in Madina who was considered to belong to the category of ghayr uli al-irbah min al-rijal (i.e. men free of sexual interest) by the Prophet's wives and other women and who, therefore, had free access to their houses. Once while the Prophet (peace be on him) was visiting his wife Umm Salamah he overheard the eunuch talking to 'Abd Allah ibn Abu Umayyah, Umm Salamah's brother. He was telling 'Abd Allah that if Ta'if was conquered he should make a point of getting hold of Badiyah, the daughter of Ghaylan al-Thaqafi. He then started to praise her beauty vividly and describe her bodily attractions. He even graphically described the beauty of those parts of the body which are not normally visible. When the Prophet (peace be on him) heard him saying all this, he interrupted him: 'O enemy of God! You have watched her so closely.' Then he ordered all women to observe hijab with the eunuch and also forbade him to enter peoples' houses. Additionally, he banished him from Madina, and also forbade other eunuchs from entering the inner apartments. He did so because women, under the impression that they were eunuchs, and hence free of sexual desire, tended to relax their attitudes towards them. This enabled many eunuchs to observe the women of the household very closely and to inform others about their charms. (See Bukhari, K. al-Maghazi, 'Bab Ghazwat al-Ta'if fi Shawwal Sanat Thaman' and Muslim, K. al-Salam, 'Bab Man' al-Mukhannath min al-Dukhul 'ala al-Nisa' al-Ajanib' - Ed.)

We thus learn that in order for someone to be considered as belonging to the category of ghayr uli al-irbah min al-rijal it is not enough for him to be physically incapable of the sexual act. What needs to be fully ensured is that such a person is altogether free of sexual desire, of every vestige of the same, and that he is truly not at all interested in women. For if there is even an iota of sexual desire in him, he is liable to cause much mischief.

46. That is those whose sexual urges have not yet been awakened. Included in this category are boys between 10 and 12 years of age. Although older boys may not have reached adolescence in a strictly technical sense, nevertheless they do have sexual desires.

47. The Prophet (peace be on him) did not restrict this injunction stopping women from stamping their feet and so revealing their hidden ornaments just on the basis of that action. Instead, he derived from this injunction the general principle that any act which arouses the sexual passion of men, whether through hearing, sight or any other sense, comes into conflict with the purpose underlying God's directive to women that they may not reveal their adornments before men. Hence, the Prophet (peace be on him) asked women not to go out wearing perfume. Abu Hurayrah narrates that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Do not prevent God's bondswomen from entering the mosque. But they should not go out in perfume.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Salah, 'Bab ma ja' fi Khuruj al-Nisa' ila al-Masjid' —Ed.) The same point is made in another tradition: A woman was going out of the mosque when Abu Hurayrah passed her. He noted that she was wearing perfume. Stopping her he asked: 'O servant of God, are you coming from the mosque?' When she replied in the affirmative, Abu Hurayrah told her: 'I heard my beloved Abu al-Qasim [Muhammad] say: "The Prayer of a woman who wears perfume in a mosque is not accepted until she takes the bath of ritual purification at home." ' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Tarajjul, 'Bab ma ja' fi al-Mar'ah tatatayyib li al-Khuruj' - Ed.) According to Abu Musa al-Ash'arl, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'If a woman goes out after wearing perfume so that the men by whom she passes may enjoy the fragrance of the perfume she is a so and so', and here he used a very harsh word for such a woman. (See loc. cit. - Ed.) The Prophet (peace be on him) directed women that if they were to wear perfume, they should wear one whose color is bright. (See loc. cit. - Ed.)

In like manner, the Prophet (peace be on him) disapproved of women unnecessarily making men hear their voice. The Qur'an itself allows women to talk to men when it is necessary. (This seems to be the implication of al-Ahzab 33: 32 - Ed.) It is also known that the Prophet's wives themselves explained religious matters to people. But when no religious or moral benefit is expected to ensue from women talking to men, it is not considered desirable that they provide men with an opportunity to be gratified by the charm of the female voice. Islam's attitude in this respect seems to be indicated by the following legal ruling: Whenever the imam (leader) of the Prayer forgets something men are required to say Subhan Allah in order to draw his attention to that lapse, whereas women are required to clap mildly for the same purpose. (See Bukhari, K. al-'Amalfi al-Salah. 'Bab al-Tasfiq li al-Nisa'' and Muslim, K. al-Salah, 'Bab tusabbih al-Rajul wa tusaffiq al-Mar'ah idha nabahuma Shay' fi al-Salah' - Ed.)

48. Believers are asked to repent for their lapses on this particular count. They are further directed to mend their ways and mold their conduct in accordance with the directives of God and His Messenger.

49. It seems pertinent to state briefly some other reforms that were introduced into Muslim society by the Prophet (peace be on him) which are in keeping with the spirit of the above Qur'anic injunctions: (i) The Prophet (peace be on him), forbade people, even a woman's male relatives, from meeting her alone, i.e. in the absence of any of her mahram relatives. Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah narrates that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Do not visit women whose husbands are away, for Satan circulates in each of you like blood.' (See TirmidhI, K. al-Rida', 'Bab ma ja' fi Karahiyat al-Dukhul 'ala al-Mughibat" - Ed.) According to another tradition narrated by Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Anyone who believes in God and the Last Day should never meet a woman in privacy unless she is accompanied by a mahram [i.e. a male with whom for her marriage is permanently forbidden]. For [if a man and a woman are alone] Satan becomes the third of the two.' (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 339 - Ed.) There is a similar tradition in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal on the authority of 'Amir ibn Rabi'ah. The Prophet (peace be on him) was so particular in this regard that once while he was going with his wife Safiyah to her house at night, two Companions passed by the way. He stopped one of them and said that it was his wife Safiyah who was accompanying him. They submitted: 'Glory be to God! O Messenger of God, who can think ill of you?' The Prophet (peace be on him) replied: 'Satan is circulating in each man like blood. So I considered it better to clarify lest some evil thought might cross your mind.' (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Sawm, 'Bab al-Mu'takif yadkhul al-Bayt li Hajatihi' - Ed.) (ii) The Prophet (peace be on him) did not allow a non-mahram male to touch the body of a woman. This is evident from the following practice of the Prophet (peace be on him): when he took the oath of allegiance (bay'ah) from men, he had them place their palm in his. But he did not do so while taking the oath of allegiance from women. In their case, the Prophet considered it enough for them to express their allegiance verbally. Once they took that oath he told them that they might go back for their oath was now complete. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Kharaj, 'Bab ma ja' fi al-Bay'ah' - Ed.) (iii) The Prophet (peace be on him) strictly forbade women from travelling without any mahram, or travelling with any non-mahram. There is a tradition from 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas that the Prophet (peace be on him) once said in his sermon: 'No man should meet a woman in privacy unless she is accompanied by any of her mahram, and no woman should travel unless she is accompanied by her mahram.' Thereupon someone got up and said: 'My wife is going on Hajj while I am among those proceeding on a military expedition.' (Bukhari, K. al-Jihad, 'Bab man iktatataba fi Jaysh fa kharajat Imara'tuh Hajjatan ..." - Ed.) The Prophet (peace be on him) said to him: 'Go and perform Hajj with your wife.' (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 222 and Bukhari, K. al-Nikah, 'Bab la yakhluwann al-Rajul bi imra'tin illa Dhu Mahram wa al-Dukhul 'ala al-Mughibah' - Ed.)

Several traditions of similar import are found in authentic works of Hadith on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and Abu Hurayrah. The only variation in these traditions relates to the duration or distance of the journey. There is, however, agreement that a woman who truly believes in God and the Last Day may not travel without a mahram. Some ahadith state that the maximum distance which a woman may travel without a mahram is twelve miles or somewhat longer. In some traditions the time limit is one day, in others a day and a night, in others it is two days, and in some it is three days. This variation, however, does not impair the trustworthiness of these ahadith. As far as the apparent discrepancy about the duration of a journey is concerned, one plausible explanation is that the Prophet (peace be on him) would have issued the directives as and when situations arose. For example, if a woman was proceeding on a journey for three days, he forbade her from doing so unless any of her mahram accompanied her. It is also possible that a woman might have been proceeding on a journey for one whole day without a mahram and he might have forbidden her from so doing. The Prophet's directives on this count were in response to the different circumstances of different people and are, thus, of little consequence. What really matters is the ruling which, in the words of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, is that a woman should not travel without a mahram. (iv) The Prophet (peace be on him) discouraged intermingling between men and women both by precept and practice.

It is well known that God made the Friday Prayer, which is offered in congregation, obligatory for all Muslims. As regards the importance of this congregational Prayer, we have the Prophet's statement to the effect that if someone performs this Prayer at home without any genuine reason for joining the Prayer in congregation, then his Prayer will not be accepted. (Abu Da'ud, Ibn Majah, Daraqutni and Hakim on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas.) Nevertheless, the Prophet (peace be on him) exempted Muslim women from joining compulsory congregational Friday Prayers. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Salah, 'Bab ma ja' fi Khuruj al-Nisa" ila al-Masajid' - Ed.)

