In the name of Allah, the Beneficent the Merciful
بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
24-1 (This is) a chapter which We have revealed and made obligatory and wherein We have revealed clear messages that you may be mindful.a
سُورَةٌ أَنزَلْنَـٰهَا وَفَرَضْنَـٰهَا وَأَنزَلْنَا فِيهَآ ءَايَـٰتٍۭ بَيِّنَـٰتٍۢ لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ (۱)
24-1a: All the chapters are revealed by Allah and all commands they contain are obligatory. The reason why the words made obligatory are specifically mentioned for this chapter is to draw special attention to the forthcoming commands in it, because by keeping these commandments in mind the believer’s home becomes a paradise, while their violation destroys domestic peace and tranquility. It is unfortunate that Muslims have been most lax about the commands in this chapter, even though there is no great difficulty in fulfilling them.
24-2 The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them (with) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you from obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.
ٱلزَّانِيَةُ وَٱلزَّانِى فَٱجْلِدُوا۟ كُلَّ وَٰحِدٍۢ مِّنْهُمَا مِا۟ئَةَ جَلْدَةٍۢ ۖ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌۭ فِى دِينِ ٱللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْـَٔاخِرِ ۖ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَآئِفَةٌۭ مِّنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ (۲)
24-2a: زَانِيَةُ – زَانِى : زِنا is sleeping with a member of the opposite sex without the sanction of legal marriage.
What kind of a whip should be used in the punishment: جلدوا – جلدۃ – جِلۡدmeans skin, hide, leather and its plural is جُلُود , as in جُلُودُ ٱلَّذِينَ يَخْشَوْنَ رَبَّهُمْ : …the skin of those who fear the Lord… (39:23). The meaning of جَلَدَہٗ is ضَرَبَ جِلۡدَہٗ to strike the skin and ضَرَبَهٗ بالجِلۡدِ means to strike with leather (R). It is the first meaning which is meant here (RM). جَلۡد is a verbal noun and means to hit with something and جَلَدَہٗ means اصاب جِلۡدہٗ reached his skin (LA). The evidence from narrations show that the adulteress and adulterer were flogged with a whip that had no knots and no tails. It has been said that beating with such a whip started during the caliphate of Hazrat Umar with the consensus of the Companions, but before that the beating was by hand, with a shoe, or with a freshly cut tree branch (RM). The flogging is not to be done on the bare skin by stripping the person naked. According to the Shafi’i and Hanbali jurisprudence, one or two garments should be left on, and according to a narration, Hazrat Ali flogged someone and he was draped in a cotton cloth. According to Ibn Masud, in the Muslim Ummah it is prohibited to strip naked, drag, and tie a person. However, if a person is wearing quilted clothes those should be removed because the effect of the flogging will not reach the skin. It is recommended not to flog viciously, and according to some it is only permissible to flog on the back, and according to others the flogging must not be on the head, face, or a part of the body that is likely to cause death. The flogging should be distributed over the other parts of the body.
The Islamic punishment of جلد flogging and the modern-day whip: It becomes apparent from these facts about جلد that the modern whip is very different from the understanding of جلد. The Islamic concept of punishment is only that some degree of discomfort be inflicted on the skin by the flogging. It is prohibited to strip a person before the flogging, and flogging mercilessly is not correct. The fact that the flogging is administered to an unrestrained standing person shows that it is very different from the modern concept of whipping. The real purpose is to shame the person and that is why it is mandated that the punishment be witnessed by a group of believers, so that the guilty party is disgraced. The barbaric punishment of whipping that is found in the penal codes of civilized countries, like the Indian Penal Code, is contradictory to the Islamic teachings. Islam has prescribed the punishment of جلد for certain specific crimes of adultery, slander, and public drunkenness. This جلد is for public shaming and its purpose is most certainly not to beat a person halfway to his death, to leave permanent scarring, or to tear the flesh to the bone.
Is stoning (رجم) the punishment for adultery in Islam: A very important question that arises here is whether stoning is also a punishment for adultery in Islam. As far as the teachings of the Qur’an are concerned, other than verse 24:2, there is no mention of the punishment for adultery anywhere else in the Qur’an, except that it is stated in one place that if a female slave commits adultery, her punishment is half that of a free woman. In this single verse, the punishment for adultery has been described in such detail that there is no margin for any doubt. The word زِنا in the Arabic language has a wide scope and includes all manners of illegal cohabitation between a man and a woman, whether they have a legal spouse or not. The lexicon does not distinguish whether the illegally cohabitating partners are married with spouses or not, but تعمل practice and Hadith do differentiate and prescribe رجم stoning for adultery committed by a married person and a hundred جلد for fornication by unmarried persons. Some have said for married adulterers the prescribed punishment is both stoning and جلد while others have said just stoning. Similarly, for unmarried fornicators some have said that the punishment is only جلد while some others have said based on a hadith, that along with جلد the fornicator will be exiled for one year. The question that arises is: Given that the punishment for adultery is so clearly specified in the Qur’an, what is the evidence upon which the punishment of stoning can be based?
