طَآئِف
Appears 13 times in Quran
Derived Words (24)
Words derived from the stem "طَآئِف".
- a party
- a party
- two peoples
- and a party
- and also a party
- while the other party
- a party
- a party
- a party
- a party
- a section of them
- let a party of them stand
- a party
- a party
Occurrences in Quran
Found 13 verses containing "طَآئِف".
اِنَّ فِرۡعَوۡنَ عَلَا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ وَجَعَلَ اَہۡلَہَا شِیَعًا یَّسۡتَضۡعِفُ طَآئِفَۃً مِّنۡہُمۡ یُذَبِّحُ اَبۡنَآءَہُمۡ وَیَسۡتَحۡیٖ نِسَآءَہُمۡ ۚ اِنَّہٗ کَانَ مِنَ الۡمُفۡسِدِیۡنَ
10:84.
2:50; 7:142; 14:7.
在这个二十世纪中, 西方殖民主义强国行之非常有效的 “分而治之” 的政策, 看来在法老时代也做得非常成功。他把埃及人分成不同的团体和部分, 而且对他们作出别有用心的区别对待。他对有些人恩宠而对另一些人进行剥削和压迫。穆撒的民族属于后一类不幸的人们。“杀死他们的男儿, 留下他们的女儿” 这些话, 除了具有把以色列人置于他永久统治之下的明显意义外, 法老要消灭他们的男子而让他们的妇女活着的意思也可以是, 以他的剥削政策和残酷镇压的手段, 竭力想扼杀他们男子汉的气质, 这样可以使他们像女人般地胆怯。
10:84.
2:50; 7:142; 14:7.
The policy of "divide and rule" which has been practised with such deadly effect by the Western colonial Powers in this twentieth century seemed also to have been followed by Pharaoh with great success. He had split the people of Egypt into parties and sections and had made invidious distinctions between them. Some of them he favoured and others he exploited and suppressed. Moses’s people belonged to the latter unfortunate class. The words, slaughtering their sons and sparing their women, besides bearing the apparent sense that in order to keep the Israelites under permanent subjection Pharaoh destroyed their men and kept alive their women, may also signify that by his policy of exploitation and heartless suppression, he sought to kill all their manly qualities and thus made them timid like women.
10:84.
2:50; 7:142; 14:7.
Commentary:
The policy of "divide and rule" which has been practised with such deadly effect by the Colonial Powers of the west in this twentieth century was also followed by Pharaoh. He had split the people of Egypt into parties and sections and had made invidious distinctions between them. Some of them he favoured and others he exploited and suppressed. Moses’ people belonged to the latter unfortunate class.
The words, "he slew their sons and spared their women," besides bearing the apparent sense, viz. that in order to keep the Israelites under permanent subjection, Pharaoh destroyed their manhood and kept alive their women, may also signify that by his policy of exploitation and heartless suppression, Pharaoh sought to kill all manly qualities among the Israelites and thus made them timid like women.
d
10:84.
e
2:50; 7:142; 14:7.
960
在这个二十世纪中, 西方殖民主义强国行之非常有效的 “分而治之” 的政策, 看来在法老时代也做得非常成功。他把埃及人分成不同的团体和部分, 而且对他们作出别有用心的区别对待。他对有些人恩宠而对另一些人进行剥削和压迫。穆撒的民族属于后一类不幸的人们。“杀死他们的男儿, 留下他们的女儿” 这些话, 除了具有把以色列人置于他永久统治之下的明显意义外, 法老要消灭他们的男子而让他们的妇女活着的意思也可以是, 以他的剥削政策和残酷镇压的手段, 竭力想扼杀他们男子汉的气质, 这样可以使他们像女人般地胆怯。
d
10:84.
e
2:50; 7:142; 14:7.
2879
Commentary:
The policy of "divide and rule" which has been practised with such deadly effect by the Colonial Powers of the west in this twentieth century was also followed by Pharaoh. He had split the people of Egypt into parties and sections and had made invidious distinctions between them. Some of them he favoured and others he exploited and suppressed. Moses’ people belonged to the latter unfortunate class.
The words, "he slew their sons and spared their women," besides bearing the apparent sense, viz. that in order to keep the Israelites under permanent subjection, Pharaoh destroyed their manhood and kept alive their women, may also signify that by his policy of exploitation and heartless suppression, Pharaoh sought to kill all manly qualities among the Israelites and thus made them timid like women.
d
10:84.
e
2:50; 7:142; 14:7.
2196
The policy of "divide and rule" which has been practised with such deadly effect by the Western colonial Powers in this twentieth century seemed also to have been followed by Pharaoh with great success. He had split the people of Egypt into parties and sections and had made invidious distinctions between them. Some of them he favoured and others he exploited and suppressed. Moses’s people belonged to the latter unfortunate class. The words, slaughtering their sons and sparing their women, besides bearing the apparent sense that in order to keep the Israelites under permanent subjection Pharaoh destroyed their men and kept alive their women, may also signify that by his policy of exploitation and heartless suppression, he sought to kill all their manly qualities and thus made them timid like women.