While women are not obliged to join congregational Prayers they are nonetheless not precluded from so doing if they want to. However, this permission is followed by the statement that their praying at home is more meritorious than their praying in the mosque. According to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar and Abu Hurayrah the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Do not prevent God's bondswomen from entering the mosques of God.' (Abu Da'ud.) Other traditions narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar make almost the same point: 'Let women visit the mosques at night.' (See Bukhari, K. al-Adhan, 'Bab Khuruj al-Nisa' ila al-Masajid bi al-Layl li al-Ghalas' - Ed.) There is yet another tradition: 'Do not stop your womenfolk from visiting the mosques though their homes are better for them for Prayers.' (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, pp. 76-7 - Ed.) Umm Humayd al-Sa'diyah says that she told the Prophet (peace be on him) that she was very keen on saying Prayers under his leadership. He told her: 'It is better for you to Pray in your own room than in the courtyard; and it is better for you to Pray at home than in the mosque of your locality; and it is better for you to Pray in the mosque of your own locality than in the large mosque.' (Ibid., vol. 6, p. 371 - Ed.) A tradition to the same effect is narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud (see Abu Da'ud). According to Umm Salamah, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'The best mosques for women are the inner apartment of their own houses.' (Ibid., vol. 6, p. 297 - Ed.) On observing the social conditions prevalent during the Umayyad period, 'A'ishah remarked: 'Had the Prophet (peace be on him) seen the present conduct of women, he would have forbidden their entry into mosques as it was done earlier in the case of Israeli women.' (Bukhari. Muslim and Abu Da'ud.)

The Prophet (peace be on him) earmarked a special door for women to enter his mosque. During 'Umar's reign, he strictly barred men from using that door either for entering or going out of the mosque. (Abu Da'ud, 'Bab I’tizal al-Nisa' fi al-Masajid' and 'Bab ma ja' fi Khuruj al-Nisa" ila al-Masajid'.) In congregational Prayers women prayed in the rows behind those of the men and at the conclusion of the Prayer the Prophet (peace be on him) would pause a little so that the women might leave the mosque before the men did. (Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Bukhari on the authority of Umm Salamah.) In the Prophet's words, the best row for men was the first and the worst the last row [i.e. the one next to that of the women); and the best row for women was the last and the worst the first [i.e. the one next to that of the men]. (Muslim, Abu Da'ud, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.)

Women used to join 'Id Prayers although they occupied a place separate from men. After delivering the sermon, the Prophet (peace be on him) would go to the ladies' section and address them separately. (Abu Da'ud on the authority of Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah, Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas.) On one occasion the Prophet (peace be on him) noticed that once men and women left the mosque they became intermingled. Seeing this he told the women that they should walk on the sides of the road rather than in the center. No sooner had the Muslim women heard this, then they began to walk on the sides, alongside the walls of the houses. (Abu Da'ud.)

These injunctions make it clear how incongruent a mixed society is wherein men and women are ordinarily seated together. Given that a religion does not allow free mingling between the sexes in mosques even on the occasion of Prayer, how could it allow the same in colleges, offices, clubs and other meeting places? (v) Islam does not only allow women to adorn themselves but at times it even urges them to do so. At the same time, it has attempted to prevent their going to excess in this matter. There were a number of means by which women in the time of the Prophet adorned and beautified themselves. The Prophet (peace be on him) decried some of these and branded them as a curse, as the cause of the destruction of several nations in the past. He particularly denounced the following: adding the hair of another to one's own with a view to making one's own appear longer and thicker; tattooing and other artificial marks on the body; plucking the hair from one's eyebrows so as to give them a special shape; plucking the hair from one's face; rubbing one's teeth in order to sharpen them or making artificial holes in them; applying saffron or other cosmetic materials on one's face so as to give an artificial complexion. Traditions to this effect are found in authentic works of Hadith on the authority of 'A'ishah, Asma" bint Abu Bakr, 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, and Mu'awiyah.

In view of these explicit directives from God and His Messenger, a believer is left with only two options: to purge his own life, that of his family and that of society of the moral evils which are mentioned so exhaustively in the Qur'an and the Hadith. If he is not able to do this, he should at least admit that he is committing a sin by not following these directives. A Muslim who violates God's commands out of weakness should at least refrain from justifying his action. There are, however, people who openly flout the social norms set out by the Qur'an and the Sunnah and adopt the ways in vogue in Western society. Such people go about trumpeting that in Islam there is no injunction at all about hijab. Such people not only violate Islamic injunctions, what is even worse, they try to legitimize all that as perfectly Islamic. The stand of such people cannot be appreciated by any decent person as far as this world is concerned. Nor can they expect any good in the Hereafter. It is deplorable that in Muslim society we find people who are a few steps ahead of even the hypocrites, people who hold God's and the Prophet's directives to be faulty, and who consider the ways which they have taken over from non-Muslims as perfectly good. If such people are to be regarded as Muslims, then the words Islam and kufr become entirely meaningless.

Had such people changed their names and publicly disowned Islam, one could at least have commended them for their moral courage. What is more regrettable is that notwithstanding their espousal of opinions which are antithetical to Islam, they still profess to be Muslim. No category of people is more contemptible than these. One cannot rule out any fraud, deception, trickery or perfidy from people possessed of this kind of character.

50. The word ayama is generally used to denote widows. However, it covers both men and women who are without a spouse. Ayama is plural of ayyim, which applies to every man who has no wife and to every woman who does not have a husband. This sense is reflected in our translation of the verse.

51. This refers to those slaves, both male and female, who are possessed of good character and who are likely to prove good marriage partners. If a slave's attitude to his/her partner is not appropriate and his/her temperament does not justify the expectation that he/she will prove to be a good spouse, then it is not required of his/her master to arrange for his/her marriage. This is understandable because to facilitate the marriage of such a person would make one responsible for ruining the life of his/her spouse. This principle is not applicable, however, in the case of free men and women. For the role of anyone who strives to make a match between a free man and a free woman is, at the most, that of advising, assisting and introducing one party to the other. The marriage partners are themselves responsible for marrying if they so consent to do. In the case of a slave, however, the responsibility of the marriage falls on the master/mistress. If he/she willfully assists someone to marry a person of ill temperament and bad character he/she will bear responsibility for the misery and suffering that ensues.

52. Since this injunction is couched in the imperative form, some scholars have inferred that arranging for the marriage of slaves, whether male or female, is an obligation placed on the master. In view of the nature of the matter, i.e. marriage, it is clear, however, that this cannot be an obligation in the strict sense of the term. If it were obligatory, one might well ask to whom is one obliged to marry one's slaves? Moreover, in such a case, what would be the role of the slave whom his master marries? Would that slave have no other option but to marry the person proposed by his master? This would mean negating a person's consent in the contract of his own marriage. If we affirm, however, that die proposed marriage partners have the right to refuse the suggestions made by others regarding their marriage, then how are those persons able to acquit themselves of their obligation to marry their slaves? Consequently, jurists have rightly inferred that this Qur'anic injunction is of a recommendatory rather than obligatory nature. In other words, Muslims should be concerned that the members of their society do not remain unmarried. Members of the family, friends and neighbors should take a keen interest in the marriage of those who do not have anyone to look after them. The state, too, should help people get married.

53. This obviously does not mean that God necessarily confers affluence on everyone who marries. Instead, the point that is being emphasized here is that when it comes to considering marriage, people should not be fussy about their financial situation. The verse also offers useful guidance to the guardians of unmarried girls. They are virtually being told that if they receive any proposal from a good-character person, they should not turn it down simply because he is presently not too well off. Likewise, the relatives of the prospective bridegroom are advised not to delay marriage on the grounds that he is not earning much. The youth are also being told not to delay their marriage simply because of financial considerations. Even if they have little income they should still marry, reposing their trust in God's munificence. Quite often one's marriage changes one's circumstances for the better. With the help of one's wife one is able to manage one's expenses more prudently. Moreover, faced with the added responsibility placed upon one's shoulders after marriage, one tends to work harder. One's wife may also provide a helping hand in one's pursuit of a livelihood. Above all, no one can foresee the future. Adversity can suddenly change into prosperity and vice versa. Hence one should not be excessively calculating while considering the question of one's marriage.

54. The best explanation of these verses is found in those ahadith which have come down on this subject from the Prophet (peace be on him). According to 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'O young people. those of you who can afford to marry should do so, for it will help you to keep your gaze away and will enable you to preserve your chastity. And whoever cannot afford to marry then he should fast, for fasting blunts sexual passion.' (See Bukhari. K. al-Nikah, 'Bab man lam yastati' al-Ba'ah fa al-yasum" and Muslim, K. al-Nikah, 'Bab Istihbab al-Nikah li man taqat ilayah ..." - Ed.) Abu Hurayrah narrates that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: "There are three types of Muslims whom God is bound to help: he who marries to preserve his chastity: he who enters into the contract of manumission and sincerely intends to pay that amount; and he who goes out in the way of God for jihad." (See Tirmidhi. K. Fada'il-al-Jihad. 'Bab ma ja' fi al-Mujahid wa al-Nakih ...' and Nasa'i. K. al- Nikah. 'Bab Ma'unat Allah al-ladhi yurid al-'Afaf." For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. II. al-Nisa' 4: 25. p. 28 - Ed.)

