Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul is regarded as a leading hypocrite among the Muslim community of Medina. Prior to the prophet's migration to the city and due to his game of tribal alliances, his fame had grown to the extent he was to become the governor of Medina. The arrival of the prophet however frustrated his plans, and he kept that resentment in him despite paying lip service to the religion. The prophet had attained to leadership not through force and instigation of a faction against another, through lies and false pretence as he was doing now, but through love and brotherhood and conviction. This left ibn Salul even more bitter. He was always on the lookout to weaken the Muslims' resolve, unity and the prophet's authority and reputation.
During the confrontation with Bani Nadir, he promised them two thousand warriors in case they decided to remain in their fortified settlements despite the siege by the Muslims. Motivated by this proposition, they decided to take up arms against the prophet. The Muslims besieged them for 20 days, without actual fighting, but when ibn Ubayy's promise didnt materialize, they decided to surrender
59:11-14"...They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense".
Just as the satan whispered false hopes to the Quraysh alliance at the battle of Badr but immediately deserted them as he witnessed the unseen at the battlefield 8:48, so too did the whispering of the satan among the men, in this case ibn Ubayy, abandon the Jews after inciting them into treachery. The Quran alludes to this principles many times, that the satan from among the men or jinn will eventually dissociate themselves from those who willingly followed their footsteps despite the warnings, whether in this world or the next, and will have to stand to account for their deeds.
The incident that exposed him further as a hypocrite and active enemy of Islam was one in which the prophet's household was targeted. He was the instigator of the slander against Aisha, called in the history books al-ifk. Aisha had accompanied the prophet on one of his journeys and was inadvertently left behind. During a stop, she had left the camel carriage so as to relieve herself at a distance, and upon her way back the group had already left. As she says herself, the carriers of the enclosed cabin had no reason to suspect anything unusual, or inquire if she was fine or ready to go
"The group of people who used to carry me, came and carried my howdah on to the back of my camel on which I was riding, considering that I was therein. At that time women were light in weight and were not fleshy for they used to eat little (food), so those people did not feel the lightness of the howdah while raising it up, and I was still a young lady".
Among Muslim women the prophet's wives were the ones with the most intergender interaction, as they provided religious counsel and received the prophet's guests. Of course this excluded frivolous talk. Luckily for her Safwan b. Muattal, always travelled behind the prophet's caravan. He was a man known for his piety and dedication to his task, and when he saw her at dawn, felt the call of duty so profoundly that beyond his exclamation as he recognised her "Inna Li l-lahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun" he did not waste any time. He did not seek to inquire what had happened to her and hastily
"made his shecamel kneel down whereupon he trod on its forelegs and I mounted it. Then Safwan set out, leading the she-camel that was carrying me, till we met the army while they were resting during the hot midday".
Those with a diseased heart found in this incident an opportunity to cause trouble to the Muslims. As a side note, women in general were allowed to participate in such expeditions, mainly as assistants and sometimes as fighters.
The prophet was informed of the people's talk prior to Aisha. Slander of a sexual nature, whether true or false, tarnish a person's honour, especially when it spreads beyond the household. It causes tension in a couple even if one of the two doesnt believe the public gossip. The prophet, who never accused Aisha of adultery was nevertheless troubled as any man would be. But being the well-mannered person he was known for, he avoided confronting Aisha for a whole month about it, firstly because she was ill during that time, and also to avoid giving any importance to the rumour that had just started. He would thus keep visiting her during her illness, without bringing up the issue. Neither did anyone among her family during that time.
After a month had elapsed and she was cured, she accidentally came to know of the whole issue, which deeply hurt her. The prophet, after a month of incessant and injurious talk, instead of barging the door of his own house and confronting her alone, allows Aisha enough time to seek support at her parents' home.
In the meantime, prior to even confronting her, he first consulted with some of his closest companions for advice. The prophet then discredited the accusation publicly so as to enhance the honour of both his wife and Safwan b. Muattal who were accused of wrongdoing. He stood at the pulpit and returned the accusation upon the one that initiated it, so as to paint the liar as guilty instead of the innocent
“Oh gathering of Muslims! Who will help me against a person who has hurt me with slander about my wife? By God, I only know good about my wife. And they have mentioned a man with her concerning whom I only know good of as well".