ثُمَّ اَنۡزَلَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ مِّنۡۢ بَعۡدِ الۡغَمِّ اَمَنَۃً نُّعَاسًا یَّغۡشٰی طَآئِفَۃً مِّنۡکُمۡ ۖ وَطَآئِفَۃٌ قَدۡ اَہَمَّتۡہُمۡ اَنۡفُسُہُمۡ یَظُنُّوۡنَ بِاللّٰہِ غَیۡرَ الۡحَقِّ ظَنَّ الۡجٰہِلِیَّۃِ ۖ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ ہَل لَّنَا مِنَ الۡاَمۡرِ مِنۡ شَیۡءٍ ۗ قُلۡ اِنَّ الۡاَمۡرَ کُلَّہٗ لِلّٰہِ ۗ یُخۡفُوۡنَ فِیۡۤ اَنۡفُسِہِمۡ مَّا لَا یُبۡدُوۡنَ لَکَ ۖ یَقُوۡلُوۡنَ لَوۡ کَانَ لَنَا مِنَ الۡاَمۡرِ شَیۡءٌ مَّا قُتِلۡنَا ہٰہُنَا ۗ قُل لَّوۡ کُنۡتُمۡ فِیۡ بُیُوۡتِکُمۡ لَبَرَزَ الَّذِیۡنَ کُتِبَ عَلَیۡہِمُ الۡقَتۡلُ اِلٰی مَضَاجِعِہِمۡ ۖ وَلِیَبۡتَلِیَ اللّٰہُ مَا فِیۡ صُدُوۡرِکُمۡ وَلِیُمَحِّصَ مَا فِیۡ قُلُوۡبِکُمۡ ۗ وَاللّٰہُ عَلِیۡمٌۢ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُوۡرِ
3:169.
8:12.
قَتْل (Qatl) 在此用作قِتَال (Qital) 的意思, 即 “打仗” (Muhit和Kashshaf参见2:192 和Jarir 3:155。
使用 “长眠的地方” 这个词, 一方面要说明伪信者可鄙的懦弱, 另一方面要说明信者的坚定献身。它提醒伪信者, 当他们逃离后回到麦地那, 想着在这种情况下参战肯定要死亡的时候, 信者的坚定信仰却是这样的: 即使伪信者一开始就不向前行进, 信者却会愉快地走向战场--------正如所认为的那样--------死亡之地。这一切发生的事情都会使安拉涤除信者心中所有的罪恶。
یعنی انہیں اپنی جانوں کی فکر پڑی ہوئی تھی۔ دین اسلام کی عزت کا خیال نہ تھا۔
3:169.
8:12.
The reference in the verse is again to the Battle of Uhud. Abu Talhah says, "I lifted my head on the day of Uhud and began to look about, and saw that there was none among us on that day whose head had not bent down on account of slumber" (Kathir ii. 303). As sleep or slumber is a sign of mental peace and tranquillity, the Qur’an refers to the incident as a Divine favour. The incident evidently occurred when the battle was practically over and the Muslims had returned to the neighbouring hill.
The reference is to the Hypocrites who had remained behind at Medina. They were more concerned about their own security than about the honour of Islam and the security of the Holy Prophet and the Muslims. The words, we should not have been killed here, occurring a few lines further, mean, "If we had any voice in the determination of affairs and if our advice had been accepted, we, i.e. our brethren, would not have been killed in the battle," the insinuation being that the Muslims were foolish enough to march to the battlefield against heavy odds, while they (the Hypocrites) had wisely refrained from going with them. According to Quranic idiom the slaying of one’s self sometimes signifies the slaying of one’s brethren or companions (2:55, 2:86).
Qatl has been used here in the sense of, Qital, i.e. fighting (Muhit & Kashshaf). See 2:192 and Jarir under 3:155.
The word "death-beds" has been used in order to point to the abject cowardice of the Hypocrites on the one hand, and the steadfast devotion of the believers on the other. It reminds the Hypocrites that while they had deserted and returned to Medina, thinking that fighting in the circumstances was sure death, such was the firm faith of the believers that even if they (the Hypocrites) had kept back from the very beginning they (the believers) would have cheerfully gone forth to the battlefield—or the place of death, as it was thought to be. All this happened that God might purify the Faithful.
8:12.
3:169.
Important Words:
امر (government) means: (1) order or command; (2) matter or affair; (3) state or condition; (4) authority, government or management. اولوا الامر means, those who hold command or exercise authority (Aqrab).
قتل (fighting) being noun-infinitive means both to kill and to be killed. Another reading of the word قتل here is قتال(Muhit iii. 90 & Kashshaf) which shows that the word قتل (qatl) has been used here in the sense of fighting and not killing. The word has been used elsewhere also in the Quran in the sense of fighting (see 2:192). See also Jarir under 3:155.