55. Literally, the word mukatabah denotes mutual writing, i.e. between two parties. As a legal term, however, it signifies the agreement between a slave and his/her master to the effect that the former pledges to pay an amount to the latter in order to obtain his/her freedom. It is one of the forms laid down in Islam for the emancipation of slaves. The payment which the slave is required to make to obtain his/her freedom is not necessarily a monetary payment. Some specified service rendered to the master might also serve the purpose of this payment, provided both parties agree to it.

Once such an agreement has been made, the master does not have the right to place undue obstruction in the way of the slave's freedom. Instead, the master is required to provide him/her with the opportunity to earn the money needed to make the payment. Once the slave pays the amount within the stipulated period of time or performs the service mutually agreed to by the parties, the master is bound to free the slave. In the days of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, a slave entered into a manumission agreement with his master. The slave, however, brought the agreed amount to the latter before the stipulated time. The master refused to accept the payment and insisted on taking it in instalments over a period of time. The slave reported the matter to 'Umar who asked him to deposit the amount in the Public Treasury after which he would be deemed to be free. 'Umar then informed the master about the money that had been deposited in the Public Treasury and that he could have it either in a lump sum or in instalments over a period of time. (Daraqutni on the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri.)

56. A group of jurists interprets this verse to mean that when a slave, whether male or female, asks his/her master to enter into a manumission agreement accession is binding on the latter. This view is held by 'Ata', 'Amr ibn Dinar, Muhammad ibn Sinn, Masruq, Dahhak, 'Ikrimah, the Zahiri jurists and Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. Initially, Shafi’i also subscribed to this view.

According to another group of jurists, it is not binding on the master to accept the agreement but it is nonetheless recommended that he do so. To this group belong the following leading jurists: Sha'bi, Muqatil ibn Hayyan, Hasan al-Basri, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd, Sufyan al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah and Anas ibn Malik. In the later part of his life Shafi'i also adopted this view.

The two arguments which follow are put forward in support of the former group's opinion. First, the imperative form in which the injunction is couched indicates that it is a command from God. Second, it is established by authentic traditions that when Sirin, the father of Muhammad ibn Sirin, a leading scholar of Hadith and jurisprudence, asked his master Anas to make a manumission agreement with him, Anas turned it down. Thereafter, Sirin presented his case to 'Umar. On learning of this, 'Umar whipped Anas, saying: 'It is God's command to enter into a manumission agreement.' (Bukhari.)

It may be legitimately inferred from the above incident that the opinion expressed by 'Umar was not his personal opinion. He punished Anas in the presence of several Companions and no one objected to it. Hence, this opinion constitutes the correct interpretation of this Qur'anic verse.

As for the latter group of jurists, they point out that the verse does not order the master to enter into a manumission agreement in absolute terms. Rather, the verse orders the master to enter into such an agreement'. . . if you see any good in them'. Now, whether there is goodness in the slave or not depends very much on the master's judgement. There is no definite criterion for determining that goodness that enables the courts to so determine it. Obviously, this is not how legal constructs are expressed. Hence, this injunction cannot be deemed to be of a binding character. It is meant, instead, to provide moral guidance. As for Sinn's case, there were thousands of slaves in the days of the Prophet (peace be on him) and the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and innumerable slaves entered into manumission agreements. No incident other than that of Sinn's, however, is on record to show that the master of any slave was forced by law to enter into a manumission agreement.

It seems that 'Umar's action in this particular case should not be considered a legal verdict or a court order. It is quite obvious that 'Umar did not always act merely as a judge. His concern for the people was often that of a father for his children. He, therefore, often went beyond his legal and juridical jurisdiction and intervened in many a matter as a father would do in the affairs of his children.

57. 'Goodness' here embraces the following three points: first, that the slave should have the ability to pay the amount required for his manumission by his earnings, or by rendering certain services as the case might be. This is evident from the following mursal tradition according to which the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Enter into an agreement of manumission with them if you know that they are versed in some skill. Bur do not let them go about begging from people.' (Ibn Kathir on the authority of Abu Da'ud.) Second, that the slave should be known for his honesty and trustworthiness so that an agreement might be made with him. He should not be the kind of person who simply obtains release from his master by dint of the agreement or one who squanders away all that he earns and then remains in no position to honor his commitment to pay his master. Third, the slave should be known not to have immoral tendencies or strong feelings of hostility towards Islam and Muslims such that his manumission might threaten Muslim society. In other words, he should be such that one might duly expect him to grow into a good free citizen, rather than an active enemy of Muslim society. Manumission agreements also pertained to prisoners of war. Hence, such precautionary measures seemed very much in order.

58. This is a general directive which is addressed to the masters of slaves, to Muslims in general and to the Islamic State.

As for the masters, they are directed to remit at least a part of the amount which the slaves are required to pay according to the manumission agreement. A number of traditions corroborate that the Companions used to forego a considerable part of the amount which had been agreed upon as payment for manumission. 'All, for instance, always waived one-fourth of that amount and also exhorted others to do the same. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari.)

Muslims in general are also directed that they should generously help those who ask them for money which is required for the manumission of slaves. As we know, one of the categories on which Zakah may be spent is to secure the freedom of those in bondage (al-Tawbah 9: 60). This, according to another Qur'anic verse, is an act of great religious merit (al-Balad 90: 13). According to a hadith, a Bedouin once asked the Prophet (peace be on him) to tell him something that would ensure his entry into Paradise. The Prophet replied: 'In a few words you have asked a big question: free slaves; assist them in securing their freedom; when you give anyone some cattle make sure that it is one that yields ample milk; and do good even to those of your relatives who wrong you. If you cannot do that, feed the hungry; provide water to the thirsty; enjoin good and forbid evil. If you cannot do even that, restrain your tongue. Use your tongue only for good or else keep it shut.' (Bayhaqi.)

As for the Islamic State, the present verse provides the guidance for a part of the Zakah in the Public Treasury to be spent on assisting slaves who have entered into manumission agreements so that they might become free.

At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that there were three kinds of slaves in times gone by: (i) prisoners of war; (ii) free persons who were enslaved and sold into the slave market; and (iii) those who had been slaves for so long that it was not known when their ancestors were enslaved and to which of the above-mentioned categories they originally belonged.

At the time of the advent of Islam, there were large numbers of all such categories of slaves, both within and outside Arabia. Moreover, the economic and social structure of the time depended more heavily on these slaves than on general laborers and servants.

Islam was faced with two major questions in this regard. First, what should be done with those who had been slaves for a long time? Second, what should be done in the future to solve the problem of slavery?

As regards long-term slaves, Islam did not take the drastic step of declaring that their masters instantly ceased to have rights over them, rights which they had enjoyed for centuries. Had that been done the whole social and economic fabric would have been paralyzed. The entire Arabian Peninsula would presumably have been engulfed in a terrible civil war, one which would not have solved the problem. For as we know, when the American Civil War ended, the problem of Negro slaves remained unresolved.

Avoiding such an unwise course of action, the Islamic State initiated a moral campaign for the 're-release of necks' [to wit, the emancipation of slaves], Relying on exhortation and admonition, on religious injunctions and statutory laws, Islam tried to solve the problem of slavery. Appeals were made to people to voluntarily emancipate slaves in order to attain salvation in the Hereafter. People were also told either to gratuitously set slaves free as expiation for their sins, or to free them in lieu of reasonable compensation. As a part of this movement, the Prophet (peace be on him) freed a total of 63 slaves. Of his wives, 'A'ishah alone freed 67 slaves. In like manner, 'Abbas, the Prophet's uncle, set free 70 slaves. Hakim ibn Hizam set 100 free as did 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar. Somewhat incredibly, Dhu al-Kila' al-Himyari freed slaves numbering some 8,000 and 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf 30,000. There are similar reports about other Companions, especially about Abu Bakr and 'Uthman. There was much passion among the Companions to please God by freeing their own slaves and buying the slaves of others and then setting them free. Thus, as far as slaves of long-standing are concerned, almost all were freed by the end of the period of the four Rightly-Guided Caliphs.

As for the future, Islam explicitly forbade the practice of capturing free people, enslaving them and to buy and sell them. Islam did, however, allow - yes, allow rather than order - that prisoners of war may be enslaved under certain conditions. They may be enslaved if the respective states to which the prisoners of war belonged did not exchange them with Muslim captives of war, or if those captives did not pay their own ransom. Nonetheless, those who were taken as prisoners of war could obtain their freedom by entering into a manumission agreement. Furthermore. Islam issued several directives that slaves - and these were as much applicable to slaves who were initially war captives as they were to slaves who had been in bondage for a long time - be set free as expiation for their sins, and to please God. It was also prescribed that a person might will that his slaves gain their freedom after his death. Additionally, if the master of a slave-girl had sexual relations with her resulting in the birth of a child, she would automatically attain freedom upon her master's death, whether he had made a will to that effect or not.