In his tact, the prophet speaks generically about the slander and its author. But the people themselves knew exactly what and who he was talking about, even those among ibn Salul's own tribe. A person among the Aws in the attendance, suggested ibn Salul should be killed. This revived the strong tribal sensitivities between Aws and Khazraj. The Khazraj did not condone ibn Salul's actions but did not like the idea of a foreign clan executing one of their own. It is to be kept in mind that the two clans had been stuck in a cycle of wars that ended with the prophet's arrival in Medina, just 5 years prior. These conflicts had decimated the elite in both camps, with only ibn Salul remaining from the old generation.
The prophet then calmed them down, and saw the time appropriate to openly talk about the matter to Aisha. He wanted to hear the truth from her own mouth, as any man in this situation would. Keeping in mind the prophet himself still did not know if Aisha was aware of the rumour, he nevertheless had to talk about it with her given the proportions it had now reached. So when he approached her, he did it gently, without dignifying the slander. He doesnt mention it directly but instead tells her that people are talking. He then says, should she be innocent of whatever these people are accusing her of, then Allah will protect her through revelation.
He continues by gently saying that in case of guilt, it would have been because she "slipped". The implication is that anyone, including her, is open to mistakes. But in that case, as is repeatedly taught in the Quran, one should simply reform, repent and never lose hope of Allah's forgiveness. It is astounding that even in such a situation, the prophet was more worried of his wife's relation and duty to Allah than his reputation and honour and societal aspect of the whole matter. He does not tell her that whatever she is accused of has brought shame on his household and reputation.
In Aisha's mind, because the prophet did as much as mention the matter, despite his tactful approach, was still considered hurtful to her. She still took it as if he had lingering doubts. In a very humane way, just as someone who knows to be innocent in the middle of an avalanche of slander, she felt powerless, that the people's minds, including of the prophet and her parents were made up regardless of what she says. As she left the matter to God, she then narrates how revelation descended upon the prophet, clarifying all things 24:11-20.
The passage explains that the way it occurred, which includes the timing of the revelation was for a greater good. Revelation, as the Quran says in many places, doesnt come when prophets snap their fingers. This is further poof of the prophet's truthfulness as he could have immediately put out the fire and used the Quran to save his household's honour. Afterall it would have been impossible to falsify his claim of his wife's innocence. In hindsight we see till this day the far reaching consequences of rumour-mongering, and how Prophets arent immune to trials, including of this vicious kind. As history demonstrates, among the believer, prophets are most exposed to hardships. Through them, life lessons are enshrined forever. With that particular incident a believer learns how and when to act in a similar situation. What to say and what to keep, the manner and morals, the correct approach and timing, rights and duties are all made known because it was allowed to happen with the leader of the community who is looked up to as the prime example of conduct. So although Revelation descended in the context of these rumours, restoring the innocents' honour by God Himself while debasing the guilty, its application is timeless.
The prophet had a policy as regards hypocrites in general, consisting of ostracizing them. So despite the desire of some to execute him, he never went after ibn Salul but instead left his fate to God, as implicitly alluded to in the Quran 24:11. This isolation painted him in a corner of shame, even among his own people. Yet still, the prophet never took advantage of the situation so as to avenge himself
"Don't you see 'Umar if I had had him (Abdullah bin Ubai) killed, a large number of dignitaries would have furiously hastened to fight for him. Now, on the contrary, if I ask them to kill him, they will do so out of their own free will." 'Umar replied "I swear by Allâh that the Prophet's judgement is much more sound than mine".
We even read that upon his death, the prophet attended his funeral and prayed at his grave. The 3 Muslims that accused an innocent woman without bringing forth any evidence were punished as prescribed in sura nur, then forgiven and reintegrated within the community, after their repentance.
Per the Quran, the punishment for adultery and fornication is 100 lashes for both men and women who are considered equally guilty 24:2-3. This shows that contrary to popular belief, stoning to death is a Biblical command, not a Quranic one, just as honor killing is found again in the Bible Gen34:1,31 not the Quran. The punishment for adultery in the Quran is preceded by an admonishment to the reader
"a sura We have revealed and made obligatory and in which we have revealed clear communications that you may be mindful".