Commentary:
The words, a slumber that overcame a party of you, refer to an incident connected with the Battle of Uhud. AbuTalhah says, "I lifted my head on the day of Uhud and began to look about, and there was none among us on that day but was bending down his head with slumber." This incident has been narrated by Tirmidhi, Nasa’i and others (see Kathir, ii. 303). As sleep or slumber is a symbol of a peaceful condition, being a sign of hearts that are calm and at rest, the Quran refers to this incident as a sort of favour. The incident evidently occurred when the battle was practically over and the Muslims had returned to the neighbouring height.
The reference in the words, the other party, is to the hypocrites who were at Medina and who had not taken part in the battle. When they heard of the reverse which overtook the Muslims and of the reported death of the Holy Prophet, they, in spite of rejoicing at the misfortune that had befallen the Muslims, became anxious about their own lives and feared what would happen to them in case the Meccans should attack Medina. The words cannot apply to the party of Muslims that took part in the battle, of whom the Quran says, He has surely pardoned you and Allah is gracious to the believers (3:153 above).
The words, Is there for us any part in the government of affairs? uttered by the hypocrites mean, "nobody listens to our opinion in matters of administration; we had advised the Muslims not to go out of Medina to fight, but our advice was ignored, with the result that they were defeated." The sentence might also mean, "now, (i.e. after this reverse) real government and power have gone into the hands of the idolaters and nothing has been left for us."
The words, All government belongs to Allah, signify that the decision in all matters rests with God; or that whatever might happen in the intervening period, God has ordained that eventually power and government shall be vouchsafed to Muslims, who will have dominion in the land.
The words, we should not have been killed here, mean, "If we had any voice in the management of affairs and if our advice had been accepted, our brethren would not have been killed in the battle," it being insinuated that while they were wise, the Muslims were simply foolish. The words may also be understood to mean, "if we were to have any government (as the Prophet had promised), we should not have been defeated in the battle." By saying so, the hypocrites hinted that the prophecies of the Holy Prophet regarding the triumph of Islam had turned out to be false.
It may be noted here that by saying, we should not have been killed here, the hypocrites did not evidently mean that they themselves would not have been killed. What they meant was that their brethren or comrades who were killed would not have been killed. This shows that by the slaying of one’s self is sometimes meant the slaying of one’s brethren or companions. This explains the words اقتلوا انفسکم in 2:55, and تقتلون انفسکم in 2:86. See also note on 2:55.
The Divine Words, If you had remained in your homes, refer to the hypocrites; and by the words, those on whom fighting had been enjoined, are meant the true believers. The injunction referred to is contained in 2:191.
In the clause, would have gone forth to their deathbeds, the word مضاجع (deathbeds) has been used in order to point to the abject cowardice of the hypocrites on the one hand, and the steadfast devotion of the true believers on the other. It reminds the hypocrites that whereas they returned to Medina, thinking that fighting in the existing circumstances was sure death, such was the faith of the true believers that even if the hypocrites had kept back from the very beginning they would have cheerfully gone forth to the battlefield, or the place of death, as it was commonly thought to be. All this happened that God might purify and ennoble the Faithful.
a
3:169.
d
8:12.
285
قَتْل (Qatl) 在此用作قِتَال (Qital) 的意思, 即 “打仗” (Muhit和Kashshaf参见2:192 和Jarir 3:155。
286
使用 “长眠的地方” 这个词, 一方面要说明伪信者可鄙的懦弱, 另一方面要说明信者的坚定献身。它提醒伪信者, 当他们逃离后回到麦地那, 想着在这种情况下参战肯定要死亡的时候, 信者的坚定信仰却是这样的: 即使伪信者一开始就不向前行进, 信者却会愉快地走向战场--------正如所认为的那样--------死亡之地。这一切发生的事情都会使安拉涤除信者心中所有的罪恶。
3
یعنی انہیں اپنی جانوں کی فکر پڑی ہوئی تھی۔ دین اسلام کی عزت کا خیال نہ تھا۔
a
8:12.
b
3:169.
437
Important Words:
امر (government) means: (1) order or command; (2) matter or affair; (3) state or condition; (4) authority, government or management. اولوا الامر means, those who hold command or exercise authority (Aqrab).
قتل (fighting) being noun-infinitive means both to kill and to be killed. Another reading of the word قتل here is قتال(Muhit iii. 90 & Kashshaf) which shows that the word قتل (qatl) has been used here in the sense of fighting and not killing. The word has been used elsewhere also in the Quran in the sense of fighting (see 2:192). See also Jarir under 3:155.
Commentary:
The words, a slumber that overcame a party of you, refer to an incident connected with the Battle of Uhud. AbuTalhah says, "I lifted my head on the day of Uhud and began to look about, and there was none among us on that day but was bending down his head with slumber." This incident has been narrated by Tirmidhi, Nasa’i and others (see Kathir, ii. 303). As sleep or slumber is a symbol of a peaceful condition, being a sign of hearts that are calm and at rest, the Quran refers to this incident as a sort of favour. The incident evidently occurred when the battle was practically over and the Muslims had returned to the neighbouring height.
