زَّانِیۡ

2592

Important Words:

الزانی is act. part. from زنی (aor. یزنی inf. n. زنی & زناء). They say زنی بھا i.e. he committed fornication or adultery with her. Thus الزنا means both fornication and adultery. ابن زنی، ولد زنیة and ولد الزنا all mean the same thing, i.e. the offspring of fornication or adultery. الزانی means, fornicator or adulterer, and الزانیة means, fornicatress or adulteress; and applied to a man it has an intensive meaning, i.e. one much addicted to fornication or adultery. The plural of زان is زناة like قضاة which is plural of قاض and the plural of زانیة is زوان (Lane & Aqrab).

جلدة (stripes) is derived from جلد. They say جلدہ i.e. he hit or hurt his skin; he beat his skin; he beat him; he struck him with a whip; he flogged him with a whip. جلدة means, flogging, scourging, whipping; stripe. The word is used both as plural and singular (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Thus flogging and not stoning to death according to this verse is the punishment prescribed by Islam for adultery or fornication. Nowhere in the Quran has stoning to death been laid down as punishment for adultery and for that matter for any other crime however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder, dacoity, treason against the state and disturbing the peace of the land. Though extreme penalty for these crimes is death, yet the payment of blood money in the case of the first offence (2:129) and imprisonment or banishment for the other crimes (5:33-34) have been laid down as alternative punishments. Elsewhere in the Quran where punishment for adultery for a married slave-girl is mentioned (4:26), it is clearly stated that she will get half the punishment prescribed for that of a free, married woman; and evidently the punishment of stoning to death cannot be halved.

So in spite of the fact that the Quran has quite clearly and unequivocally laid down (as in the verse under comment) flogging as the punishment for adultery and has made no discrimination whatever between a married or an unmarried culprit in the matter of awarding punishment (because زانی means both a fornicator and adulterer), and in spite of the fact that the present and other relevant verses were revealed in connection with slander-mongering about ‘A’ishah, the Holy Prophet’s noble consort, who herself was a married lady, it is curious that the misconception has persisted without any justification or linguistic authority among certain schools of Muslim religious thought that the verse under comment deals with punishment for unmarried persons only and that the punishment for a married adulterer and adulteress is stoning to death. The misconception seems to be due to a few cases recorded in Hadith whereby married persons guilty of adultery were stoned to death by the order of the Holy Prophet. One of these few cases was that of a Jew and a Jewess who were stoned to death in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Bukhari). It was invariably the Holy Prophet’s practice that he abided by the Law of the Torah in deciding cases till a new commandment was revealed to him. In one or two other cases on record in which the punishment accorded was stoning to death, it has not been established whether the crime was committed before or after the verse under comment was revealed. It seems that in cases in which the guilty person was stoned to death, the crime was committed before the revelation of this verse, but by some miscalculation on the part of some chronicler it was believed to have taken place after it. There is no dearth of such historical anachronisms in the books of Hadith. Or there might have been some other aggravating circumstances besides the crime of adultery which made the Holy Prophet award the guilty person or persons the extreme punishment of death and which the chronicler of the incident failed to take into account. Otherwise it is simply inconceivable that the Holy Prophet should have contravened the quite clear and unequivocal Divine commandment in this respect.

Another possible cause for misunderstanding about the form of punishment for adultery may be a saying attributed to Caliph ‘Umar. He is reported to have said: "There was a verse in the Book of God about rajm (stoning). We read it, we understood it and we remembered it. The Holy Prophet stoned adulterers to death and we also stoned after him. Were it not that people might say that ‘Umar had added in the Book of God what was not in it, I would have written it down" (Kashful-Ghummah vol.2, p.111). The whole hadith seems to be a pure fabrication or at best the result of misunderstanding or distortion of what ‘Umar might actually have said. How by writing down in the Quran what was a part of it could be called an addition to it and how, of all men, ‘Umar could have been afraid of anybody for doing the right thing, least of all for restoring to the Quran a lost text! It is impossible to attribute such confused thinking and irresponsible talk to a man of ‘Umar’s intellectual and moral calibre and stature. If the saying were to be taken at its face value, the whole claim of the Quran that it enjoys perpetual Divine protection and therefore is quite free from human interference falls to the ground.