It is a solemn warning against any attempt at widening or re-defining its injunctions. This refutes the traditional interpretation that the adulters must be stoned to death solely for this specific transgression.
Islamic legislation, as will be shown below, provides guarantees which make it hard for injustice the like of which Aisha was accused of, to take place. It makes it almost impossible for punishment to be inflicted on the basis of suspicion or mistaken identity. Another thing to note is that Islam is a complete code of living, promoting a lifestyle that prevents transgression, such as with the various dresscodes and directives for gender interactions. That is why punishment becomes justified upon individuals that abandon this system in order to deliberately submerge themselves in filth.
Per the Quran, physical punishment is followed by social alienation of those that are proven guilty of adultery, and that do not decisively repent and mend their ways. Their future marriages may only be between similar sexual offenders. In the process of delivering the prescribed punishment, no leniency is permitted. As a general rule in all offences, when the crime or offence is proven prior to the guilty repenting and mending his/her way, decisiveness and firmness of rule must be observed, and false sentiments, which harm the system of society, must be put away.
As stated in 4:25, the physical punishment for adultery is to be halved when it involves certain women, raised in particular difficult social conditions that may have affected their deed. If the punishment for adultery was death by stoning, then the very idea of halving the punishment of a woman would be absurd. Stoning to death cannot be halved. This verse also establishes that the social context of one caught should be taken into account, at least as far as the Quran is concerned.
The only time the Quran allows death to a crime (without specifying the execution method) as an extreme measure, among other severe measures, is murder 2:178 and spreading corruption in the land 5:33. And even in such cases, as well as others like theft where violent punishment is prescribed 5:38-40, physical punishment or death are only used against criminals who insist on transgression before the government is able to seize them. This speaks of people who actually have to be subdued by force so as to safeguard society. This is corroborated in the Arabic language where sariq (masc) and sariqa (fem) are adjectives and denote persistence in the qualified characteristics.
The only time the Quran allows death to a crime (without specifying the execution method) as an extreme measure, among other severe measures, is murder 2:178 and spreading corruption in the land 5:33. And even in such cases, as well as others like theft where violent punishment is prescribed 5:38-40, physical punishment or death are only used against criminals who insist on transgression before the government is able to seize them. This speaks of people who actually have to be subdued by force so as to safeguard society. This is corroborated in the Arabic language where sariq (masc) and sariqa (fem) are adjectives and denote persistence in the qualified characteristics.
Just as with the severe punishment for slander and adultery, the punishment prescribed here occur within a society where the just Islamic system is implemented as a whole, where its members earn their living fairly and have the entire right to enjoy it freely and securely, where a portion of their wealth is used to meet the needs of the less fortunate, and where such crime is totally unjustified. That is why when the Muslim state was stricken by famine under the second caliphate, that the government could not guarantee the needs of all of its citizen, Umar suspended the enforcement of the punishment for theft. When a camel belonging to a man of the tribe of Muzaynah was stolen by 2 men, Umar ordered their hands to be cut off. As it appeared that their master kept them hungry, he punished him instead, imposing on him a fine equivalent to the price of two camels. But when the Islamic law is implemented to its fullest, every person's basic needs are ensured. Theft, when it occurs in those conditions means it is a crime meant at increasing one's wealth and status at the expense of others, or at destroying property. The thief in that case is one that deems legitimate acquisition of wealth and status too difficult, so he seeks it through easier but illegitimate means, or has other mischievous intent.
The Quran then counters that perverse mindframe by making it even harder for the one proven guilty to seek wealth in a legitimate manner, permanently reducing him, both in his appearance and abilities.
The Quran then counters that perverse mindframe by making it even harder for the one proven guilty to seek wealth in a legitimate manner, permanently reducing him, both in his appearance and abilities.
The Quran does therefore mention the death penalty for certain transgressions. The question then arises as to why would it omit doing likewise in the context of adultery, which is spoken of in greater length than murder and fasad fil ard?
There are 2 ways to reconcile the ahadith of stoning in the times of the prophet and the caliphs, with the Quran. It is highly possible that the prophet imposed it prior to the revelation of sura nur, as some among the companions wondered
"Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, "The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam," I asked, "Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?" He replied, "I do not know".