The reference in the words, the other party, is to the hypocrites who were at Medina and who had not taken part in the battle. When they heard of the reverse which overtook the Muslims and of the reported death of the Holy Prophet, they, in spite of rejoicing at the misfortune that had befallen the Muslims, became anxious about their own lives and feared what would happen to them in case the Meccans should attack Medina. The words cannot apply to the party of Muslims that took part in the battle, of whom the Quran says, He has surely pardoned you and Allah is gracious to the believers (3:153 above).
The words, Is there for us any part in the government of affairs? uttered by the hypocrites mean, "nobody listens to our opinion in matters of administration; we had advised the Muslims not to go out of Medina to fight, but our advice was ignored, with the result that they were defeated." The sentence might also mean, "now, (i.e. after this reverse) real government and power have gone into the hands of the idolaters and nothing has been left for us."
The words, All government belongs to Allah, signify that the decision in all matters rests with God; or that whatever might happen in the intervening period, God has ordained that eventually power and government shall be vouchsafed to Muslims, who will have dominion in the land.
The words, we should not have been killed here, mean, "If we had any voice in the management of affairs and if our advice had been accepted, our brethren would not have been killed in the battle," it being insinuated that while they were wise, the Muslims were simply foolish. The words may also be understood to mean, "if we were to have any government (as the Prophet had promised), we should not have been defeated in the battle." By saying so, the hypocrites hinted that the prophecies of the Holy Prophet regarding the triumph of Islam had turned out to be false.
It may be noted here that by saying, we should not have been killed here, the hypocrites did not evidently mean that they themselves would not have been killed. What they meant was that their brethren or comrades who were killed would not have been killed. This shows that by the slaying of one’s self is sometimes meant the slaying of one’s brethren or companions. This explains the words اقتلوا انفسکم in 2:55, and تقتلون انفسکم in 2:86. See also note on 2:55.
The Divine Words, If you had remained in your homes, refer to the hypocrites; and by the words, those on whom fighting had been enjoined, are meant the true believers. The injunction referred to is contained in 2:191.
In the clause, would have gone forth to their deathbeds, the word مضاجع (deathbeds) has been used in order to point to the abject cowardice of the hypocrites on the one hand, and the steadfast devotion of the true believers on the other. It reminds the hypocrites that whereas they returned to Medina, thinking that fighting in the existing circumstances was sure death, such was the faith of the true believers that even if the hypocrites had kept back from the very beginning they would have cheerfully gone forth to the battlefield, or the place of death, as it was commonly thought to be. All this happened that God might purify and ennoble the Faithful.
a
3:169.
b
8:12.
506
The reference in the verse is again to the Battle of Uhud. Abu Talhah says, "I lifted my head on the day of Uhud and began to look about, and saw that there was none among us on that day whose head had not bent down on account of slumber" (Kathir ii. 303). As sleep or slumber is a sign of mental peace and tranquillity, the Qur’an refers to the incident as a Divine favour. The incident evidently occurred when the battle was practically over and the Muslims had returned to the neighbouring hill.
506A
The reference is to the Hypocrites who had remained behind at Medina. They were more concerned about their own security than about the honour of Islam and the security of the Holy Prophet and the Muslims. The words, we should not have been killed here, occurring a few lines further, mean, "If we had any voice in the determination of affairs and if our advice had been accepted, we, i.e. our brethren, would not have been killed in the battle," the insinuation being that the Muslims were foolish enough to march to the battlefield against heavy odds, while they (the Hypocrites) had wisely refrained from going with them. According to Quranic idiom the slaying of one’s self sometimes signifies the slaying of one’s brethren or companions (2:55, 2:86).
506B
Qatl has been used here in the sense of, Qital, i.e. fighting (Muhit & Kashshaf). See 2:192 and Jarir under 3:155.
506C
The word "death-beds" has been used in order to point to the abject cowardice of the Hypocrites on the one hand, and the steadfast devotion of the believers on the other. It reminds the Hypocrites that while they had deserted and returned to Medina, thinking that fighting in the circumstances was sure death, such was the firm faith of the believers that even if they (the Hypocrites) had kept back from the very beginning they (the believers) would have cheerfully gone forth to the battlefield—or the place of death, as it was thought to be. All this happened that God might purify the Faithful.
وَیَقُوۡلُوۡنَ طَاعَۃٌ فَاِذَا بَرَزُوۡا مِنۡ عِنۡدِکَ بَیَّتَ طَآئِفَۃٌ مِّنۡہُمۡ غَیۡرَ الَّذِیۡ تَقُوۡلُ ۖ وَاللّٰہُ یَکۡتُبُ مَا یُبَیِّتُوۡنَ ۖ فَاَعۡرِضۡ عَنۡہُمۡ وَتَوَکَّلۡ عَلَی اللّٰہِ ۚ وَکَفٰی بِاللّٰہِ وَکِیۡلًا
4:109.
یعنی ان کا حساب رکھتا جاتا ہے۔ وقت آنے پر اس کی سزا دے گا۔
4:109.
