ROOT ر م ي

24:12, 24; 33:59.

Important Words:

The difference between خطیئة (fault) and اثم (sin) mentioned side by side in this verse is that the former can be both intentional and unintentional and is often confined to the doer; while the latter is intentional and its scope may extend to other people as well. Moreover, the former may be a dereliction of duty due to God; while the latter is often an offence against both God and man and is, therefore, more serious and deserving of greater punishment than the former. See also 2:82 and 2:174.

Commentary:

The commission of a fault or sin makes it doubly grave, if he who commits it tries to fix it on an innocent person. This is why such an attempt has not only been termed بھتان (calumny) but also اثم مبین (manifest sin). As the word مبین (manifest) also means "that which cuts asunder" (2:169), the expression اثما مبینا may also signify that a double sin, (i.e. committing a sin and then imputing it to an innocent person) is that which is likely to cut asunder the connection of the sinner with his Maker.

33:12.

Important Words:

لیبلی (that He might confer). یبلی is derived from ابلا which is derived from بلاء . They say بلاہ or ابتلاہ i.e. he tried, proved or tested him with something good or evil. ابلاہ اللّٰه بلاء حسنا means, God did to him a good deed. ابلیته معروفا means, I conferred upon him a favour or benefit. بلاء means, the act of trying or testing; a trial or a test; an affliction of any kind by which one’s patience or any other virtue is tried or proved or tested; a benefit, favour or blessing; grief; imposition of a difficult or troublesome thing. بلاء حسن means, a great benefit or favour or blessing of God or a good gift of God. الابتلاءsignifies trying, proving or testing with something; seeking and desiring; choosing or selecting (Lane).

Commentary:

The words, So you killed them not, but it was Allah Who killed them, signify that the victory at Badr was not due to any effort on the part of the Muslims; it was purely an act of God. Thus, as enjoined in the preceding verse, there is no justification for Muslims to flee from a battlefield.

The Battle of Badr, fought in the second year of Hijrah, began with single combats; then there was a general attack. At this juncture the Holy Prophet took a handful of pebbles and cast them towards the enemy. That was a token for the help of God to come, just as striking the water of the sea with the rod by Moses was a signal for God’s aid to arrive. When the Holy Prophet cast the pebbles, there rose a strong gale which, blowing directly in the direction of the enemy, blinded their eyes with sand and thus contributed to their discomfiture and the victory of the Muslims. It is to this incident that the words, it was Allah Who threw, refer, hinting that really it was the hand of God, and not the hand of the Prophet, which cast the pebbles, and that the victory was due to the fact that God had come to the help of the Muslims.

The reader should note that while speaking of the Companions of the Holy Prophet in the words, you killed them not, the verse ascribes no act to the Companions, but simply denies their having killed the enemy, whereas in the case of the throwing of the pebbles by the Holy Prophet the verse says, thou threwest not when thou didst throw, but it was Allah Who threw, thus hinting that although victory came from God, yet the Holy Prophet also had a share in the affair. He contributed his share in the form of earnest prayers which drew the help of God.

The throwing of a handful of pebbles and sand by the Holy Prophet bears a remarkable resemblance to the striking of the waters by Moses with the rod. Just as in the latter case the act of Moses was a signal for the wind to blow, which led to the drowning of Pharaoh and his hosts in the sea, similarly, the throwing of a handful of pebbles by the Holy Prophet was a signal for a strong wind to blow which led to the destruction of Abu Jahl (of whom the Holy Prophet spoke as the Pharaoh of his people) and his host in the desert. Again, after the Battle of Badr, the bodies of Abu Jahl and other leaders of the Quraish were cast into the bottom of a pit or an old well, and thus the similarity of the fate of Abu Jahl with that of Pharaoh was completed; for, just as the latter together with his host was drowned into the depths of the sea, so was the former with his comrades cast into the bottom of a well.

The reference in the words, Allah is All-Hearing All-Knowing, is to the prayers of the Holy Prophet which God heard and accepted and in response to which He conferred such a signal victory on the Muslims.

24:24.

Commentary:

The other social evil, second to adultery in heinousness which eats into the vitals of human society, is the slandering of innocent persons. Islam views also with extreme disfavour this social evil which has become so common in the so-called civilized modern society, and severely punishes the accusers of innocent people. The verse under comment mentions three forms of punishment in an ascending order which are to be meted out to a slanderer; first, the physical punishment of scourging; secondly, the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer and a liar which invalidates his evidence and thirdly, the spiritual stigma of being adjudged as a wicked transgressor.

It may be noted that the punishment prescribed for the slanderer who accuses a chaste woman without producing adequate evidence seems to be even more serious than the punishment prescribed for the crime of adultery itself. In the latter case the punishment prescribed is one hundred lashes, only twenty lashes more than those prescribed for slandering. But after undergoing the punishment the adulterer or adulteress has not to carry the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer, nor does he or she lie under the more serious spiritual stigma of being adjudged by God as a wicked transgressor.

The commandment about scandal-mongering is of particular importance in the present state of the so-called civilized society where it has assumed the form of a common social pastime. No wonder that as a result of scandal-mongering sexual immorality has greatly increased, particularly in western countries.

It may also be noted that in this verse no mention has been made of the accusation being true or false. So long as the accuser cannot produce the necessary evidence in support of his charge, the charge would be considered as false and the accuser would render himself liable to the prescribed punishment. Whatever the real facts of the case, the woman with whom adultery is alleged to have been committed will be held innocent so long as the required evidence is not produced. The law is, in fact, intended to suppress with a strong hand the offence of slandering and scandal-mongering which is calculated to encourage the spread of those very crimes which the scandal-mongers hold up to public gaze.

It follows from this verse that a person charged with adultery is held guilty only if four witnesses, in addition to the accuser, are forthcoming who solemnly declare and testify to the fact of having seen with their own eyes the accused person actually committing the crime.

In case the offender himself confesses to the crime, no witnesses will, of course, be required to prove his guilt provided he is in full possession of his senses. From Hadith it appears that in such an event the offender must himself testify four times to having committed the crime. In case a man alleges that he has committed adultery the woman implicated will not be held guilty unless she herself admits that she too has committed the crime. This provision is intended to save the good name of innocent men or women from being besmirched by persons of no character who are not ashamed of confessing to having committed adultery in order to implicate other innocent persons along with themselves.

Similarly, when a person makes an allegation against another, it is the accuser who is required to produce four witnesses to the crime alleged. The accused person has not to prove his innocence. It is only after four witnesses have been produced that he is asked to produce his defence. If the accuser fails to produce the requisite four witnesses, then both he and the witnesses will be liable to punishment on the plea of having made an allegation for which they had not produced the necessary evidence.

The object of such stringent provisions is to discourage the spread of indecent scandals. Such provisions amply refute the criticism that the penalty Islamic Law prescribes for adultery is barbarous. The evidence and the attendant conditions required to prove the commission of adultery are, in fact, almost impossible to produce save in cases where the offence is committed openly and in such cases a severe punishment, in order to be deterrent, is certainly very essential.

If a person confesses to having committed the crime and repeats his confession four times, he will not be punished if he recants at the time of infliction of the punishment. In such an event, however, the culprit will be liable to punishment for slandering the alleged accessory.

The commandment contained in this verse covers both men and women although the word used is المحصنات which means 'chaste women.' In the Arabic language when something has to be said which relates equally to both men and women the gender used is masculine. But when something is said regarding a matter which concerns women more than men, then feminine gender is used. The commandment here relates to punishment for slandering whether the victim of the slander is man or woman but as women generally are more often the victims of such slanders, the verse speaks of 'chaste women'. Similarly the word الذین (those) though in masculine gender applies to both men and women slanderers.

Commentary:

As suspicion between husband and wife is likely to cast a severe strain on the whole family relations, a special regulation has been laid down in the verse under comment to meet such an unhappy situation if it ever happens to arise. If a husband accuses his wife of adultery he has to declare on oath four times that his allegation is true.

24:5.

Important Words:

غافلات (careless) is the plural of غافلة which is active participle in feminine gender from غفل. They say غفل عنه i.e. he was or became unmindful, forgetful, neglectful or heedless of it or inadvertent to it. An Arab would say من اتبع الصید i.e. he who pursues the object of the chase becomes busy and possessed by it so that he becomes unmindful or unaware of other things. غفل الشیء means, he hid the thing. غفلة means, forgetfulness; heedlessness; inadvertence; lack of consciousness (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The subject of scandal-mongering and slander is closed with a severe warning to the slanderers that in addition to the corporal punishment they will incur and the moral obloquy that will remain attached to them, they will carry the curse of God on their heads in this world and in the life to come unless they completely cleanse and reform themselves by real, true and sincere repentance. This shows how serious a view Islam takes of the moral offence of slander and scandal-mongering.

Taking into consideration the various meanings of the root word غفل, the word غافلات would signify those righteous women who have no idea or consciousness of having done any wrong. The use of this word in connection with the calumny about ‘A’ishah establishes her complete innocence, implying that that paragon of virtue and righteousness had no idea or consciousness of having done any wrong.

Commentary:

As disbelievers sought ease and comfort and took pride in castles and stately buildings, their sins and transgressions will take the form of flames of fire rising high like huge castles.

Important Words:

ب (against). Among a variety meanings, this particle is syn. with علی meaning, over, upon, at, or against. An Arab poet says:

أ رب یبول الثعلبان برأسه

لقد ھان من بالت علیه الثعالب

i.e. how can he be رب (Lord) upon whose head jackals make water and how base he is (Al-Yawaqit wal-Jawahir, vol. 1).

In the Quran we have منھم من ان تأمنه بدینار i.e. "of them is he that if thou give him charge over a dinar (3:76)."

Commentary:

Swarms of birds feasted themselves upon dead bodies of the invaders, striking the severed pieces against stones, as birds generally do when eating the small and severed pieces of the dead body of an animal.