As no other case of fornication requiring punishment was brought to the prophet until the prophet died, the caliphs afterwards kept practicing stoning based on ijtihad. The cases of stoning in the prophet's lifetime involved married persons and thus the caliphs restricted the words in sura nur to non-married fornicators, who would then be lashed.
Another possibility is that the cases of zina brought to the prophet, and whose details are not completely known, were judged as crimes of widespread corruption/fasad fil ard. The same applies to those cases brought to the caliphs.
The goal of punishments in Islam is to avoid spreading sins and protecting the society as a whole. For example after mentioning the law of retaliation in case of murder, the Quran says that such law is meant to "give life", ie to securize society because it is a powerful deterrent and another means of remaining God-conscious (taqwa) 2:178-9.
Zina in Islam is among the worst sins, due to its vicious ramifications, especially when made public as in the case spoken of in sura 24, hence the 100 lashes. The severity of the punishment for the sin, given the Islamic society in which it occurs, is at the level of its seriousness, and given that severity, a false accusation or an accusation not supported by 4 truthfull eyewitnesses results in 80 lashes for the accuser. The woman's testimony in that case has the same value as her accuser's. Both are made to solemnly swear, several times calling God to witness of their truthfulness and ultimately calling for God's curse on oneself in case of lie.
The Bible in contrast gives no benefit of the doubt to the accused wife, who is considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law. In fact a husband simply having feelings of jealousy does not have to take an oath that he is truthfully accusing her, it is the wife that is almost considered guilty by suspicion and who is made to undergo a ritual pertaining to the "law of jealousy". She is to be taken to the priest, along with an offering from her husband, where she is put under oath and God's curse is invoked on her if she is guilty. She is humiliated through the "loosening of her hair" (a bared head is considered a disgrace to a Jewish woman) and made to drink of a cursed, bitter water that will supposedly cause her intense suffering and possibly death in case she is lying. Clearly the biblical law offers no means by which to protect the unjustly accused, more particularly the woman in case of false calumnies. Just as was the case with other ancient nations whose fornication laws were primarily aimed at upholding the honour and property right of fathers, husbands, and higher-status groups.
In the Quran the accuser who cannot bring forth the evidence required will be considered untrustworthy in court 24:4,33:58. Exception is made for the one who sincerely repents, ie publicly withdraws his false accusation, and mends his ways 24:5. The twofold punishment prescribed will always act as a shock therapy that brings about repentance and moral reform. Repentance by the false witness however will not exempt him from physical punishment, which is the victim's legal right and which in addition discourages false testimonies as well as mere circumstantial evidence. Passing on a rumour of slander is a transgression of a lesser degree than issuing an accusation. It is the duty of the Muslim who comes upon such hearsay to assume the best of another and give a lie to the gossip 24:12.
The Quran clearly gives the benefit of the doubt to the one on the receiving end of an accusation. The aim is to put a stop to false accusations, slander and gossip. This mechanism makes sure that similar repercussions are returned upon the false accuser, physically and in his/her reputation. When a society allows its members to freely slander one another with no or very little preemptive measures, it potentially causes its own disintegration starting from the nucleus of the family. And none is safe from harm, from the regular citizen to the most respected authority, as illustrated with the incident of al-Ifk, to such an extent that it brought turmoil within the prophet's household for a full month, interrupting the normal course of affairs at the level of the state.
Of course, in case one's accusation is true despite the lack of evidence, one is free to divorce the partner, but as basic common sense requires, one is not free to accuse another publicly without strong evidence.
As can be seen the Quran in matters of chastity goes to great extents to protect the integrity of the righteous members of the community and the spread of sexual misbehaviour; first, in the case of real, proven cases, by providing a strong deterrent, ie the 100 lashes (or half in special cases). Second, in the case of calumnies, by providing a mechanism through which the potential accuser can hardly succeed in his/her scheme, risking bigger repercussions on the accuser than the accused. As a linguistic observation, it is worthwhile noting the Quran's eloquent choice of words as it speaks of slander with yarmuna, picturing one being pelted and injured, it omits the accusation altogether.