The reference is to secret plotting, whether by night or during the day. As generally secret plotting is done at night, the word Bayyata has been used here, the night time affording a sort of cover and secrecy.
4:109.
Important Words:
بیت (spends the night scheming) is derived from بات meaning, he passed or spent the night. بات زید نائما means, Zaid passed the night sleeping. بیت الامر means, he did or designed or schemed the thing at night. بیت رأیه means, he thought upon his opinion and concealed it, or he conceived it in his mind. بیت العدو means, he attacked the enemy, and took him by surprise by night (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The word "night" or "scheming by night" should not be taken too literally. The reference is to secret plotting, whether by night or during the daytime. As generally secret plotting is done at night, the word بیت has been used, the night time affording a sort of cover and secrecy.
a
4:109.
2
یعنی ان کا حساب رکھتا جاتا ہے۔ وقت آنے پر اس کی سزا دے گا۔
a
4:109.
550
Important Words:
بیت (spends the night scheming) is derived from بات meaning, he passed or spent the night. بات زید نائما means, Zaid passed the night sleeping. بیت الامر means, he did or designed or schemed the thing at night. بیت رأیه means, he thought upon his opinion and concealed it, or he conceived it in his mind. بیت العدو means, he attacked the enemy, and took him by surprise by night (Lane & Aqrab).
Commentary:
The word "night" or "scheming by night" should not be taken too literally. The reference is to secret plotting, whether by night or during the daytime. As generally secret plotting is done at night, the word بیت has been used, the night time affording a sort of cover and secrecy.
a
4:109.
638
The reference is to secret plotting, whether by night or during the day. As generally secret plotting is done at night, the word Bayyata has been used here, the night time affording a sort of cover and secrecy.
وَاِذَا کُنۡتَ فِیۡہِمۡ فَاَقَمۡتَ لَہُمُ الصَّلٰوۃَ فَلۡتَقُمۡ طَآئِفَۃٌ مِّنۡہُمۡ مَّعَکَ وَلۡیَاۡخُذُوۡۤا اَسۡلِحَتَہُمۡ فَاِذَا سَجَدُوۡا فَلۡیَکُوۡنُوۡا مِنۡ وَّرَآئِکُمۡ وَلۡتَاۡتِ طَآئِفَۃٌ اُخۡرٰی لَمۡ یُصَلُّوۡا فَلۡیُصَلُّوۡا مَعَکَ وَلۡیَاۡخُذُوۡا حِذۡرَہُمۡ وَاَسۡلِحَتَہُمۡ ۗ وَدَّ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا لَوۡ تَغۡفُلُوۡنَ عَنۡ اَسۡلِحَتِکُمۡ وَاَمۡتِعَتِکُمۡ فَیَمِیۡلُوۡنَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ مَّیۡلَۃً وّٰحِدَۃً ۚ وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ اِنۡ کَانَ بِکُمۡ اَذًی مِّنۡ مَّطَرٍ اَوۡ کُنۡتُمۡ مَّرۡضٰۤی اَنۡ تَضَعُوۡۤا اَسۡلِحَتَکُمۡ ۖ وَخُذُوۡا حِذۡرَکُمۡ ۗ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ اَعَدَّ لِلۡکٰفِرِیۡنَ عَذَابًا مُّہِیۡنًا
Whereas the preceding verse spoke of Prayer in time of fear in the case of individuals, the present one gives the details of the manner of its performance when the Faithful are in the form of a company or group and the Prayer is to be performed in congregation. As many as eleven different forms in which the Prayer was said on different occasions are described in the Hadith (Muhit).
The verse observes a difference between Aslihah (arms) and Hidhr (precautions). Whereas the former may be put aside in moments of comparative security, the latter should never be neglected. See also 4:72.
Commentary:
Whereas the preceding verse spoke of the Prayer in time of fear in the case of individuals, the present one gives the details of the manner of its performance when the Faithful are in the form of a company or group and the Prayer is to be performed in congregation. Apparently the Holy Prophet alone seems to have been addressed here, but really the verse possesses general application. When a Muslim army is about to say their Prayer in congregation, half of them should say the Prayer with the Imam, carrying their arms, and the other half should stand facing the enemy, to fight him or repulse his attack, as the case may be. When the first half have finished one Rak‘at, they should retire to take the place of those who are facing the enemy. The latter should then come forward and say one Rak‘at with the Imam.
As many as eleven different ways in which these Prayers were said on different occasions are described in the Hadith(for details see Al-Bahrul-Muhit). In some cases, each of the two parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer, while the Imam said two. In other cases, each of the parties said two Rak‘at, one Rak‘at with the Imam and the other alone, thus all saying two Rak‘at. On yet other occasions each of the two parties said two rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam, the Imam himself having said four Rak‘at—two Rak‘at with each party. These different methods were observed in different circumstances. If the danger was great, each of the parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam while the Imam himself said two; but if the danger was not so great, each party said two Rak‘ats while the Imam said four. Again, methods varied with the varying position of the army. If the enemy, for instance, was in front of the Imam, the congregation followed a method different from that which they followed on other occasions.