‘Ali seems to hold quite a different view from that of ‘Umar regarding this very important religious question. After flogging a woman who had committed adultery and then stoning her to death, he is reported to have said: "I have flogged her in obedience to the commandment of the Book of God and have stoned her to death in accordance with the practice of the Holy Prophet" (Bukhari). From this hadith, two inferences clearly emerge:

(1) In the matter of punishing an adulterer or adulteress the practice of the Holy Prophet was at variance with the commandment of God as laid down in the Quran, which is impossible. (2) Whereas according to ‘Umar there was a commandment in the Book of God about stoning to death of an adulterer, according to ‘Ali there was no such commandment, it was only the practice of the Holy Prophet according to which he stoned to death persons guilty of adultery. It is impossible to reconcile the views of these two great leaders of Islam and equally impossible to believe that they held diametrically opposed views regarding a most important question of religion. And it is indeed very surprising that in the face of quite clear, unambiguous and unequivocal Divine commandments the view should have been held, of all men by ‘Umar and ‘Ali, or by any school of Muslim religious thought that Islam has prescribed stoning to death as punishment for an adulterer. The Quran rejects this view as wholly untenable. Somewhere some misunderstanding must have occurred on the part of a chronicler or narrator of the sayings of the Holy Prophet which has caused all this confusion.

It may be of interest to note that the verse has used the words الزانی and الزانیة (and not زانی and زانیة) which suggest a particular class of adulterers and fornicators such as hardened or habitual culprits or those who are lost to all sense of shame and remorse and having thrown all restraint and constraint to the winds indulge in this hideous crime openly.

The verse further lays down that the beating of the culprit should not be so severe as to cause his death or break his bone but should hurt only the skin as the word اجلدوا used in the verse signifies and as is implied in 4:26.

2593

Important Words:

لا ینکح cannot have sexual intercourse. نکح المرأة means, he married the woman; he had sexual relations with her. نکحت المرأة means, the woman married so she had a husband. نکاح signifies the (i) marriage without coitus; (ii) coitus with marriage; (iii) coitus without marriage. نکح المطر الارض means, the rain mixed with the sub-soil of the earth. نکح النعاس عینه means, slumber overcame his eyes (Lane & Aqrab).

The words الزانی لا ینکح الا زانیة may have all or one of the following interpretations: (i) a man given to adultery shall not marry but a woman given to the same evil practice. That is to say a wicked man who is not ashamed of freely indulging in adultery and has not repented of his evil ways, can never prevail upon a chaste believing woman to marry him. Only a wicked woman of low moral character like him or an idolatress whose standard of morality like him is very low can be persuaded to marry him.

(ii) An adulterer can have sexual relations only with a woman given to adultery. It is impossible for a chaste and believing woman to stoop so low as to yield to the wicked advances of an adulterer. Such a wicked man can only get an adulteress to pander to his carnal passions. An adulteress and idolatress have been bracketed together because of the very low standard of sexual morality obtaining among idol worshippers because they have no revealed Law to guide them.

(iii) The adulterer (or fornicator) cannot have sexual relations but with an adulteress (or fornicatoress). This meaning is supported by a saying of the Holy Prophet. He is reported to have said لا یزنی زان و ھو مؤمن i.e. a believer does not commit adultery while he remains a Muslim.

The hadith signifies that no true believing man or woman can commit adultery. It is only disbelievers or idolaters who can light-heartedly commit such heinous crimes.

The words حرم ذالک علی المؤمنین may signify that (i) marriage between a true believer and an adulteress or idolatrous woman and vice versa is forbidden; (ii) the committing of adultery is forbidden to the believers, the pronoun ذالك (that) in this case standing for adultery.

Islam regards adultery as one of the most heinous of all social crimes and looks upon sexual chastity of a man or woman as one of his or her most precious possessions. As the present Surah deals with the subject of establishment of the dominion and kingdom of Islam, it fittingly opens with condemnation of the most deadly of all social crimes which if not checked and suppressed in due time is calculated to bring about total disintegration and destruction of the Muslim community. The Quran seeks to close all those avenues through which this disease finds its way among a people and severely punishes the act of adultery and condemns the guilty parties as social pariahs. While the preceding verse has laid down the punishment which the Quran metes out to adulterers, the verse under comment stigmatizes adulterers and adulteresses as social lepers with whom all social relationship should be avoided. The verse, however, should not be understood to mean that the Quran bars, for all time, to such persons the entrance to respectable Muslim society. It does leave the door of repentance always open. The verse speaks only of persons who are lost to all sense of shame and who habitually indulge in this fell vice and show no sign of repenting of their evil ways.