The burden of proof demanded by the Quran in cases of adultery is set at a nearly impossible threshold and as is clarified in the sharia, based on the prophetic guidance, the burden upon Muslim judges in cases of zina is not to seek conviction, but getting the individual to withdraw their confession, since practically speaking, due to the high standard of the testimony required, only confession leads one to be convicted. The Judge then encourages the accused to repent and live righteously, meaning What Jesus did in the NT. When a person came to the prophet confessing his adultery, he was repeatedly ignored so as to to repent and mend his ways
"A man from the tribe of Aslam came to the Prophet and confessed that he had committed an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet turned his face away from him till the man bore witness against himself four times. The Prophet said to him, "Are you mad?" He said "No." He said, "Are you married?" He said, "Yes." Then the Prophet ordered that he be stoned to death, and he was stoned to death at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but he was caught and was stoned till he died. The Prophet spoke well of him and offered his funeral prayer".
Prior to delivering the sentence, the prophet tried to mitigate the self conviction so as to find him way out
"Probably you have only kissed (the lady), or winked, or looked at her?" He said, "No, O Allah's Messenger!" The Prophet said, using no euphemism, "Did you have sexual intercourse with her?" The narrator added: At that, (i.e. after his confession) the Prophet ordered that he be stoned (to death)".
The noble prophet is here trying to make him retract his statement so that his judgement is deferred to the hereafter
"and whoever commits something of such sins and Allah screens him, it is up to Allah whether to excuse or punish him".
In a similar case the prophet kept postponing the verdict of an adulteress for 3 years
"There the Ghamidi woman came and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, I have committed zina (adultery), purify me’ but he turned her away. The next day she said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, why are you turning me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned Ma’iz away. By Allah, I am pregnant.’ He said: ‘Then no (not now), go away until you give birth.’ When she gave birth, she brought the child to him wrapped in a cloth, and said: ‘Here he is, I have given birth.’ He said: ‘Go away and breastfeed him until he is weaned.’ When she had weaned him, she brought the boy to him, with a piece of bread in his hand and said: ‘Here, O Prophet of Allah, I have weaned him, and he is eating food.’ He handed the boy over to one of the Muslim men, then he ordered that a pit be dug for her, up to her chest and he ordered the people to stoned her".
This was the way of the prophet, he prioritized repentance and reform instead of retribution
"While I was with the Prophet a man came and said, "O Allah's Messenger! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the legal punishment on me'.' The Prophet did not ask him what he had done. Then the time for the prayer became due and the man offered prayer along with the Prophet , and when the Prophet had finished his prayer, the man again got up and said, "O Allah's Messenger! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the punishment on me according to Allah's Laws." The Prophet said, "Haven't you prayed with us?' He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Allah has forgiven your sin." or said, "....your legally punishable sin".
Because four people would have to be eyewitnesses to the adultrous/fornication act, then how could four people possibly see the act unless they were either commiting their lewdness with the intention of being seen by others (pornography, orgies, etc.) or so heedless that they were not concerned with whether or not someone sees them. Neither of these two things occur except in societies that have become extremely corrupt in regards to sexual morality. It is to be noted however, that the act of fornication, like all sins, remains unlawful even if hidden from the public
6:120"And abandon outward sin and the inward one; verily those who commit sin soon shall be recompensed with what they used to commit".
As a side note, zina/sex outside the legal bonds, is included as a fahisha but not all fahisha are zina. Fahisha is a broader term that includes anything that is abominable, morally reprehensible, in words or deeds. In 4:15-16 we read of what is to be done in cases of fahisha in general. A woman convicted of fahisha through the testimony of 4 witnesses must be restrained. The Arabic does not entail confinement or imprisonment. She must by all means be prevented from continuing down her course
"until death takes them or Allah makes a path for them".
The "path" being, as said in the following verse, forgiveness and freedom in case of sincere repentance and reform. This is in contrast to the prophet-king David's alleged perpetual and unconditional imprisonment of his unfaithful concubines 2Sam20:3. Should the woman not show any signs of reform and insists in her will to misbehave even during the period of restrainment, then she is to undergo an unspecified physical punishment. That particular point is to be determined according to the judge's discretion, depending on the crime. For example if the fahisha is adultery/zina then the type of punishment is specified in sura 24. In all cases, that punishment is to be interrupted as soon as repentance and a clear will to mend her ways are expressed.