These are some of the main Islamic solutions to the problem of slavery. Yet a number of ignorant and ill-informed people, who neither know nor try to acquaint themselves of the relevant facts, direct their vituperation against Islam on this account. On the other hand, those who are given to apologizing, go about claiming that Islam did not retain any form of slavery whatsoever.

59. Quite obviously this does not imply that if slave-girls do not wish to remain chaste, they will be forced into prostitution. What is meant, is that if a slave-girl indulges in prostitution of her own accord, she will herself be responsible for her actions. The law will take its course and she will be brought to book. However, if her master compels her in to prostitution, it is the master who will be held accountable.

It is obvious that the element of compulsion enters into the picture only when a person is unwilling. As far as the words 'for the sake of the benefits of worldly life' are concerned, the injunction stated here is not contingent upon these words and obviously does not mean that a person will not be held guilty if he compels a woman into prostitution even though he does not seek to avail himself of her earnings. What is meant is that the earning itself is unlawful, that it is an earning which has been obtained unlawfully by compelling someone to engage in immorality.

This injunction cannot, however, be fully grasped simply with the help of the words used in the verse and the context in which it occurs. For a better understanding, it is imperative to take note of the conditions pertaining at the time this injunction was revealed. In the Arabia of those days, there were two kinds of prostitution: domestic prostitution and professional prostitution carried on through fully-fledged brothels.

Most domestic prostitutes were either freed slave-girls who had no guardians, or free women who did not enjoy the protection of a family or tribe. These prostitutes usually lived in someone's house but had loose agreements with several men to the effect that the latter were entitled to use them for the gratification of their sexual needs. In return for this favor they paid their own living expenses. Should a child be conceived in this manner, they could ascribe its parentage to any one of the clients and that parentage was accordingly recognized. In other words, this practice was a well-established social institution which was considered by pre-Islamic Arabs to be a form of marriage. Islam, however, legitimized only that form of marriage contract according to which a woman could have no more than one husband, and the sexual relations of that woman with any other man were regarded as zina, and hence a criminal offence. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Nikah, 'Bab fi Wujuh al-Nikah' - Ed.)

As for open, professional prostitution, this was carried on by slave-girls. There were two main forms of such organized prostitution. First, that the masters of these slave-girls would fix a huge amount upon their slave-girls which they were required to pay each month. Obviously, these helpless girls could raise such a large amount only by pandering to men's sexual desires as prostitutes for they had no other source of income. Nor were their masters under any illusion about how they had earned their money. Quite obviously, they found nothing wrong with the prostitution of women for had they so objected, they would not have imposed the huge amounts they did upon these girls. Amounts that were many times higher than the ordinary wages that these young women could otherwise earn.

The other form of professional prostitution then in vogue was that masters would put their own slave-girls, who happened to be beautiful, into the brothels. Flags were hoisted above these brothels so that people driven by sexual passion would know even from afar the places they could frequent. These women were known as qulayqiyat and their brothels were called mawakhir. These brothels were run by the wealthy notables of Arab society. 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy, the leader of the Madinan hypocrites, was among those who earned his income in this way, having placed six of his most beautiful slave-girls into a brothel. Additionally, he even used them to entertain his guests who visited him from all parts of Arabia. Furthermore, the illegitimate children born of these prostitutes gave him a whole retinue of servants. ('Abd Allah ibn Ubayy is the same person whom the people of Madina [then called Yathrib] had decided to crown as their ruler before the Prophet's arrival there. He also played a leading role in spreading slanderous stories about 'A'ishah.) Mu'adhah, one of these slave-girls, embraced Islam and wanted to repent and change her way of life. On learning of this 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy tortured her. She, therefore, reported the matter to Abu Bakr who passed it on to the Prophet (peace be on him). The Prophet (peace be on him) ordered that the slave-girl be freed from 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy's clutches. (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on Surah al-Nur 24: 33, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 18, pp. 55-8 and 103-4, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Isti'ab, vol. 2, p. 762 and Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, vol. 3, pp. 288-9 - Ed.)

It was during this period that the verse under discussion was revealed. If we examine the verse in this context it is quite clear that its true purpose was not merely to prevent the coercion of slave-girls into prostitution. Rather, its true purpose was to outlaw the whole business of prostitution in the Islamic realm. This was done alongside a declaration of clemency for those women who had earlier been forced into this trade.

After revelation of this injunction, the Prophet (peace be on him) proclaimed: There is no room for prostitution in Islam.' (Abu Da'ud on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas in 'Abwab Tafri' al-Talaq', 'Bab fi Iddi'a" Walad al-Zina' -Ed.)

The Prophet's second directive was such that earnings acquired through illegal sex were unlawful, unclean and altogether forbidden. We learn from a tradition narrated by Rafi' ibn Khadij that money earned through illicit sex is unclean and the worst kind of earning. (See Abu Da'ud, K. al-Buyu', 'Bab fi Kasb al-Haram' and Tirmidhi, K. al-Buyu', 'Bab ma ja' fi Thaman al-Kalb' - Ed.) Abu Juhayfah narrates that the Prophet (peace be on him) declared that income obtained through prostitution was absolutely forbidden. (See Bukhari, K. al-Talaq, 'Bab Mahr al-Baghy wa al-Nikah al-Fasid' and Muslim, K. al-Musaqah, 'BabTahrimThaman al-Kalb'-Ed.) According to Abu Mas'ud 'Uqbah ibn 'Amr, the Prophet (peace be on him) prohibited both the giving and taking of money for prostitution. (Bukhari, K. al-Talaq, 'Bab Mahr al-Baghy wa al-Nikah al-Fasid' - Ed.) He also declared that one may employ a slave-girl to carry out physical errands, but a master may not exact any money from her whose source he was unsure of. Rafi' ibn Khadij narrates that the Prophet (peace be on him) forbade any income from a slave-girl unless he knew its source. (See Abu Da'ud, Kitab al-Ijarah, 'Bab fi Kasb al-Ima' - Ed.) A hadith narrated by Rafi' ibn Rif'ah al-Ansari contains a more explicit command. 'The Prophet (peace be on him) forbade us from taking any earning made by slave-girls other than what she earned lawfully, and the Prophet used his fingers to point at wages acquired from making bread, spinning, cleaning, and combing wool and cotton.' (Ahmad ibn Hanbal.) There is another tradition of similar import which is narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah which outlaws the income from slave-girls and prostitution. (See Abu Da'ud and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.) It is clear from Mua'dhah's case, 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy's slave-girl, that if a slave-girl is compelled into prostitution by her master, he forfeits the right to own her. This tradition is found in Ibn Kathir's tafsir on the authority of Zuhri. (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on Surah al-Nur 24: 33 - Ed.)

60. This verse not only relates to the earlier one but is in fact a part of the discourse which commences with the beginning of the surah through this point. 'Revelations which clearly expound true guidance' refer to those verses in which the laws pertaining to zina, qadhf and li'an were laid down, in which believers were directed to abstain from marrying immoral men and women, and slandering good-character people was forbidden. The same verses urged both men and women to restrain their eyes and guard their chastity, and laid down injunctions regarding the hijab of women, expressed a disapproval of celibacy, provided for the institution of a kitabah for the liberation of slaves, and called for the extirpation of all forms of prostitution.

After laying down these laws, the people are told that the teaching needed by the God-fearing so that they can act righteously has been provided for them. If they violate these teachings, it clearly means that they are willing to court the same fate which befell those misguided nations of the past. Nations whose detailed accounts are provided in the Qur'an. Perhaps no warning could have been more stern than the present one to conclude the exposition of this set of legal injunctions. Yet there were still to be found those people who said they believed, who recited the whole set of injunctions prescribed by God, who were also fully aware of the stern warning contained within these verses and yet who still violated these injunctions with absolute impunity.

61. Once again attention is being directed to the hypocrites who had all along been engaged in fomenting one mischief after another in Islamic society and who were as active as ever in causing harm to Islam, the Islamic movement and the Islamic community from within as were the unbelievers who strived to cause harm from without as they openly declared themselves to be enemies of Islam.

These hypocrites claimed to be Muslims, were apparently a part of the Muslim community, and enjoyed ties of kinship with the Muslims, especially with the Ansar. It is precisely for these reasons that They were in a better position to cause mischief. Because of their formal identification with Islam, even sincere Muslims fell prey to their designs either as a result of their gullibility or weakness and by acting as their agents or protectors.

These hypocrites had become totally myopic because of their excessive worldliness. Despite their profession of faith, they were totally devoid of the light which, thanks to the Qur'an and the Prophet (peace be on him), had begun to radiate all around.

Without directly addressing the hypocrites, a few observations are made about them here. This is done with a three-fold purpose. First, to admonish them. For it is the foremost requirement of God's mercy and lordship that if a person fails into error, every effort should be made to make him see the truth and mend his ways. This effort should be made notwithstanding the evils and mischievous deeds of men. Second, to lay bare the distinction between faith and hypocrisy in unambiguous terms so that even an average person knows a believer from a hypocrite. If someone continues his allegiance to the hypocrites or supports them when they are fully aware of their traits, then they are to be held responsible for their actions. Third, to clearly warn the hypocrites that God's promises are meant only for. those believers who are sincere in their faith and fulfil its requirements. These promises are not meant for nominal believers, for those whose identification with Islam is no more than their registration as Muslims in official records. Hypocrites and those who willfully transgress the commands of God should not expect that God's promise be fulfilled for them.