To sum up, whereas Prayer in a state of simple journey consists of two Rak‘ats in such Prayers as ordinarily consist of four Rak‘ats, the Prayer in time of fear may assume different forms, the more important being:
(a) Splitting up the worshippers into two parties, each party either saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and then retiring, or saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and the other part separately, the number of Rak‘ats performed by the worshippers being either one or two as the case may be (the present verse);
(b) Shortening the duration of Prayers only (the preceding verse);
(c) Doing away with all form and repeating the words of Prayer while walking, running or riding (2:240).
The verse observes a difference between: اسلحة (arms) and حذر (means of defence or simply precautions). Whereas the former may be put aside in moments of comparative security, the latter should always be adhered to and never neglected. See also 4:72.
571
Commentary:
Whereas the preceding verse spoke of the Prayer in time of fear in the case of individuals, the present one gives the details of the manner of its performance when the Faithful are in the form of a company or group and the Prayer is to be performed in congregation. Apparently the Holy Prophet alone seems to have been addressed here, but really the verse possesses general application. When a Muslim army is about to say their Prayer in congregation, half of them should say the Prayer with the Imam, carrying their arms, and the other half should stand facing the enemy, to fight him or repulse his attack, as the case may be. When the first half have finished one Rak‘at, they should retire to take the place of those who are facing the enemy. The latter should then come forward and say one Rak‘at with the Imam.
As many as eleven different ways in which these Prayers were said on different occasions are described in the Hadith(for details see Al-Bahrul-Muhit). In some cases, each of the two parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer, while the Imam said two. In other cases, each of the parties said two Rak‘at, one Rak‘at with the Imam and the other alone, thus all saying two Rak‘at. On yet other occasions each of the two parties said two rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam, the Imam himself having said four Rak‘at—two Rak‘at with each party. These different methods were observed in different circumstances. If the danger was great, each of the parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam while the Imam himself said two; but if the danger was not so great, each party said two Rak‘ats while the Imam said four. Again, methods varied with the varying position of the army. If the enemy, for instance, was in front of the Imam, the congregation followed a method different from that which they followed on other occasions.
To sum up, whereas Prayer in a state of simple journey consists of two Rak‘ats in such Prayers as ordinarily consist of four Rak‘ats, the Prayer in time of fear may assume different forms, the more important being:
(a) Splitting up the worshippers into two parties, each party either saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and then retiring, or saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and the other part separately, the number of Rak‘ats performed by the worshippers being either one or two as the case may be (the present verse);
(b) Shortening the duration of Prayers only (the preceding verse);
(c) Doing away with all form and repeating the words of Prayer while walking, running or riding (2:240).
The verse observes a difference between: اسلحة (arms) and حذر (means of defence or simply precautions). Whereas the former may be put aside in moments of comparative security, the latter should always be adhered to and never neglected. See also 4:72.
660
Whereas the preceding verse spoke of Prayer in time of fear in the case of individuals, the present one gives the details of the manner of its performance when the Faithful are in the form of a company or group and the Prayer is to be performed in congregation. As many as eleven different forms in which the Prayer was said on different occasions are described in the Hadith (Muhit).
661
The verse observes a difference between Aslihah (arms) and Hidhr (precautions). Whereas the former may be put aside in moments of comparative security, the latter should never be neglected. See also 4:72.
اَنۡ تَقُوۡلُوۡۤا اِنَّمَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ الۡکِتٰبُ عَلٰی طَآئِفَتَیۡنِ مِنۡ قَبۡلِنَا وَاِنۡ کُنَّا عَنۡ دِرَاسَتِہِمۡ لَغٰفِلِیۡنَ
یعنی یہود اور نصاریٰ پر۔ یہ جاہل مشرکوں کا خیال تھا۔ ورنہ مسیحؑ خود کہتا ہے کہ وہ تورات کو قائم کرنے کے لئے آیا ہے اور کوئی نئی شریعت نہیں لایا (متی باب۵ آیت۱۷) یعنی انجیل کوئی شریعت کی کتاب نہیں۔
The "two peoples" mentioned in the verse may be the Jews to whom was given the Torah and whose religion originated in the region in the north of Arabia, and the Zoroastrians to whom was given the Zend-Avesta and who lived on the east side of Arabia. Or the words may refer to Jews and Christians, the two peoples who lived in Arabia and with whom the Arabs had come into contact.
Important Words:
غافلین (unaware) is the plural of غافل which also means wanting in requisite knowledge (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verses are addressed to the pagan tribes of Arabia and give the reason why the Quran has been revealed to a Prophet of that country. If the Quran had not been sent down to the pagan Arabs, they might have justly offered the excuse that Books had been sent down to two other peoples (explained below) in tongues which the Arabs could not understand, and that if a Book had been sent down to them, they would have acted upon its teachings more faithfully. To meet this excuse the Quran has been revealed to a Prophet from among the Arabs in their own tongue; so now they cannot offer that excuse.