Should the punishment not deterr her or awaken her conscience, then she is to remain in a life of confinement and occasional physical punishment until she decides to stop, repent and mend her ways. The man who is convicted and his crime testified by 4 witnesses must immediately undergo physical punishment, in contrast to women who are allowed a time of reflexion prior, to be interrupted if sincere repentance and will to reform are expressed.
Among all misdeeds included in "fahisha", only adultery requires public punishment. Adultery, when it is committed in such a way that 4 witnesses are able to testify to it, is an evil with far reaching damaging effects within the society. The guilty is made to face the most pious elements of the community during his punishment. The Quran describes these public witnesses as
"a part of those who have believed".
This symbolically shows the guilty that his or her act is one that threatens all uprightness, goodness in a community. It is interesting to note here the Quran's stress on the righteousness of the witnesses, those who are the least prone to such transgressions, which bellies the idea that the public nature of the punishment is meant as a deterrent to other potential sinners witnessing the culprit being punished. Rather, the idea of undergoing a severe physical punishment coupled with the humiliation of being exposed to the known pious members of the community is the deterrent. The eyewitnesses to the punishment also serve as a lever to control both the judge and the executer. No abusive punishment can this way be inflicted.
The 4 witnesses testimony is speaking of cases of consensual, non-marital sex. Rape is an aggression which isnt subject to the 4 witnesses rule. A woman is fully within her rights to go to the police and expect them to look for evidence such as DNA, finger prints, and other evidence to catch her rapists. Even the scholars that wrongly treat rape as fornication, have moved beyond the 4 witnesses requirements and have accepted these other factors as valid evidences. It is the verse 5:33 which applies to such a case, regardless of whether the aggressor has his way with the victim
"Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr: When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Messenger of Allah. When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Messenger of Allah, I am the man who did it to her. He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death. He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them".
The Bible speaks of rape cases, and their consequences. For example if a virgin pledged to another man is raped within city gates, but fails shouting out for help, then both are to be pelted to death. If the aggression occurs out in the field, where nobody would be able to hear her cries regardless, then she is cleared of "tacit consent" and only the rapist is executed Deut22:23-27. As to the case of a single girl, not pledged to any man, then the harsh punishment for the rapist is to pay a sum to the girl's father, marry the girl and never divorce her v27-28! The words in that verse denote coercion by the man, who is now free to keep raping his legitimate wife for the rest of her life. In short, although the Bible clearly mentions rape cases, it fails to prescribe a punishment for the rapist of a single woman who is not pledged to another man.
The condemnation in sura nur of suspicion, false charges and gossip in the context of slander, is extended elsewhere general matters
33:70"be careful of (your duty to) Allah and speak the right word"49:12"avoid most of suspicion, for surely suspicion in some cases is a sin, and do not spy nor let some of you backbite others. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? By no means, [since] you would hate it".
Dishonouring a Muslim brother is likened to consuming the flesh of his dead body. Making mention of ‘dead body’ is owing to the fact that backbiting is done behind people’s back in the same manner that the dead are unable to defend themselves. It is such a gross and cowardly act that the limbs of the backbiter will be made to testify against him 17:36.
All people therefore have the benefit of the doubt and Muslims are told to assume the best rather than the worst in people, unless there are solid reasons for suspicion, especially if they are from one's own community 24:12-18.
One's privacy, including the privacy of public figures, cannot be compromised based on suspicion 49:4-5,24:27-29. The code of law of many developed nations do not issue a search warrant unless there is solid evidence to back up an accusation. This notion reaches such an extent in Islam that one of the early caliphs suspected that a particular individual was committing adultery, jumped over his wall and caught him in the act. The man protested that even the caliph had no right to spy on him in this manner, to which the caliph relented, continued his inspection of the city and mentioned nothing of the man's identity to anyone.