62. In Qur'anic usage, the expression 'the heavens and the earth' are generally employed as an equivalent for the universe. An alternative rendering of the verse, therefore, could be that 'Allah is the Light of the whole universe'.

Light is that which causes other things to become visible. Light, thus, appears of itself and also causes other objects to become apparent. This is the general perception of light. Correspondingly, lack of light is branded by man as darkness. When one is able to see things properly and everything is clear, man says that there is light.

The word 'light' is used with respect to God in this very sense. It is not to be taken literally to mean that God is some ray of light which travels at the speed of 1 86,000 miles per second and reaches the retina of our eyes and ultimately affects the center of vision in the brain. This particular attribute is not a part of the essential meaning for which man has invented this word.

The statesmen that God is the Light of the heavens and the earth is to be taken in its basic sense rather than in the material connotations of the word. Let us illustrate this by giving some examples. The Qur’an speaks of God as the All-Seeing. Now this does not necessarily mean that God is possessed of a physical organ, an eye, in the manner of animals and human beings, and that He sees with the help of that organ. Likewise, we say that God is All-Hearing. This does not necessarily mean that God is possessed of a physical organ, an ear, and that He hears with the help of that organ. Likewise, we are told that God seizes. Again, this statement does not necessarily mean that God seizes in the manner that men and animals seize, namely with the help of our hands.

All such statements have an absolute meaning. Hence, it is people of very limited understanding who believe that there can be no other form of seeing, hearing and seizing except in the specific limited form with which we are familiar through our own experience. By the same token, it amounts to sheer narrow-mindedness if one interprets light in the sense of a ray which emanates from a thing and then strikes the retina. God is light in the absolute rather than the limited sense in which we ordinarily use the word. What is meant by this statement is that God alone is the main cause of all that is, while all else is mere darkness. Everything that emits any light does so because God has invested it with light, or otherwise there is nothing which is innately capable of emitting any light.

The word 'light' is also used to mean 'knowledge', whereas its antonym -ignorance - is characterized by 'darkness'. In this sense, once again, God is the light of the universe for one can gain knowledge of reality and the right way man should tread only from God. Unless one turns to God for light one is doomed to the darkness of ignorance and consequently to sheer error.

63. The olive tree is blessed in the sense that it carries numerous uses and benefits.

64. That is, the tree is situated on an open site or at a height so that it is constantly exposed to the sun. It is not behind anything for had it been so located it would have received sunlight either only in the forenoon or only in the afternoon. Now an olive tree which is constantly exposed to the sun produces an oil which is very thin. Also, the olive oil produced by such a tree is used in a lamp and the light that it emits is very bright. By contrast, trees located eastward or westward produce a darker and thicker variety of oil. Hence when that oil is used in a lamp, the light it emits is not as bright.

65. In this parable, God is likened to a lamp, whereas the glass signifies the curtain by which He has concealed Himself from His creatures. The purpose behind this curtain is not concealment, it is rather because of the pressure to break out into the open. Thus, the inability of creatures to observe God is not because of the opaqueness of the curtain or its being covered with darkness. Rather our failure to observe God is because of the fact that the light passing through this transparent curtain is so intense and all-encompassing that those with limited faculties of vision fail to perceive it. Creatures possessed of limited vision can perceive only that limited light which vacillates, which appears at one moment and disappears the next moment. It is in contrast to darkness that such light becomes manifest. However, God's Light is absolute and has no peer; one that never vanishes. Thanks to the constancy and all-encompassing nature of this light, it cannot be fully grasped by the limited vision of humans.

The statement that this lamp is lit from the oil of an olive tree, 'neither eastern nor western, provides an impressive image of the perfection and intensity of the light of the lamp. In the past, light was mostly obtained from lamps lit by olive oil, and the brightest lamp was one which was lit from the oil of the olive tree situated in an open and elevated place.

The purpose of this parable is not to convey the idea that since God is akin to a lamp. He derives energy from some external source as a lamp does. Rather, the point that is being emphasized is that the lamp in question is not an ordinary lamp, but the brightest lamp that can be imagined, one that illuminates everything. So does God illuminate the whole universe.

Similarly, the statement that 'its oil well-nigh glows forth (of itself) though no fire touches it', again reinforces me effect of the intense brightness of the lamp. The parable seeks to emphasize the brightness of the image of an intensely luminous lamp which is lit from a fine and incandescent oil. All three components of the parable, namely the olive tree, its being neither of the east nor of the west, and its oil burning without fire, are dependent elements of the parable. Each idea complements the others so as to reinforce the uniqueness of the lamp. The essential components of the parable are lamp, niche, and crystal.

Since the verse draws attention to the similitude between God's Light and the light of the lamp, it removes any misunderstanding which might have arisen regarding the statement that 'Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth'. It clearly indicates that in likening God to light, the intention is not to conceive God's essence to be nothing but light. Rather, God is possessed of perfection in all respects. This is true about His being possessed of knowledge, power, and wisdom alongside His being possessed of light. The Qur'anic statement that 'Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth' signifies that God personifies light. The purpose of such a statement is to stress this aspect of God. In other words, what is being said is that God is both the embodiment and source of light. This is a literary device meant to underscore something. In literature we occasionally come across use of this technique. For example, sometimes we say about a person in whom we find generosity at its best that he is generosity itself. Or we say about someone whose beauty is extraordinary that he (or she) is beauty personified.

66. Although God's Light illuminates the whole universe, not everyone perceives it. The ability to perceive this reality and to draw benefit from it are granted only to those whom God wills. Otherwise, as in the case of the blind man who cannot differentiate between day and night, anyone who is devoid of proper vision can readily observe the light radiated by electricity, by the sun, by the moon and the stars, but he fails to appreciate the Light that comes from God. On this particular count anyone who is devoid of proper vision finds darkness all around him. A physically blind person cannot see even what lies next to him, and realizes that there is something only when he stumbles against it, and it is this stumbling alone which makes him feel its presence. In the same manner, a man without proper vision fails to grasp the very realities which are quite near to him and are radiant with the Light of God. Failing to see these realities, he realizes their existence only when he stumbles against them, thereby incurring his utter destruction.

67. This statement can be understood in two ways. First, it may mean that God knows very well how to bring home a point with reference to a particular parable. Second, it may be interpreted in the sense that God knows best who deserves this blessing. Anyone who does not search for God's Light and who wholly pursues worldly interests, material comforts and mundane benefits does not need to be forcibly shown God's Light. It is only those who, in God's knowledge, are for sure sincere seekers of God's Light who are endowed with it.

68. Some commentators of the Qur'an interpret the word 'houses' used in this verse to mean mosques. Accordingly, they interpret the words 'enjoined to be raised' to mean constructing mosques and holding them in high esteem. Other commentators of the Qur'an, however, consider these words to mean the houses of believers. As for the expression 'to be raised', this suggests that these houses are morally elevated.

The other part of the verse, where it says 'Allah has enjoined to be raised |houses| and wherein His names are remembered', fits in well with the interpretation of 'houses' as mosques. However, with a little reflection one realizes that this part of the verse supports the second interpretation as well. For the Shan'ah does not restrict God's worship only to those places designated for it where we may perform ritual worship only with the aid of the clergy. In Islam the ordinary house is also a place of worship like the mosque, and everyone may function within it as his own priest. Since this surah is full of directives aimed at elevating one's family and social life, the latter interpretation seems more plausible. This does not, however, rule out the former interpretation altogether. It seems appropriate, therefore, to consider the word 'houses' to signify both mosques and the houses of believers.

69. This sets forth the prerequisites for perceiving God's Light and benefiting from it. God's distribution of His bounties is not arbitrary. He bestows His Bounty, i.e. truth, in consideration of a person's worthiness, depending on whether he loves Him, holds Him in proper awe, has the desire to earn His reward, and is motivated by an urge to avoid His Wrath. Such persons are those who have not totally immersed themselves in worldly pursuits. Despite all their preoccupations, their hearts pulsate with remembrance of Him. Far from content with self-indulgence and moral degradation, such people strive to reach the heights which God directs them to. They do not aspire only to the benefits of this ephemeral world. Their eyes are rather set on the abiding rewards of the Hereafter. It is in consideration of these that God decides upon whom He bestows the ability to benefit from His Light. But once He decides this, His Munificence knows no bounds.

70. That is, they deliberately decided against accepting the Message which they had received through God's Messengers, a Message which at that particular time was being delivered to them by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). The preceding verses characterized those who partake of God's Light, and these are true, sincere believers. By contrast, the verses that follow are an account of those who deliberately refuse to draw on God's Light. Those who do not believe in and follow the Messenger of God, do not follow God, for God's Messengers are the only true source of His Light. It is immaterial whether they are rejectionists in their hearts whilst verbally professing to believe, or whether they reject both verbally and in their hearts.

71. This parable relates to those who, despite their disbelief and hypocrisy, do some apparently good deeds and appear to believe in the Hereafter. At the same time these people mistakenly think that even without their sincerely believing, without cultivating the attributes of true believers, and without obeying and following the Messenger of God, their good deeds will benefit them in the Hereafter. Here, they are being told that such an expectation is no more than a mirage. A thirsty person traversing a desert is taken in by the mirage and mistakenly believes it to be a spring, and frantically pursues it so as to quench his thirst. However, on reaching the spot he discovers that the place has no water. In the same manner, when these hypocrites die and find themselves in the Next World, they will realize that none of their deeds will benefit them. On the contrary, God will take full account of their unbelief, their hypocrisy, and their misdeeds which just happened to be accompanied by a few good deeds.

72. This parable portrays the state of all unbelievers and hypocrites including those who do good deeds primarily for show and ostentation. What is common to them is that they spend their whole life in total ignorance even though they may have been regarded as the most outstanding scholars and specialists in their fields. They are like a person who is entrapped in a place and overwhelmed with darkness, a place devoid of even a single ray of light. Such a person tends to entertain the illusion that knowledge consists in manufacturing atomic and hydrogen bombs, making supersonic aero planes and vehicles for inter-stellar travel. He may also believe that knowledge consists in acquiring mastery in economics, finance, law or philosophy. But true knowledge is something quite different, something of which they have no idea. If the true concept of knowledge is remembered and used as a yardstick, then these so-called experts will have to be reckoned as ignoramuses. On the other hand, if an unlettered villager knows the truth he will be deemed as truly knowledgeable.

73. Here the main purpose of the discourse which commenced with the introductory statement: 'Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth' is brought out. The thrust of the discourse is that since there is no light in the whole universe save the Light of God, and everything becomes visible by God's Light alone, anyone who remains deprived of this light will have no light whatsoever. Such a person is doomed to remain in darkness. Since there is no other light save God's such a person will not have access even to a single ray of light.

74. It has been pointed out earlier (see n. 70 above) that although God is the Light of the whole universe, only those who truly believe and act righteously will benefit from this light. As for all others, even though light abounds around them, they will continue to stumble in darkness. There are many signs that point to this light. Anyone who looks at these signs with his heart's eye will perceive God at work all around him. But those whose hearts are blind, no matter how much they strain their eyes, their perception will not go beyond biology, zoology and other such ologies, and they will utterly fail to see God's hand operating in the universe.

75. This statement may refer to snow-laden clouds which have figuratively been called the mountains of heaven. It could, however, also mean in quite literal terms the mountains of the earth which rise high in the sky. As a result, the winds there occasionally become so cold that they freeze the clouds. This, in turn, leads to hailstorms.

76. Their disobedience contradicts their profession of faith. Their action fully reveals that they lied when they claimed to believe.

77. These words clearly establish that the Messenger's verdict is the same as God's and the Messenger's command is the same as God's. Likewise, when someone is called to the Messenger (peace be on him), this call is not merely to the Messenger. In fact, it amounts to calling him to both God and the Messenger.

The present verse, in combination with the preceding one, makes it clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is meaningless for anyone to claim that he believes unless his claim is supported by obedience to God and to His Messenger. Likewise, a person's claim that he obeys God and His Messenger is devoid of meaning unless he follows, both in his individual and collective spheres of life, the laws expounded by God and His Messenger. If anyone is found deficient in this respect, his claim to faith betrays his sheer hypocrisy. (Cf. Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. II, al-Nisa' 4, verses 59-61, nn. 89-92, pp. 50-4.)

78. Here people are urged to willingly accept the judgements made in accordance with the Qur'an and the Sunnah. It is quite obvious that this requirement is not restricted to the time of the Prophet (peace be on him) alone. Instead, this is something that will always be required of Muslims, whether they lived in the time of the Prophet (peace be on him) or in any subsequent period. Thus, whenever a judge, who decides cases according to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, sends a summons to someone, it will be deemed to be the summons of the court of God and of His Messenger. The person who declines to respond to this summons and who turns away from it, does not simply turn away from the judge who sent the summons; in reality he turns away from God and His Messenger. This point is made abundantly clear by the following mursal tradition narrated by Hasan al-Basri: 'He who is summoned by a Muslim hakim (magistrate), and then fails to turn up is a wrong-doer who is devoid of all rights.' (See Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an, vol. 3, p. 229, comments on Surah al-Nur 24: 48 - Ed.) Such a person deserves to be punished for not responding to the summons. Additionally, he will be presumed to be in the wrong and an ex pane judgement may be awarded against him.

79. This verse characterizes those who follow the rulings of the Shan'ah which suit them but turn away from those which run counter to their interests and desires. As a result, such people turn to man-made laws in those matters where the rulings of the Shari'ah appear to be inconvenient and irksome. Such people are not sincere believers; they are hypocrites. Their claim to faith is false for they do not truly believe in God and His Messenger; they rather believe in their own interests and desires. With such conduct even if they were to follow a part of the Shari'ah, it would carry no weight with God.

80. There can only be three possible reasons for such conduct. First, that the person concerned does not truly believe, but only hypocritically pretends to be a Muslim so us to deceive others and draw benefits as a member of the Muslim society. Second, that even after becoming a Muslim he is still in doubt about whether the Messenger has truly been designated by God, whether the Hereafter is a reality (rather than a fantasy) which will inevitably come to pass. In fact, he might even be in doubt whether God truly exists or has been invented to achieve some beneficial purpose. Third, that even when he believes in God and is convinced that the Prophet (peace be on him) is indeed His Messenger, he entertains the fear that he might be treated unjustly, or he thinks that certain injunctions of the Qur'an or certain directives of God's Messenger are harmful for him.

Regardless of the category to which such a person belongs, he is undoubtedly steeped in error. Anyone who holds these views and still claims to be a believer and a member of the Muslim society and who seeks to derive benefits from this association is indeed a cheat, a betrayer of trust, a fake and perfidious person. He also wrongs himself because his constant deception and cheating make him the embodiment of the worst moral traits. He also wrongs his Fellow-Muslims who take him at his word, consider him to be a part of the Muslim society, and establish a myriad of social, cultural and political relations with him.

81. Alternatively, it might mean that the obedience and surrender to God required of believers is of a well-known quality. Those who are truly obedient to God stand apart from others, their distinctiveness can be perceived by everyone. Their conduct leaves no room whatsoever for any doubt that might prompt them to swear so as to convince others about the sincerity of their faith.

82. Such fraudulent measures might possibly enable people to deceive their fellow-men. But as far as God is concerned, such things cannot deceive Him for He is fully aware of everything, whether it is open or secret. His knowledge extends even to the innermost thoughts of human beings.

83. As we have indicated at the outset of this discourse, the present statement aims at warning the hypocrites that God's promise to bestow His vicegerency on Muslims does not apply to those who only have Muslim names or who were registered as Muslims on the occasion of a census or at the time of their birth. That promise was in fact meant for true Muslims who are firm in their belief, who are righteous and God-fearing in their character and conduct, and who faithfully follow the religion of God, who are committed to purge themselves of every taint of polytheism and who worship with full devotion the One True God and none else. Those who are devoid of these qualities and only claim with their tongues that they are believers do not deserve to receive this favor, nor was the promise of this favor meant for them.

Some people tend to interpret vicegerency in the narrow sense of mere power, of dominance and hegemony. With this false assumption, they infer that whoever is in power is ipso facto a true believer, is righteous, is on the way of God, and that ipso facto he worships God and shuns polytheism. What is even more deplorable is that in order to justify their inference they misinterpret several key terms of the Qur'an such as faith, righteousness, religion, worship of God, and polytheism. Such people tend to distort whatever they find, i.e. find it discordant with their preconceived notions. This is the worst misinterpretation of the teachings of the Qur'an, even worse than the distortion of the Scriptures by the Jews and Christians. For this interpretation ascribes a meaning to this Qur'anic verse which distorts the teachings of the Qur'an in its entirety and disturbs the whole Islamic scheme of things. If one understands God's vicegerency in the above sense, the promise to bestow God's vicegerency is applicable to all those who have been dominant in the world either in the past, or are so in the present. This applies to all holders of power, even to those who have rejected God, revelation, Prophethood, the Hereafter, and all the other articles of faith. It also applies to all those who are steeped in what the Qur'an brands as major sins such as dealing in interest, having unlawful sexual relations, and drinking and gambling. If all such people are true believers and are elevated to God's vicegerency owing to this twisted understanding of the verse, then faith is bound to be perceived as no more than following the laws of nature, and righteousness as no more than efficiently exploiting and harnessing those laws to serve one's own purpose. If these assumptions are accepted, then true religion would mean nothing else but gaining perfect mastery in natural sciences and thereby making the utmost progress in trade, industry, business and in other walks of life. By the same token, serving God would mean strictly following the laws which, insofar as they are natural laws, are essential for the success of every human endeavor, both individual and collective. Likewise, if these assumptions are correct, then polytheism can only mean that a person or a people adheres, along with following these natural laws which are useful in pragmatic terms, to ways that are conducive to harm.

Now, can anyone who has studied the Qur'an with an open mind, ever subscribe such meaning to the key concepts of the Qur'an, namely faith, righteousness, true religion, worship of God, the Oneness of God, and polytheism? The interpretations to which those concepts have been subjected can only be entertained by those who have either never studied the Qur'an, or who are guilty of picking up Qur'anic verses at random and adapting them to their preconceived ideas. Alternatively, such an attitude may be adopted by those who have the audacity to go about dismissing as meaningless and faulty all those verses of the Qur'an which describe God as the One True Lord and the only true object of worship, service and obedience, revelation from God as the only true source of guidance, and the Messengers of God as those who ought to be followed faithfully. Or such notions may be entertained by those who contemptuously disregard those Qur'anic verses which not only ask people to believe that another life will follow the present one, and that those who set their minds to worldly success alone, either because they deny or are heedless of their accountability in the Next World, can never achieve true success. These major themes recur so often and in such a variety of ways in the Qur'an and are expressed in such categorical and unmistakable terms that it is hard for us to believe that any student of the Qur'an can genuinely misunderstand the verse, which promises that power on the land will be bestowed upon those who believe and do righteous deeds, to mean what has been described above. As a matter of fact, the interpretation of the terms khilafah and istikhlaf on which this whole structure of false ideas has been raised, is too patently absurd to be accepted by any student of the Qur'an.

To look at the matter more carefully, the Qur'an employs the term khilafah (vicegerency) and the verbal form istikhlaf (bestowing power on the land) which is derived from it in three different ways. In each case it rs the context which determines the meaning in which these terms are used.

One of the meanings of the term khilafah is to possess the powers granted by God. In this sense all the descendants of Adam are vicegerents of God on earth. The second meaning of the word khilafah is to possess and exercise the powers of vicegerency within the parameters of God's sovereignty and in accordance with God's Will (that is, God's revealed Will or command rather than the will which underlies the cosmic order and consists of natural laws). Taken in this sense, only a believer who acts righteously can be considered to have assumed the vicegerency that conforms to this description. On the contrary, an unbeliever or a wicked person cannot be God's vicegerent in this sense; instead, he is a rebel because he abuses the powers that have been granted to him by His Lord in His realm.

In its third usage, the word khilafah means one community's succession by another community; its replacing the dominant community in the sense of wresting power from it.

Whereas in the earlier-mentioned usage of the term, khilafah denotes vicegerency, in its latter usage it is closely related to the idea of succession to power. Both these meanings of the term khilafah are well known in Arabic lexicon.

Anyone who reads the present verse on khilafah and remembers the context in which it occurs, can never have any illusion as to the sense in which the expression khilafah has been employed here. In this particular instance, khilafah denotes a government which fulfils all the obligations of vicegerency according to God's revealed command (rather than simply according to natural laws).

It is significant that even the hypocrites who claimed to be Muslims, let alone those who were declared unbelievers, were excluded from God's promise that khilafah would be bestowed upon them. The intent of the Qur'an is unmistakable: it proclaims that only those characterized with the virtues of faith and righteousness deserve to be invested with the vicegerency of God. In the same vein, it is being made clear that the fruit of such vicegerency is Islam, and that this way of life prescribed by God, will be pervasive. Accordingly, the condition for obtaining this favor from God is that believers should serve and worship the One True God to the exclusion of all else and shun every iota of polytheism.

To contend that this promise of God applies to the dominant powers of our own time such as the USA or the former USSR is tantamount to gross ignorance. If these superpowers, by the sheer dint of their redoubtable material power are considered to be the holders of the office of khilafah, one is left wondering why God should have cursed Pharaoh and Nimrod. (For further elaboration see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. V, al-Anbiya' 21, n. 99, pp. 299-304.)

Another point seems noteworthy, namely that while this promise of God pertains indirectly to Muslims of a later date, it was in the first instance directly addressed to the Prophet's Companions. Moreover, this promise was made at a time when Muslims lived in a state of dire insecurity because Islam had by then not put down any strong roots even in the Hijaz. However, after only a few years this state of insecurity was replaced by a state of peace and security as Islam spread from Arabia to dominate major parts of Asia and Africa. Not only was Islam established in the region from which it had arisen, but also in many other parts of the world. That God did make His promise come true is corroborated by the events which unfolded during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman. God's promise was fulfilled in such a resounding manner that a fair-minded person can hardly have any doubt about the validity of the Caliphate of these three since the Qur'an itself testifies to it, and God Himself confirmed them to be true believers. If anyone has any doubt regarding this, he would be well-advised to read 'Ali ibn Abi Talib's speech in Nahj al-Balaghah which he delivered in order to dissuade 'Umar from personally joining the battle against the Persians. He said:

That this cause should gain strength or be weakened is not contingent upon the numbers [of the believers who take part in the fighting]. It is the religion of God Which He Himself has promoted; and it is God's army which He Himself has strengthened and supported until it has reached its present stage. God Himself promised us: 'Allah has promised those of you who believe and do righteous deeds that He will surely bestow power on them in the land . . .' (al-Nur 24: 55). God will fulfil His promise and certainly help His army to victory. The position of leader (qayyim) in Islam is that of the cohesive thread in a necklace of pearls. If that cohesive thread is broken, the pearls will be scattered. Once things become disorderly, it becomes that much harder to reorder them. The Arabs are no doubt small in number, yet Islam has made them large in number, and their cohesion has made them strong. You should better remain here as the axis and keep the hand mill of Arabs revolving around yourself and keep directing the war from here. Once you move away, the cohesion of the Arabs will start to shatter and things might reach a point when you will be more concerned with threats from the rear than from the enemy in the front. On the other hand, the Persians have focused their eyes upon you. They believe that you are the very root of the Arabs. They believe that once this root is amputated, they will enjoy smooth sailing. Therefore, they are concentrating all their strength upon destroying you. You say that the Persians have amassed in large numbers [and hence you should personally go and fight]. To this I say that we have also been confronting them in the past, but not by dint of our numbers. It is God's help and support which has led us to victory until now.

Anyone who reads this can readily understand what 'Ali understood by the use of the term istikhlaf in the present verse.

84. The word kufr, [which is translated here as 'unbelief'], can variously mean ingratitude or rejection of the truth. Taken in the former sense, the statement means that although God favored them with vicegerency, they nonetheless drifted away from the Right Path. Taken in the latter sense, it applies to those who persist in their hypocrisy despite their knowledge of God's promise.

85. Beginning with the present verse, the enunciation of injunctions pertaining to social life is resumed. It is not improbable that this part of the Surah might have been revealed some time after the revelation of the discourse above.

86. In the opinion of the majority of Qur'anic commentators and jurists, the expression al-ladhina malakat aymanukum stands for one's slaves, regardless of whether they are male or female. However, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar and Mujahid interpret the expression to mean male slaves thereby excluding female slaves. In view of the Qur'anic injunction that follows there is no ground whatsoever to exclude slave-girls. The point that is being brought home here is that in the same way that it is improper for one's minor children to invade one's privacy, it is also improper for one's slaves to do so. Jurists are, however, agreed that the injunction pertains to both adult and minor slaves.

87. Alternatively, it might be translated as 'those who have reached the age to dream that which adults dream'. Jurists, therefore, are of the opinion that the criterion to establish the puberty of a boy is whether he has had wet dreams or not. Although this is an undisputed view, the translation preferred by us is one that is based on the assumption that the injunction applies to both boys and girls. If one interprets the word hulm to strictly mean wet dream, the above injunction would only pertain to boys. For the criterion of a girl's puberty is her menstruation. In our opinion, the intent of the injunction is that until the children of the household reach puberty, they should follow this command. Once they become adults, they should abide by the injunctions which follow in the next

88. The verse says that there are 'three times of 'awrat for you'. In Arabic, 'awrah (pl. 'awrat) means the place that is vulnerable or insecure. The word also means an object whose exposure is embarrassing or disagreeable. The word also denotes something that is unprotected. All these nuances are interrelated and are variously intended in the verse to one extent or another.

The purpose of the statement is to emphasize that even minor children and slaves should not enter the private chambers of their parents/masters for there are certain times when people are either all alone or are with their spouses. It is inappropriate even for children or servants to enter someone's private chambers unannounced because they might observe them in an embarrassing state. Hence, it was laid down that at the three times of privacy mentioned in the verse even children and servants should seek permission before entering.

89. Except for these times of privacy, minor children and slaves may freely enter the private chambers of both men and women without seeking their prior permission. But if they enter their rooms during hours other than those mentioned above and find them improperly dressed, it is not fair to rebuke them. For in such a case the fault lies with the person who is not properly dressed. If anyone intrudes during the hours that are mentioned, it is he who is responsible, provided the person concerned properly instructed them. If they had failed to instruct their children and slaves on how to behave, this should be reckoned a serious failure on their part, a failure which amounts to a sin.

90. This explains the reason behind granting permission to the children and slaves of the family to enter freely at all other times than the ones declared as 'times of privacy'. It also brings into sharp relief the point that there is some rationale underlying every injunction of the Shari'ah regardless of whether it is clearly indicated in the relevant texts or not.