Hazrat Umar’s statement about the verse on رجم: There are narrations in which there is a statement by Hazrat Umar about their being a verse in the Qur’an about stoning. In one narration in both Bukhari and Muslim, he stated:
فكانَ ممَّا أُنْزِلَ عليه آيَةُ الرَّجْمِ، فَقَرَأْنَاهَا وَعَقَلْنَاهَا وَوَعَيْنَاهَا. رَجَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ ورَجَمْنَا بَعْدَهُ، فأخْشَى إنْ طَالَ بالنَّاسِ زَمَانٌ أنْ يقولَ قَائِلٌ: واللّٰہ لا نَجِدُ اٰیة الرَّجْمَ في كِتَابِ اللَّهِ، فَيَضِلُّوا بتَرْكِ فَرِيضَةٍ أنْزَلَهَا اللَّهُ.
The English translations is:
Among what was revealed to him (Holy Prophet) was the verse of stoning. We recited it, understood it, and remembered it. The Messenger of Allah carried out stoning, and we did so after him. I fear that with the passage of time someone will say: ‘By Allah we do not find the verse about stoning in the Book of Allah,’ and thus they will go astray by abandoning an obligation which Allah revealed.
In a narration by Imam Ahmad, it is stated that after delivering a sermon, Hazrat Umar said: People say that the command of stoning is not in the Book of Allah and instead there is جلد. If there was no one to say that Umar has added to the Book of Allah, what was not in it, I would have written it as it was revealed.
In another narration of Imam Ahmad, it is stated: If the critics had not said that Umar has just entered something in the Book of Allah which is not in it, I would have written it in some corner of the Qur’an. This is such a flawed statement that it cannot be accepted even for a moment, and neither can it be attributed to Hazrat Umar. If a verse is revealed in the Qur’an and people recite it and memorize it, how is it possible that Hazrat Umar says he cannot write it in the Qur’an because people will accuse him of adding to the Book of Allah. On the face of it, it appears as if it is out of fear of what people will say, that Hazrat Umar did not write this verse, but how can a courageous person like him abandon a truth for fear of people. Furthermore, how can it be that no one besides Hazrat Umar has knowledge of this verse?
The argument that the reading of the verse about stoning is abrogated but its command is operative: The further elucidation given of the meaningless statement attributed to Hazrat Umar is that the reading of the verse is abrogated, but its command is operative. This is even more meaningless than the original statement. After all, what is the meaning of a statement that a command exists but its wording does not, or at least must not be read, or is not a part of the Qur’an. Since the dawn of creation, whatever command has come from Allah was in the form of words. Hazrat Umar’s statement would have made some sense if it was alleged that the initial command had been revealed without words. Nobody can understand this enigma of a command that was given in words because it could not be communicated without words, and then the words were abrogated but the command remained. Was the command was correct, but the words were incorrect? Matters should be explained to be easily understood by the average human. In one of the most famous works on the Quranic sciences الإتقان في علوم القرآن Precision and Mastery in the Sciences of the Quran, Imam al-Suyuti, while writing on “abrogated for recitation” states that the reports about verses whose recitation is abrogated but whose ruling remains (like رجم) are based only on خبراُحاد(a hadith with limited transmission, not mass-narrated, and it gives probable but not absolutely certain knowledge) and خبراُحاد neither proves such a verse was revealed nor its abrogation. This is the most reasonable interpretation.
Not only does common sense regard abrogated for recitation but operative in its meaning as erroneous., the testimony of a person like Hazrat Ali from among the Companions is against such a belief. When Hazrat Ali held a married woman, Sharaha, guilty of adultery, he decreed the punishment of جلد public flogging and رجم stoning and justified this by stating that by the Book of Allah, he was prescribing the punishment of جلد and by the practice of the Messenger of Allah, the punishment of رجم . The second question is whether رجم is in actuality the practice of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and whether it has abrogated the command of the Book of Allah concerning adulterers. There is no doubt that the Qur’an has not explained the details of some commandments, and the practice of the Holy Prophet has provided the details for us. For example, the Qur’an commands اَقِيمُوا ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ keep up prayer and the practice of the Holy Prophet told us the names of the prayers, when they had to be offered, and the number of units in each prayer. In the case of adultery there is no question about the missing details. There is a command spelled out in clear words that the adulterers, both the man and the woman, must be flogged with a hundred جلد or stripes. There is no further need for details because the purpose was to prescribe the punishment, and that was clearly done. It would be understandable if the command had only been that the adulterers should be punished, and the practice of the Holy Prophet had provided the details of the manner and the amount of punishment, or if the command had been that the punishment for adultery is جلد and رجم and the practice of the Holy Prophet had provided the details of who جلد is for who and رجم is for. It would also be acceptable if in addition to these verses, there was another mention of the punishment for adultery in the Qur’an, which was not specified as رجم and the practice of the Holy Prophet had shown it to be رجم . What is not acceptable is for an alleged practice of the Holy Prophet to abrogate a clear command of the Qur’an. This would imply that Allah reveals a particular command in the Qur’an, and the Holy Prophet gives a command contrary to it.
It is true that there are instances in the hadith in which the punishment of رجم was enforced, but it cannot be said with any certainty that any of them took place after the revelation of this verse, and unless that is proven, the claim that the practice of the Holy Prophet abrogated the Quranic command is unproven. Such a huge claim cannot be proved on the basis of assumptions, when the Qur’an states clearly regarding the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَىٰٓ إِلَىَّ …I follow only that which is revealed to me… (6:50) and (46:9). We do not know if the Holy Prophet gave the punishment of رجم after verse 24:2 was revealed, hence we will believe that after the punishment of جلد was specifically prescribed for adultery, the Holy Prophet did not act contrary to the command in the Qur’an. It is a different matter if, before the revelation of this verse, the Holy Prophet gave the punishment of رجم in accordance with the previous shariah. It is not possible to extensively discuss individual hadith at this point.
Consensus cannot abrogate Qur’anic command; there is no consensus on رجم: The third argument that is made to justify رجم is consensus of the Ummah. Consensus is not a valid argument and it is agreed that a consensus cannot abrogate a verse, and in this case, the matter ends unless 24:2 is abrogated . Furthermore, it cannot be said that there is consensus on رجم when it appears clearly that in the time of Hazrat Umar, there were people who said the punishment of رجم is not in the Book of Allah, and hence it cannot be meted out. In the words of Imam Ahmad: ان انا سایقولون ما الرجم فی کتاب اللّٰہ و انما فیه الجلد Indeed, they will say: There is no stoning in the Book of Allah; what it contains is only flogging. When this issue came before Marwan and Umar bin Abdul Aziz in their times, stoning was doubted. All of the Khawarij reject رجم as a valid punishment. Therefore, to say that there is a consensus on رجم is not correct. The real test is whether a fact is in the Book of Allah or not. If the punishment for adultery is unambiguously in the Qur’an, no hadith that goes against it can be accepted. If there is abstraction or an absence of an issue in the Qur’an, then guidance will be taken from the hadith. In the sources of Islamic jurisprudence, the last rank is of reasoned judgement (قیاس). The statement that رجم is the punishment for adultery fails the very first test. Hence there is no need in this case for hadith or قیاس . A hadith or قیاس against the Qur’an is not acceptable, and consensus is merely a decision on a certain issue at a point in time.
Argument against رجم based on half the punishment of adultery for female slaves: There is supporting evidence against رجم being the punishment for adultery from another place in the Qur’an. In the chapter Al-Nisa during the discussion about the commandments regarding the marriage of female slaves, it is stated that if a married female slave commits adultery her punishment is half that of a free woman: فَإِذَآ أُحْصِنَّ فَإِنْ أَتَيْنَ بِفَـٰحِشَةٍۢ فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا :عَلَى ٱلْمُحْصَنَـٰتِ مِنَ ٱلْعَذَابِ :…then if they are guilty of adultery when they are taken in marriage, they shall suffer half the punishment for free married women… (4:25). This shows clearly that in the sight of Allah, it is only hundred جلدۃ that is the punishment for adultery because unlike رجم , it can be halved. If the punishment for adultery is رجم then the words نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى ٱلْمُحْصَنَـٰتِ half of married women would not have been used. This second mention of the punishment for adultery in the Quran shows clearly that رجم is not the punishment for adultery in the eyes of Allah.
The requirement of the punishment being witnessed has resulted in some disagreement with regard to the number of people that must witness. Opinions range from one to four. The use of the word طَآئِفَةٌۭ group suggests three people or more, since less would not be called a group.
24-3 The adulterer cannot have sexual relations with any but an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress, none can have sexual relations with her but an adulterer or an idolater; and it is forbidden to believers.a
ٱلزَّانِى لَا يَنكِحُ إِلَّا زَانِيَةً أَوْ مُشْرِكَةًۭ وَٱلزَّانِيَةُ لَا يَنكِحُهَآ إِلَّا زَانٍ أَوْ مُشْرِكٌۭ ۚ وَحُرِّمَ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ (۳)
24-3a: There are three interpretations of this verse. The first is that it commands that a Muslim man who commits adultery can only marry either an adulteress or an idolatress, and a pious Muslim woman cannot be given to such a person in marriage. Similarly, an adulteress cannot marry a pious believer, and she can only marry an adulterer or an idolater. There is also a hadith which states: لا ینکح الزانی المجلود الا مثله زانی A person who has been given the punishment of جلد can only marry a woman of similar kind. It is also accepted that if one of the partners in a marriage commits adultery, the marriage is dissolved. In one of the narrations, a married person committed adultery and was found guilty as charged. Hazrat Ali separated him from his wife through an order and said: لا تتزوج الا مجلودۃ مثلك You can only marry an adulteress like yourself. According to some scholars if a person marries a woman and later finds that she had committed adultery, it is up to the husband to either continue the marriage or divorce her. An objection to this interpretation is that it opens the possibility of a Muslim man being married not only to an adulteress, but also to an idolatress, and this is clearly not allowed. Similarly, a Muslim woman cannot be married to an idolater.
Marriage of an adulterer and adulteress: Some opinions state that if a person commits
adultery with a woman and later wants to marry her, such a marriage is not allowed, but the hadith that Hazrat Ayesha narrated from the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is against this. According to this hadith, the Holy Prophet was asked about a man who commits adultery with a woman and subsequently wants to marry her. The Holy Prophet replied that a forbidden action does not make what is permissible as impermissible. Some have said that this verse is abrogated by the command وَأَنكِحُوا الْأَيَامَىٰ مِنكُمْ And marry those among you who are single… (24:32). An appropriate resolution of this issue appears to be that if an adulterer or adulteress repents and increases in goodness until they earn a good name for themselves, such a person should be treated like a true Muslim due to their repentance. The abrogation of this verse is incorrect. However, the difficulty that arises by having an adulterer and adulteress under the same command as an idolater and idolatress still remains.
Marriage with prostitutes is not legal: The second interpretation of this verse is that this verse is only about those adulteress women who were prostitutes in the days of ignorance. When people accepted Islam, and terminated their relationship with the prostitutes, some people thought that Muslims should marry these women, but this verse was revealed to prohibit such marriages. The difficulty in restricting the meaning of adulteress in this verse only to prostitutes is that the verse also speaks about adulterers, and who would they be? Furthermore, the difficulty with idolater men and women mentioned earlier remains. It is certainly true that the text of this verse includes prohibition of marriage with prostitutes until they give up this profession and adopt such a pious life that it removes the stigma of adultery from them. Those men who develop a relationship with prostitutes and then marry them soon after, act contrary to this verse.
The real meaning of this verse: The third interpretation of this verse is that the word نکاح marriage is used in its wider sense and means a relationship of one man and one woman and not the legal Islamic marriage. This interpretation is attributed to Ibn Abbas and the word نکاح does lend itself to this meaning in the thesaurus. Refer to 2:221a for further details. In this situation, the meaning is clear that an adulterer cannot have an illegal relationship with a pious believing woman, but if he does so it will only be with an adulteress or an idolatrous woman. The same is the situation with an adulteress. Thus, Islam elevates the status of a person to such a high level that the person becomes far removed from committing adultery. However, because there are impious persons in the society as well, so if there is a man with such impure ideas, he can only seduce a woman with similar impure thoughts or an idolatrous woman. Similarly, if there is a woman with such impure thoughts, then she can only seduce a man with similar impure thoughts or an idolater. The meaning of حُرِّمَ ذَٰلِكَ عَلَى ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ it is forbidden to believers will be that adultery is forbidden to the believers. According to this author, the word نکاح contains both the technical meaning and the wider sense, so it includes a sexual relationship between a man and woman whether with or without marriage, and therefore the first two interpretations are also included in the command of this verse.
Exclusion of openly adulterous persons from the community: This verse has declared adultery as such a grievous fault that any man or woman that commits it is in a manner excluded from the Muslim brotherhood, because his marriage to a pious Muslim is illegal, even though he is not declared a disbeliever or cast outside the fold of Islam. The standards in the Islamic community have fallen so low that openly adulterous persons enjoy the prestige and honor which is the right of pious people. One wishes that Muslims would make some effort for this practical matter and exclude from their community anyone against whom the charge of adultery is proven. The community can then stand on that high level of purity which the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had placed them.
24-4 And those who accuse free women and bring not four witnesses, flog them (with) eighty stripes and never accept their evidence, and these are the transgressors—a
وَٱلَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ ٱلْمُحْصَنَـٰتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا۟ بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَآءَ فَٱجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَـٰنِينَ جَلْدَةًۭ وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا۟ لَهُمْ شَهَـٰدَةً أَبَدًۭا ۚ وَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْفَـٰسِقُونَ (۴)
24-4a: يَرْمُونَ – The word رَمۡی is used for throwing, casting, flinging, hurling, such as an arrow or a stone, as in وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ :…and thou smotest not when thou didst smite (the enemy) but Allah smote (him)… (8:17). The word is also used in conversation for saying something abusive, such as an allegation, slander, or calumny about somebody (R). An allegation of adultery is meant in this verse.
Allegation of adultery: Just as the punishment prescribed for adultery is very severe, so too is the punishment severe for slandering without just cause. Although only accusing free women is mentioned but it applies equally to men. Women are specifically mentioned because there the need is be stricter about slander against them. The requirement of four witnesses is made compulsory so that the charge can be substantiated beyond all doubt. It is up to the opinion of the judge or magistrate whether to include other circumstantial evidence as well. A question can arise: what if there is only one witness and there are no others? The Quranic injunction is that in such a situation the person has no right to publicly expose what he has witnessed, except if the witness happens to be the husband of the woman involved in the act, in which case the remedy is given in verse 24:6. If a sole person is given the right for public exposure then every person can say whatever they want and the repercussions are very serious. Besides the flogging, another punishment of slanderers is that their testimony will not be admissible in any matter, unless they repent. Some people hold that their repentance is for Allah to accept and forgive, but their testimony is still inadmissible. However, this view does not seem to be correct.
24-5 Except those who afterwards repent and act aright; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ تَابُوا۟ مِنۢ بَعْدِ ذَٰلِكَ وَأَصْلَحُوا۟ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌۭ رَّحِيمٌۭ (۵)
24-6 And those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, let one of them testify four times, bearing Allah to witness, that he is of those who speak the truth.
وَٱلَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ أَزْوَٰجَهُمْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُمْ شُهَدَآءُ إِلَّآ أَنفُسُهُمْ فَشَهَـٰدَةُ أَحَدِهِمْ أَرْبَعُ شَهَـٰدَٰتٍۭ بِٱللَّهِ ۙ إِنَّهُۥ لَمِنَ ٱلصَّـٰدِقِينَ (۶)
24-7 And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allah be on him, if he is of those who lie.
وَٱلْخَـٰمِسَةُ أَنَّ لَعْنَتَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ إِن كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْكَـٰذِبِينَ (۷)
24-8 And it shall avert the chastisement from her, if she testify four times, bearing Allah to witness, that he is of those who lie.
وَيَدْرَؤُا۟ عَنْهَا ٱلْعَذَابَ أَن تَشْهَدَ أَرْبَعَ شَهَـٰدَٰتٍۭ بِٱللَّهِ ۙ إِنَّهُۥ لَمِنَ ٱلْكَـٰذِبِينَ (۸)
24-9 And the fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah to be on her, if he is of those who speak the truth.a
وَٱلْخَـٰمِسَةَ أَنَّ غَضَبَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْهَآ إِن كَانَ مِنَ ٱلصَّـٰدِقِينَ (۹)
24-9a: The situation described in these four verses is one of resolving the matter through mutual cursing. Swearing five times is so that the gravity of the lie may awe the heart of the lying party. After li’an mutual cursing, it is inevitable that there will be separation between the husband and wife, and they cannot remarry. The first incident took place between Hilal bin Umayyah and his wife and it is recorded that this verse was revealed for their situation.
24-10 And were it not for Allah’s grace upon you and His mercy — and
that Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy) Wise!a
وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُۥ وَأَنَّ ٱللَّهَ تَوَّابٌ حَكِيمٌ (۱۰)
24-10a: وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ – And were it not for Allah’s grace upon you and His mercy is not followed by further detail. This is also repeated at the end of the second section in verse 20 of this chapter, again without saying what would happen. These words are repeated again in the first verse of the third section and the consequence is given there. It is stated: وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُۥ مَا زَكَىٰ مِنكُم مِّنْ أَحَدٍ أَبَدًۭا : …And were it not for Allah’s grace on you and His mercy, not one of you would ever have been pure… (24:21). The verse means that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has been Divinely ordained, and he has purified the people as a mercy from Allah, even though adultery had pervaded Arabia to the point where people exulted over such behavior.