The "two peoples" mentioned in the verse are (1) the Jews to whom was given the Book of Moses and whose religion originated in the north of Arabia; and (2) the Zoroastrians to whom was given the Zend-Avesta and who lived on the east side of Arabia. The Christians were given no separate Law, for both Jesus and his disciples followed the Law of Moses; hence, so far as religious Laws are concerned, they do not form a separate people but must be classed with the Jews.
1
یعنی یہود اور نصاریٰ پر۔ یہ جاہل مشرکوں کا خیال تھا۔ ورنہ مسیحؑ خود کہتا ہے کہ وہ تورات کو قائم کرنے کے لئے آیا ہے اور کوئی نئی شریعت نہیں لایا (متی باب۵ آیت۱۷) یعنی انجیل کوئی شریعت کی کتاب نہیں۔
896
Important Words:
غافلین (unaware) is the plural of غافل which also means wanting in requisite knowledge (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verses are addressed to the pagan tribes of Arabia and give the reason why the Quran has been revealed to a Prophet of that country. If the Quran had not been sent down to the pagan Arabs, they might have justly offered the excuse that Books had been sent down to two other peoples (explained below) in tongues which the Arabs could not understand, and that if a Book had been sent down to them, they would have acted upon its teachings more faithfully. To meet this excuse the Quran has been revealed to a Prophet from among the Arabs in their own tongue; so now they cannot offer that excuse.
The "two peoples" mentioned in the verse are (1) the Jews to whom was given the Book of Moses and whose religion originated in the north of Arabia; and (2) the Zoroastrians to whom was given the Zend-Avesta and who lived on the east side of Arabia. The Christians were given no separate Law, for both Jesus and his disciples followed the Law of Moses; hence, so far as religious Laws are concerned, they do not form a separate people but must be classed with the Jews.
933
The "two peoples" mentioned in the verse may be the Jews to whom was given the Torah and whose religion originated in the region in the north of Arabia, and the Zoroastrians to whom was given the Zend-Avesta and who lived on the east side of Arabia. Or the words may refer to Jews and Christians, the two peoples who lived in Arabia and with whom the Arabs had come into contact.
وَاِنۡ کَانَ طَآئِفَۃٌ مِّنۡکُمۡ اٰمَنُوۡا بِالَّذِیۡۤ اُرۡسِلۡتُ بِہٖ وَطَآئِفَۃٌ لَّمۡ یُؤۡمِنُوۡا فَاصۡبِرُوۡا حَتّٰی یَحۡکُمَ اللّٰہُ بَیۡنَنَا ۚ وَہُوَ خَیۡرُ الۡحٰکِمِیۡنَ
Commentary:
The verse refers to the last course that a Prophet adopts after the failure of all his efforts to make his people see the error of their ways and accept the truth. He leaves the whole matter in the hand of God and asks them to wait till God should show a decisive sign which would clearly distinguish between right and wrong.
986
Commentary:
The verse refers to the last course that a Prophet adopts after the failure of all his efforts to make his people see the error of their ways and accept the truth. He leaves the whole matter in the hand of God and asks them to wait till God should show a decisive sign which would clearly distinguish between right and wrong.
لَا تَعۡتَذِرُوۡا قَدۡ کَفَرۡتُمۡ بَعۡدَ اِیۡمٰنِکُمۡ ۚ اِنۡ نَّعۡفُ عَنۡ طَآئِفَۃٍ مِّنۡکُمۡ نُعَذِّبۡ طَآئِفَۃًۢ بِاَنَّہُمۡ کَانُوۡا مُجۡرِمِیۡنَ
56:8.
56:8.
56:8.
Commentary:
The words, You have certainly disbelieved after your believing, mean, "You expressed belief in God and His Messenger but practically you remained disbelievers;" or "You possessed some light of faith in you in the beginning but you allowed that light to become gradually extinguished."
The verse also hints that the hypocrites may yet repent and their repentance would be accepted; and history tells us that some of the hypocrites did actually repent and became sincere Muslims.
a
56:8.
b
56:8.
1220
Commentary:
The words, You have certainly disbelieved after your believing, mean, "You expressed belief in God and His Messenger but practically you remained disbelievers;" or "You possessed some light of faith in you in the beginning but you allowed that light to become gradually extinguished."
The verse also hints that the hypocrites may yet repent and their repentance would be accepted; and history tells us that some of the hypocrites did actually repent and became sincere Muslims.
b
56:8.