As always, when trying to understand a Quranic passage and even more so a particular hadith, it is with the aforementioned relevant information that one should interpret all related topics. For example when the prophet told Ali to go kill a man rumoured of adultery with Maria the copt, without requiring first the high standard of testimony, then it should be understood, as it was by the scholars of hadith, including as early as Jaafar al Saadiq, that the prophet was teaching those who slandered Maria, that presuppositions can be totally baseless and harmful. It is to be kept in mind that the prophet told Ali that whatever mission he sends him to accomplish, he must first make a proper investigation prior to acting as per the prophet's orders
"Ali said: I said: O Messenger of Allah, when you send me on a mission, should I go and do what you tell me to do (with no delay) or witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out? He said: 'Witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out".
Ali acted exactly as per the prophet's recommendations, and as it turned out, the man in question was an eunuch, who was consequently left unbothered. The whole incident strongly demonstrated the prophet's as well as the Quran's repeated warnings against false suspicions. This eunuch's name was Jaarih and was gifted to the prophet along with Maria by an Egyptian notable, to serve Maria within the prophet's household. Common sense dictates that the prophet was aware of Jaarih's condition and that the Egyptian ruler had told him about it. There is a reason why the hadith compiler himself did not include that narration in his book of legal judgments and so he did not understand it as setting a legal precedent. Furthermore this was by no means the only rumor spread by the prophet's malicious opponents. There are other occasions where the prophet and his household, as reported both in the Quran and ahadith were the unjust targets of slander and never did the prophet adopt such unilateral, punitive measures against the accusers or the alleged culprits. One would expect to find a precedent, a pattern indicating the prophet's supposed inclination for impulsive, arbitrary judgements the likes his opponents claim in regards the incident with Jaarih.
The Quran reforms society in matters of preservation of sexual morality in the most intricate of ways, not only through issuing threats of sanctions and punishments. Sura nur, the sura of chastity, begins with stipulating the punishment of adulterers, then paves the ground for a sound marriage, speaks of modest clothing for both men and women, prohibiting lecherous staring, warns against slander, ending with children's taking permission at the time of entering parents’ room, so as to preserve them too from being exposed to inappropriate situations. Even immature children are taught not to enter the parents’ room without permission at least at three special times (before morning ritual prayer, after night prayer, and at noon time when parents are taking rest).
The principle of not sitting in judgement of other people's hidden motives the moment they declare their faith or good intentions is again reflected in Nuh's answer to the unbelievers. They questioned his followers' motives because of their past behaviour, but he answered that he is not concerned with their past and they will only have to answer to God when they meet Him. Only then their true worth will be established 11:31,26:111-5. This principle extends to the followers of any system that leads them to
6:52"call upon their nurturing Lord in the morning and the evening, they seek His face".
Muslims should not to be repulsed by such people whose beliefs may not fully answer to the demands of the Quran. Rather they should provide help, explanation and clarifications. Ultimately,
"neither are you answerable for any reckoning of theirs, nor are they answerable for any reckoning of yours, so that you should drive them away and thus be of the unjust".
Similarly a woman who deserts her husband for the sole sake of her new faith, not for any worldly issues, and solemnly declares her Islam, then, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this must constitute enough proof of her truthfulness, and she must be integrated within the community. This is because God alone is fully aware of the reality of the hearts
60:10"examine them; Allah knows best their faith".
Wisdom and spiritual awareness are not the monopoly of the elite, and neither is social status a criteria of truth. The Quran demonstrates this point as it quotes the chiefs and the elders of the community who comforted themselves in their opposition to the Quran by arguing that had there been any truth to it, they, as the most eminent and cultivated members of society would have been in the forefront to accept it. Yet only the common people, ie of lesser wisdom and intelligence have adopted it 46:11.
Consequently a society may judge only by external evidence, which comprises a person's words and deeds for only Allah knows what is in the hearts of men 3:29,29:10-11. These hidden thoughts will be inevitably brought to light 47:29, but in the meantime none can perceive the disease of another person's heart except when it surfaces through his social affinities 58:22 or his behavior
47:30"And if We please We would have made you know them so that you would certainly have recognized them by their marks and most certainly you can recognize them by the intent of (their) speech"
and even if one succeeds in hiding his disbelief in this world or seems to meet the standards of righteousness, it does not mean in any way that such a one will succeed in escaping justice in the Hereafter 9:105.
Further reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment