Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 24, “The Light,” verses 1-20

posted at 8:00 am on May 4, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

This Medinan sura was revealed after the Muslims’ defeat of a pagan Arab tribe, the Banu al-Mustaliq. Much of it is preoccupied with one of the most notorious events in early Islamic history: the rumors that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, had committed adultery – an incident that has repercussions for Muslim women down to this day. Verses 1-10 lay down general laws for adultery: adulterers are to receive a hundred lashes (v. 2); a man guilty of adultery may only marry a woman guilty of the same crime or a non-Muslim (v. 3); four witnesses are required to establish guilt, and false accusers should get eighty lashes (v. 4); husbands can establish charges of adultery against their wives if they testify four times under oath (v. 6) and invoke Allah’s curse on themselves if they’re lying (v. 7); a wife so accused can head off being punished by testifying four times that her husband is lying (v. 8) and likewise calls Allah’s curse on herself if she is lying (v. 9).

Lashes for adultery? Then why do some Islamic states sentence adulteresses to be stoned to death? Because of a hadith that says that the Qur’an originally mandated stoning for adulterers, but the passage somehow dropped out. Umar, the second successor of Muhammad as caliph, the leader of the believers, explained: “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,’ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed.”

Umar didn’t want to see that happening, so he lent his own weight to the legitimacy of stoning for adultery: “Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle [that is, Muhammad] carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”

In verses 11-20 Allah furiously castigates a group that has “brought forward a lie” (v. 11) against a chaste woman, without producing four witnesses (v. 13). The deity scolds the believers as well, for crediting this obvious slander (vv. 12, 16). This is a most serious matter (v. 15), but the Qur’an doesn’t tell us what it’s all about. This hadith fills in the details. Allah had recently ordered the veiling of women (a command that is transmitted in v. 31), so Aisha, when she accompanied Muhammad to a battle, was carried in a curtained howdah on the back of a camel. The caravan stopped and Aisha got out to answer “the call of nature.” While returning she lost her necklace, and stopped to search for it. Meanwhile, her attendants, forbidden to look at her or speak to her, loaded the howdah back onto the camel without realizing that she wasn’t in it. “At that time,” Aisha explains, “I was still a young lady,” and what’s more, “women were light in weight for they did not get fat.”

And so the caravan left without her, and Muhammad’s favorite wife was stranded. Presently a Muslim warrior who was traveling behind the army came along, and was considerably started to find Aisha alone. “I veiled my face with my head cover at once,” Aisha insisted, “and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja’” – a prayer spoken in times of distress. The warrior carried Aisha on his camel to the Muslims’ camp – and almost immediately the rumors started. Even Muhammad was affected by them. Aisha explains: “After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the usual kindness from Allah’s Messenger which I used to receive when I got sick.”

Aisha was deeply distressed: “I kept on weeping that night till dawn, I could neither stop weeping nor sleep, then in the morning again, I kept on weeping.” Ali bin Abi Talib, who later became the great saint and hero of the Shi’ite Muslims, ungallantly reminds Muhammad that there are “plenty of women” available to the Prophet (Aisha never forgot or forgave this, and after Muhammad’s death, warred against Ali herself.) But Ali also advises Muhammad to ask Barira, Aisha’s slave girl, if she has seen anything, and Barira maintained that Aisha had done nothing wrong. Muhammad left the matter in Allah’s hands, telling Aisha: “I have been informed such-and-such about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness, for when a person confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.”

Muhammad then received a revelation from Allah, as Aisha watched: “So there overtook him the same hard condition which used to overtake him (when he was Divinely Inspired) so that the drops of his sweat were running down, like pearls, though it was a (cold) winter day, and that was because of the heaviness of the Statement which was revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, and he was smiling when he was relieved, the first word he said was, ‘Aisha, Allah has declared your innocence.’” Allah had revealed vv. 11-20.

Aisha, however, was still angry: “My mother said to me, ‘Get up and go to him.’ I said, ‘By Allah, I will not go to him and I will not thank anybody but Allah.’” Yet she was amazed by the revelation: “By Allah, I never thought that Allah would reveal in my favor a revelation which would be recited, for I considered myself too unimportant to be talked about by Allah in the Divine Revelation that was to be recited.”

But she was. And the false accusations against her brought about the requirement that four male Muslim witnesses must be produced in order to establish a crime of adultery or related indiscretions. Islamic law still requires the testimony of four male witnesses to establish sexual crimes (v. 13).

Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery. That accounts for the grim fact that as many as seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape. When the Musharraf government instituted measures removing the crime of rape from the sphere of Islamic law and establishing that it be judged by modern canons of forensic evidence, a group of Islamic clerics were furious. They demanded that the new law be withdrawn: it would turn Pakistan into a “free-sex zone.” Clerics thundered that the new law was “against the teachings of Islam,” and had been passed only to appease the West.

Next week: Women receive the order to veil themselves.

(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic/English Qur’an, here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

But what constitutes a “witness” in this case? Someone who saw the deed happen, or perhaps heard the man boast of his conquest? Who would decide if a witness is acceptable or not?

JetBoy on May 4, 2008 at 9:14 AM

There’s a bizarre obsession with women and sex in Islamic culture. You’d think they’d all be happier if Islam was a “free-sex zone”.

flipflop on May 4, 2008 at 9:17 AM

Mr. Spencer, you stated:

Islamic law still requires the testimony of four male witnesses to establish sexual crimes

Does this mean that you would need 8 women to convict someone, or are sexual crimes different? In Sura 4, it states that a woman’s testimony is worth one half of a man’s.

dentalque on May 4, 2008 at 9:40 AM

I can see where the requirement of four witnesses would be an improvement over the situation at the time, but it’s a measure of the intellectual fossilization of Islam that it cannot allow for any changes or improvements in this rule.

Also, what does it say about Muhammad that he so easily believed such a sleazy rumor about his favorite wife?

irishspy on May 4, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Very enlightening. Thanks Robert.

Zorro on May 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM

. That accounts for the grim fact that as many as seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape.

I wonder of American Liberals and Feminists in particular realize this. You’d think they would back our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan on those ground alone.

TheBigOldDog on May 4, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Allah had recently ordered the veiling of women (a command that is transmitted in v. 31

Interesting. Liberal muslims and non-mulim apologists always say that veiling of women is not a requirement of islam.

Islam is presented to us as two factions, orthodox and liberal. Since verses like v. 31 are specific, there is a lot not spelled out by our media who brush past the differences in sects, if I can call them ’sects’.

A handy dandy chart of who believes which verses could be useful in those difficult social situations.

A place I worked had an Egyptian employee who caused a stir when he stated that any woman who comes to his house after dark is giving consent to sex. That is where knowlege is important. Societies have norms that are assumed, When we integrate people with different norms it behooves us to understand what we have created

Our laws are applied after the facts created by their norms

entagor on May 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM

Robert, if Umar is right and the verse concerning Rajam somehow went missing, how then can devout Muslims claim the Qur’an is a literal, error-free copy of a book in Paradise? Doesn’t this tear a large hole in the “unadulterated Word of Allah” claim?

irishspy on May 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM

irishspy, no. Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia.

TABoLK on May 4, 2008 at 11:26 AM

irishspy on May 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM

I was thinking exactly the same thing. It is pretty shocking to me that there are Hadith, or holy Islamic traditions, which claim that portions of the Quran are not original.

This is analogous to the Pope admitting that the Bible contains corruptions. Well… I guess that would bother some Christians more than others. But I can’t imagine what conservative Muslims think of this.

But suppose that it is true. As we have seen, much of the Quran is a corruption of the Torah. Could it be that the original law was influenced by stuff like Deuteronomy 22:23-24, and then quickly changed to 100 lashes as a sort of ‘mitigation’? (if you can call 100 lashes a more just punishment to stoning).

Or, could it just be the claim of sexually repressed mullahs and clerics who want to increase the penalty to death to purify their religion?

After thinking about it, I suspect the later.

HeIsSailing on May 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Lashes for adultery? Then why do some Islamic states sentence adulteresses to be stoned to death? Because of a hadith that says that the Qur’an originally mandated stoning for adulterers, but the passage somehow dropped out.

irishspy raises a question above that puzzles me as well. If the part of the Qur’an mandating stoning for adulterers somehow mysteriously “dropped out” of the Qur’an, then how do we know that other important parts haven’t also dropped out as well?

AZCoyote on May 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM

“Surely Allah’s Apostle [that is, Muhammad] carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”

Who did Muhammad carry out the penalty of Rajam against? His favorite wife, the falsely accused Aisha, was innocent of adultery, according to Allah himself. Was there another wife whom Muhammad killed because of adultery?

“if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness, for when a person confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.”

If Aisha had actually been guilty of adultery but had asked for and received Allah’s forgiveness as Muhammad suggested, would she still have been subject to death under Muslim law?

AZCoyote on May 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Very Interesting.

Islamic apologists tell us that the injunctions of Shar’ia are contrary to the core of Islam, but this reveals that the Qu’ran itself is frequently the source of such injunctions.

Pax americana on May 4, 2008 at 12:58 PM

So what most likely happened was that Aisha messed around, 3 witnesses came forward, but because either Muhammad didn’t want to lose her (fear of abandonment) and/or because he might suffer ridicule for not being able to control her, he decided that 3 witnesses weren’t enough and suddenly had a “revelation” that she was innocent. And why was she “ill” after this? Was she stressed out or did she become pregnant by someone other than Muhammad and deliberately miscarry or abort?

Would make a great soap opera.

Connie on May 4, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Would make a great soap opera.

Connie on May 4, 2008 at 1:13 PM

“All my Harem”

“The Goat and the Beautiful”

“Generally Inhospitable”

“As the World Burns”

Shy Guy on May 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM

“Generally Inhospitable”

lol!

Connie on May 4, 2008 at 1:37 PM

dentalque:

Does this mean that you would need 8 women to convict someone, or are sexual crimes different? In Sura 4, it states that a woman’s testimony is worth one half of a man’s.

Sexual crimes are different. The schools of Islamic jurisprudence are agreed in ruling a woman’s testimony inadmissible in a sexual crime, even one in which she was the victim.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:17 PM

JetBoy:

But what constitutes a “witness” in this case? Someone who saw the deed happen, or perhaps heard the man boast of his conquest? Who would decide if a witness is acceptable or not?

The schools of Islamic jurisprudence are agreed that to be a witness one has to be a male Muslim who saw the act. Four such witnesses would establish that it happened.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM

irishspy:

Also, what does it say about Muhammad that he so easily believed such a sleazy rumor about his favorite wife?

True, but this must also be balanced against the fact that he received what he represented as a divine revelation exonerating her.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:19 PM

TheBigOldDog:

I wonder of American Liberals and Feminists in particular realize this.

They don’t. They appear not to care to realize it.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM

entagor:

Interesting. Liberal muslims and non-mulim apologists always say that veiling of women is not a requirement of islam.

Stay tuned: this is next week’s topic.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:21 PM

irishspy:

Robert, if Umar is right and the verse concerning Rajam somehow went missing, how then can devout Muslims claim the Qur’an is a literal, error-free copy of a book in Paradise? Doesn’t this tear a large hole in the “unadulterated Word of Allah” claim?

It only tears a hole in it if Allah did not will that the verses of Rajam be dropped, and remembered by Umar.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM

AZCoyote:

If the part of the Qur’an mandating stoning for adulterers somehow mysteriously “dropped out” of the Qur’an, then how do we know that other important parts haven’t also dropped out as well?

From the standpoint of unbelief, we don’t. From the standpoint of belief, what is in the Qur’an is what Allah wants there, and what isn’t in there is what he doesn’t want in there.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM

AZCoyote:

Who did Muhammad carry out the penalty of Rajam against? His favorite wife, the falsely accused Aisha, was innocent of adultery, according to Allah himself. Was there another wife whom Muhammad killed because of adultery?

No, he didn’t stone his wives. It was other people.

Here are three such incidents:

Abu Sa’id reported that a person belonging to the clan of Aslam, who was called Ma, iz b. Malik, came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have committed immorality (adultery), so inflict punishment upon me. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) turned him away again and again. He then asked his people (about the state of his mind). They said: We do not know of any ailment of his except that he has committed something about which he thinks that he would not be able to relieve himself of its burden but with the Hadd being imposed upon him. He (Ma’iz) came back to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he commanded us to stone him. We took him to the Baqi’ al-Gharqad (the graveyard of Medina). We neither tied him nor dug any ditch for him. We attacked him with bones, with clods and pebbles. He ran away and we ran after him until he came upon the stone ground (al-Harra) and stopped there and we stoned him with heavy stones of the Harra until he became motionless (lie dead). He (the Holy Prophet) then addressed (us) in the evening saying Whenever we set forth on an expedition in the cause of Allah, some one of those connected with us shrieked (under the pressure of sexual lust) as the bleating of a male goat. It is essential that if a person having committed such a deed is brought to me, I should punish him. He neither begged forgiveness for him nor cursed him.

That’s from here.

Second one:

There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma’iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

That’s from here.

And third:

A Jew and Jewess were brought to the Prophet on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked the Jews, “What do you (usually) do with them?” They said, “We blacken their faces and disgrace them.” He said, “Bring here the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful.” They (fetched it and) came and asked a one-eyed man to recite. He went on reciting till he reached a portion on which he put his hand. The Prophet said, “Lift up your hand!” He lifted his hand up and behold, there appeared the verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning of the adulterers to death). Then he said, “O Muhammad! They should be stoned to death but we conceal this Divine Law among ourselves.” Then the Prophet ordered that the two sinners be stoned to death and, and they were stoned to death, and I saw the man protecting the woman from the stones.

That’s from here.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:47 PM

AZCoyote:

If Aisha had actually been guilty of adultery but had asked for and received Allah’s forgiveness as Muhammad suggested, would she still have been subject to death under Muslim law?

Probably. The punishment for the crime is distinct from forgiveness. The stoning might have taken place anyway, as per the second story in my answer immediately above this one.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:49 PM

That picture is very telling Robert. Ha! Anyway, I have to admit my seminary, Christian, Protestant bias here. I was reading this and I can almost see Jesus in John 8 picking the adulteress woman up from the dirt and turning to the teachers of the law stating that “he who has no sin cast the first stone.”

brotherbell on May 4, 2008 at 3:05 PM

The schools of Islamic jurisprudence are agreed that to be a witness one has to be a male Muslim who saw the act. Four such witnesses would establish that it happened.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM

Wow. It just makes no sense that if a woman is raped, there would have to be four Muslim males to actually witness the act, AND come forward. No wonder, as you point out, that Pakistani prisons are full of women like this.

And of course, it’s probably the woman’s fault if she is raped…

Most religions, even Christianity, have historically treated women as lesser than man. But Islam really seems to take the cake on this.

JetBoy on May 4, 2008 at 3:19 PM

Robert

Tangential question. This incident appears to be at the root of the rift between Aisha and Ali, and she avenged her insult by shooting down his succession of Mohammed in favor of her father Abu Bakr.

Given this rift, whenever any hadiths say ‘Narrated Aisha’…, do Shia Muslims automatically discount it, since Ali too discounted Aisha’s protestations of innocence in this incident? Or is she given as much credibility as others, such as Abu Huraira? Reason I ask is that I’ve heard that Shia reject hadiths, but is that true, or is it just that they reject Aisha’s accounts that appear in any Hadiths, be it Bukhari, Muslim, et al? Also, do Shia follow the same Bukhari and Muslim hadiths, or do they prefer other hadiths instead?

infidelpride on May 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM

Infidelpride:

Given this rift, whenever any hadiths say ‘Narrated Aisha’…, do Shia Muslims automatically discount it, since Ali too discounted Aisha’s protestations of innocence in this incident?

No, not automatically.

Or is she given as much credibility as others, such as Abu Huraira? Reason I ask is that I’ve heard that Shia reject hadiths, but is that true, or is it just that they reject Aisha’s accounts that appear in any Hadiths, be it Bukhari, Muslim, et al? Also, do Shia follow the same Bukhari and Muslim hadiths, or do they prefer other hadiths instead?

Instead of the canonical Sunni collections, Shi’ites use Kulaini’s Kitab al-Kafi, Saduq’s Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih, the Tahdhib al-Ahkam, the Nahj al-Balagha, etc. In content they’re not all that different from the Sunni Sahih Sittah.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 3:34 PM

I love your postings, Robert, but it’s so hard to read them without getting a mouthful of bile over this crap. It’s nothing but a system of keeping females subservient. They can’t kill them, so they go one step up from that, and punish them for anything that involves them.

This is why, as much as Musharraf can be a buffoon, he’s got more sense in terms of individual rights than any mullah. We have to keep supporting him.

MadisonConservative on May 4, 2008 at 6:25 PM

TheBigOldDog:

I wonder of American Liberals and Feminists in particular realize this.

They don’t. They appear not to care to realize it.

Robert Spencer on May 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM

My theory on why feminists, and liberals in general, not only refuse to see Islam as the farce that is, but go out of their way to defend it, is because of their hatred of Christians and Jews, and their overall hatred of anything that they perceive to be connected a male dominated system of the West.

I think they see Muslims as the “underdog” and they defend them without any regard for what they are defending. Liberals tend to think in terms “if you are for something, you must be against its opposite” and “if you are against something, you must be for its opposite”.

So they refuse to contemplate the plight of Muslim women because that would mean they would have to criticize something that conservatives criticize.

It’s sort of like “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” sort of thinking.

Of course, they could all just be stupid.

Jaynie59 on May 4, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Just repeat four times, “Adulterer”. Don’t have to cross fingers or click heels. Nice standard of evidence.

i b squidly on May 4, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Mr. Spencer,

Like many other people, I read these blogs every week and have done so from the beginning. I enjoy them, learn much from them, and appreciate your efforts. I especially enjoy when you answer questions towards the end of each week’s comments. I don’t often comment, but did want you to know that I am out here, looking forward to the latest entry each week.

ncc770 on May 5, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.