91. That is, when they become adults. As stated earlier (see n. 87 above) having wet dreams and menstruation signify the puberty of boys and girls respectively. There is some disagreement among jurists, however, with regard to the question of how we determine the puberty of those boys and girls who, for one reason or another do not go through these biological changes. Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf. Malik and Ahmad ibn Hanbal are of the opinion that a 15-year-old boy and girl will be regarded as having attained puberty. There is also a statement from Abu Hanifah in support of this opinion. The more popular ruling of Abu Hanifah. however, is that in such a case a boy and a girl will be assumed to have attained puberty at the age of 18 and 17 years respectively.

It is pertinent to point out that these opinions do not have any definite textual basis. They, rather, represent jurists' opinions based on their ijtihad. It is, therefore, not binding on Muslims the world over to accept a 17-year-old girl and an 18-year-old boy as adults when they do not show any physical signs of adulthood. As things stand physical growth has varied in different regions and at different times.

In our opinion, what can be done to solve the problem is to consider, in a given space-time context, the average age when boys start having wet dreams and girls begin menstruating. The puberty of those boys and girls who do not experience these physical changes, should be determined in light of the average age at which boys and girls in a particular country do so. Hence, if boys in a country show physical signs of puberty between 12 and 15, the average age will be 13 and a half. As for boys who have late growth, they may be assumed to have reached puberty at 16 and a half. The same formula can be used by legal experts in different countries, taking local conditions into account.

A hadith is cited in support of the opinion that 15 years of age may be considered the age of puberty. The tradition, narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar, is as follows: 'When I was 14 years old, I presented myself before the Prophet (peace be on him) so that I might obtain permission to take part in the Battle of Uhud. However, the Prophet (peace be on him) refused to grant me such permission. Then at the time of the Battle of Khandaq when I was 15 years old, I was presented before the Prophet once again and he granted me permission to take part.' (See Bukhari, K. al-Maghazi, 'Bab Ghazwat al-Khandaq wa huwa al-Ahzab'-Ed.)

This tradition is not, however, a decisive argument in support of the opinion, and this on two counts. First, the Battle of Uhud took place in Shawwal 3 A.H. and the Battle of Khandaq, as reported by Muhammad ibn Ishaq, was fought in Shawwal 5 A.H., and according to Ibn Sa'd, in Dhu al-Qa'dah 5 A.H. In other words, there is a time lapse of two years or a little more between the two battles. Thus, had 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar been 14 years old at the time of the Battle of Uhud, he would not have been 15 at the time of the Battle of Khandaq. Perhaps 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar rounded off the figure.

Moreover, to be eligible to take part in a battle and to be considered adult in the legal sense, i.e. with regard to social matters, are two entirely different matters. There is no correspondence whatsoever between the two. Hence, this particular tradition does not establish the legal point for which it was adduced. The more plausible opinion seems to be that fixing of the age of 15 years for a boy, who otherwise does not show any signs of puberty, is, at best, an opinion based on qiyas (analogy) and ijtihad (juristic opinion) rather than an injunction rooted in clear religious text.

92. The words that are used are qawa 'id min al-nisa' (literally 'women who have taken to sitting'). These words signify women who have passed the age of child-bearing; women who have themselves become bereft of desire and do not arouse any sexual passion in men. This significance is borne out by the statement that follows.

93. If one translates the words yada'na thiyabahunna literally to mean women 'who cast off their garments', this would be incorrect. Hence, jurists and commentators on the Qur'an are agreed that what is meant by thiyab is that they cast off their outer garments which were required to be worn in observance of hijab. (See, for this, al-Ahzab 33: 59.)

94. The actual words are ghayra mutabarrijat bi zinatin ('those who do not display their adornment'). The word barij denotes a boat or ship without a roof. When this word is used with regard to a woman, it means a woman who makes full display of her beauty before men. The import of the verse, therefore, is that the permission to cast off outer garments is granted to older women who are no longer interested in displaying their beauty or whose sexual passions have subsided. If it is felt, however, that if some spark of sexual passion continues to smolder in a woman despite her age, it is inappropriate for her to avail herself of this permission.

95. For a better appreciation of this verse one should grasp three points. First, that it is composed of two parts. The first part applies to the sick, the lame, the blind and other handicapped persons, while the other part pertains to normal people. Second, that as a result of the revelation of verse 29 of Surah al-Nisa' prohibiting the eating of someone's property unlawfully, the Muslims had become quite sensitive about this matter. As narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, when God directed that Muslims may not eat one another's property, they began to exercise utmost caution in eating at one another's place. Unless the host of the house granted permission in very clear and explicit terms, Muslims thought that it was unlawful for them to partake of food even in the houses of their relatives and friends. (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on Surah al-Nur 24: 61 - Ed.) Third, that the present verse not only grants permission, it even emphasizes that taking food at the houses of one's relatives and friends is as good as having it at one's own place. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that one does not need permission to take food in one's own home.

Once we have grasped these three points it is easier to understand the verse, for insofar as a physically handicapped person is concerned, he may take food anywhere. The physical disability of such people entitles them to enjoy this right in society. Therefore, it is perfectly lawful for them to have food wherever they happen to get it. As for others, i.e. those who are normal, their homes and those of their relatives and friends are equal and they may eat wherever they wish. No preconditions are required for taking food at the homes of friends. Nor is it required that they have to seek prior permission from their friends and relatives to eat at their places, or that if they fail to do so this amounts to dishonesty or a breach of trust. If one visits someone and food is being served by members of the family, even if the head of the family is not present, one may freely partake of it.

Although mention is made of relatives, no reference is made to one's own children. This because the home of one's children is no different from one's own. As for friends, the verse refers to those very close friends who, far from feeling upset, are in fact happy to find that their friends feel free to eat at their homes.

96. For some time some Arab tribes had followed the practice of eating separately. They did not approve of eating together, even as some Hindus do in our own time. By contrast, there were certain tribes which disapproved of so eating separately. They would rather starve than eat alone. The present verse does away with all such undue restrictions.

97. These final directives are intended to ensure the reinforcement of the inner cohesion and unity of the Muslim community.

98. This command is equally applicable to the Successors of the Prophet (peace be on him) and to the rulers of the Islamic State. Whenever Muslims are summoned to a collective cause, whether it be in times of peace or war, they should not fail to respond to it and they should not disperse without the permission of the ruler.

99. This is to warn the Muslims that seeking permission to withdraw from the Prophet's company without any genuine reason is altogether unlawful. Only when someone has a genuine need should he seek permission to leave.

100. Whether someone should be exempt from taking part in collective duties and be allowed to stay at home after having asked for it was at the discretion of the Prophet (peace be on him), and after him, it continues to be at the discretion of the heads of the Muslim community. If it is believed that the larger interests will suffer by granting such permission, the leader is fully entitled to refuse such permission. In this case a sincere believer should accept the decision ungrudgingly.

Second, one should not regard the Prophet's Prayer as ordinary Prayer. If he prays for someone while he is pleased with him, nothing can match this great favor and privilege. Conversely, if the Prophet (peace be on him) curses someone because he is displeased with him, this represents the very height of that person's misfortune.

Third, a person's calling the Messenger (peace be on him) should not be equated with the calling of any other person. One may call others by using their names in a loud voice. This should, however, not be done in the case of the

101. This constitutes another warning. If one resorts to false pretexts in order to obtain permission to leave, or if personal interests are accorded priority over collective interests, this amounts to a sin. Hence, when the Messenger (peace be on him) and his Successors granted people the leave they asked for, they added the following words to the permission: 'May God forgive you.'

102. The word used here is du 'a 'which denotes 'to call' as well as 'to pray'. In view of these different meanings, du'a al-Rasul might signify two things: (i) the Messenger's own act of calling or praying; and (ii) other people's act of calling the Messenger. This gives rise to three possible meanings of the verse, each of which is equally valid. First, one should not treat the Messenger's summons as an ordinary summons. If the Prophet (peace be on him) summons someone, it is a matter of extraordinary importance. One may not honor anyone else's summons but in the case of the Messenger, if a person does not respond to his summons or is constricted by it, then this amounts to risking one's faith.

Messenger (peace be on him). It is imperative that the utmost respect be shown him. For any impropriety in this regard might see the person liable be taken to task by God.

Although all three meanings are valid and are borne out by the words of the Qur'an, the first seems to be closer and more consistent with the spirit of the verse that follows.

103. This indicates another attribute of the hypocrites. When they are summoned in connection with any collective cause, they somehow respond to it for they want to be reckoned as Muslims. However, they deeply resent such a summons and seize the earliest opportunity to sneak away.

104. The word fitnah, used in this verse has been interpreted by Ja'far al- Sadiq to mean the 'dominance of wrong-doers'. If Muslims disobey the commands of the Messenger (peace be on him) they will be subjected io the yoke of unjust and oppressive rulers. While this is one of the forms of fitnah, it is by no means the only form. For fitnah might manifest itself in countless other ways such as mutual dissension and feuding, moral degeneration, the dissipation of collective cohesion, the spread of internal disorder and chaos, the breakdown of the material power of a people and its subjugation by others.