فَاِنۡ رَّجَعَکَ اللّٰہُ اِلٰی طَآئِفَۃٍ مِّنۡہُمۡ فَاسۡتَـٔۡذَنُوۡکَ لِلۡخُرُوۡجِ فَقُل لَّنۡ تَخۡرُجُوۡا مَعِیَ اَبَدًا وَّلَنۡ تُقٰتِلُوۡا مَعِیَ عَدُوًّا ۖ اِنَّکُمۡ رَضِیۡتُمۡ بِالۡقُعُوۡدِ اَوَّلَ مَرَّۃٍ فَاقۡعُدُوۡا مَعَ الۡخٰلِفِیۡنَ
Commentary:
The verse was probably revealed when the Holy Prophet was away from Medina during his expedition to Tabuk. But if, as some commentators think, it was revealed after his return to Medina, it would be taken to allude to what the hypocrites previously used to say regarding the said expedition. They thought that he would never return from the expedition alive. So the Quran, in this verse reminds them of what they used to say about the Holy Prophet, and of his safe return, contrary to their expectation.
The particle ان (if), it should be noted, does not always express doubt but is often used as simply a conditional particle. Moreover, it is sometimes used not from the point of view of the speaker, but from that of the person addressed. The word is here used by God and it is obvious that God had no doubt as to the safe return of the Prophet. So it must be taken to express the state of mind of the hypocrites.
1235
Commentary:
The verse was probably revealed when the Holy Prophet was away from Medina during his expedition to Tabuk. But if, as some commentators think, it was revealed after his return to Medina, it would be taken to allude to what the hypocrites previously used to say regarding the said expedition. They thought that he would never return from the expedition alive. So the Quran, in this verse reminds them of what they used to say about the Holy Prophet, and of his safe return, contrary to their expectation.
The particle ان (if), it should be noted, does not always express doubt but is often used as simply a conditional particle. Moreover, it is sometimes used not from the point of view of the speaker, but from that of the person addressed. The word is here used by God and it is obvious that God had no doubt as to the safe return of the Prophet. So it must be taken to express the state of mind of the hypocrites.
۞ وَمَا کَانَ الۡمُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ لِیَنۡفِرُوۡا کَآفَّۃً ۚ فَلَوۡلَا نَفَرَ مِنۡ کُلِّ فِرۡقَۃٍ مِّنۡہُمۡ طَآئِفَۃٌ لِّیَتَفَقَّہُوۡا فِی الدِّیۡنِ وَلِیُنۡذِرُوۡا قَوۡمَہُمۡ اِذَا رَجَعُوۡۤا اِلَیۡہِمۡ لَعَلَّہُمۡ یَحۡذَرُوۡنَ
3:105.
3:105.
As weakness in faith and in doing good works results from lack of true knowledge and training, the verse speaks of the way in which such weakness could be removed. The Arabs of the desert were quite ignorant of the teachings of Islam (9:97). The verse suggests a practical method of instructing them in the tenets and principles of the Faith.
3:105.
Commentary:
As weakness of faith and works resulted from lack of knowledge and training, the present verse speaks of the way in which such a weakness could be removed. The Arabs of the desert were quite ignorant of the teachings of Islam (9:97). The verse suggests a practical method of instructing them in the tenets and principles of the Faith. A certain number from every tribe or section were required to come to Medina for instruction in the teachings of Islam, and then go back to their respective people and teach them what they had themselves learned. It was indeed the easiest, the most effective and practical method of learning the principles and teachings of the new Faith and imparting them to others.
b
3:105.
b
3:105.
1269
Commentary:
As weakness of faith and works resulted from lack of knowledge and training, the present verse speaks of the way in which such a weakness could be removed. The Arabs of the desert were quite ignorant of the teachings of Islam (9:97). The verse suggests a practical method of instructing them in the tenets and principles of the Faith. A certain number from every tribe or section were required to come to Medina for instruction in the teachings of Islam, and then go back to their respective people and teach them what they had themselves learned. It was indeed the easiest, the most effective and practical method of learning the principles and teachings of the new Faith and imparting them to others.
c
3:105.
1224
As weakness in faith and in doing good works results from lack of true knowledge and training, the verse speaks of the way in which such weakness could be removed. The Arabs of the desert were quite ignorant of the teachings of Islam (9:97). The verse suggests a practical method of instructing them in the tenets and principles of the Faith.
اَلزَّانِیَۃُ وَالزَّانِیۡ فَاجۡلِدُوۡا کُلَّ وٰحِدٍ مِّنۡہُمَا مِائَۃَ جَلۡدَۃٍ ۖ وَّلَا تَاۡخُذۡکُمۡ بِہِمَا رَاۡفَۃٌ فِیۡ دِیۡنِ اللّٰہِ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ تُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِاللّٰہِ وَالۡیَوۡمِ الۡاٰخِرِ ۖ وَلۡیَشۡہَدۡ عَذَابَہُمَا طَآئِفَۃٌ مِّنَ الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ
The words, az-Zani and az-Zaniyah, signify respectively both an adulterer and a fornicator; and an adulteress and a fornicatress.
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. Flogging and not stoning to death, according to this verse, is the prescribed punishment. Nowhere in the Qur’an stoning to death has 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
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.
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.
2025A
The words, az-Zani and az-Zaniyah, signify respectively both an adulterer and a fornicator; and an adulteress and a fornicatress.
2026
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. Flogging and not stoning to death, according to this verse, is the prescribed punishment. Nowhere in the Qur’an stoning to death has 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