Quran commentary: If two men commit a like abomination, punish them. If they repent and reform, leave them alone. Allah is Ever-Returning, Most Merciful.
If two men commit a like abomination, punish them. If they repent and reform, leave them alone. Allah is Ever-Returning, Most Merciful.
‘Two’ (alladhāni): it is the dual of alladhī. By analogy , one would say , ‘alladhayāni’ like raḥayāni, muṣṭafayāni and shajayāni. Sībawayh said that the yā’ is elided in order to differentiate between declinable nouns with nunnation and demonstrative pronouns. Abū ‘ Alī said that the yā’ is elided for lightening when one is safe from confusion in alladhānī because the nūn is not elided, although the nūn of the dual in declinable nouns is elide when it is in iḍāfah in raḥayā, and muṣṭafayā. If the yā’ had been elided, it would have resembled the singular with two. Ibn Kathīr recited ‘alladhānni’ with a doubled nūn which is the dialect of Quraysh. The reason is that the doubling takes the place of the alif of dhā as will be explained in al-Qaṣaṣ. (28:32) There is another dialect which has ‘alladhā’ with the nūn elided. This is the view of the Kufans. The Basrans said that the nūn is elided because of the length of the word when connected. Similar is the reading of ‘hadhānni’ and ‘fa-dhānnaka burhānāni’. The rest have ‘alladhāni’. Abū ‘ Amr has the aberrant ‘fa-dhānnika’.
‘Two’ is in the nominative for the inceptive. Sībawayh says that it means: ‘in what is recited to you: if two men among you commit it (meaning fornication).’ The fā’ is added to ‘punish them’ because the words have the meaning of a command because when ‘alladhī’ is connected to a verb, it is possible for it to have the meaning of a
precondition when nothing specific is applied to it. When a precondition is possible and nothing is defined, then it acts as a precondition and the fā’ is added, and what is implied before it does not act on it, as the precondition is not affected by what is implied or clearly stated before it. Then it is unlikely that what is implied before it acts on ‘those’, then the implication is not good.The accusative is permitted when a verb is implied, and that is preferred when the words convey the meaning of a command or prohibition, like: ‘Those who are with you: honour them.’ punish them. Qatādah and as-Suddī said that it means to rebuke and reproach.
A group said that it is castigation and being harsh without reproach. Ibn ‘ Abbās said, ‘It is attacking with the tongue and hitting with sandals.’ An-Naḥḥās said that some people claim it is abrogated. Ibn Abī Najīḥ related that Mujāhid said that this and the previous āyah existed at the beginning and then were abrogated by the āyah in an-
Nūr. An-Naḥḥās said that it more fitting that it is not abrogated and it is obliged to punish them with rebuke, saying, ‘You committed this, sinned and opposed Allah’s command.’ Scholars disagree about the interpretation of the prepositions ‘they’ (fem.) in the previous āyah and ‘two’ here. Mujāhid and others said that the first āyah is about women in general, muḥṣanāt or not. The second is about men in particular, and the dual makes the category of men clear, muḥṣan or not. The punishment of women is imprisonment and that of men is castigation. This is what the words demand and the words deal in full with the types of fornication. That is reinforced by what His words in the first, ‘your women’ and ‘you’ in the second. An-Naḥḥās preferred that and related it from Ibn ‘ Abbās. As-Suddī, Qatādah and others said, ‘The first is about muḥṣanāt women, and so includes men who are muḥṣan, and the second is about men and women who are virgins.’ Ibn ‘ Aṭiyyah said, ‘ According to this, the meaning is complete, although the expression of the āyah is unsettled about it.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred that but an- Naḥḥās rejected it, saying that it is unlikely that the feminine preposition would dominate the masculine. It is said that a fornicatress is imprisoned rather than the man, but hey are both castigated. Qatādah said, ‘ A woman is imprisoned and both are castigated. This is because a man needs to earn and work.’ Scholars disagree about the position according to the hadith of ‘Ubādah which clarifies the rulings of fornication as we made clear. ‘ Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s position, in which there is no dispute, was in agreement with it. He flogged Shurāḥah al-Hamdāniyyah with a hundred lashes and stoned her afterwards. He said, ‘I flogged her by the Book of Allah and stoned her by the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah g.’ Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayy and Isḥāq said that. A group of scholars said, ‘Someone previously married is stoned without being flogged.’ This is related from ‘Umar and is the position of az-Zuhrī, an-Nakha‘ī, Mālik, ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, ash- Shāfi‘ī, the People of Opinion, Aḥmad and Abū Thawr, holding to
the fact that the Prophet g stoned Mā‘iz and the Ghāmidiyyah woman without flogging them, and to what the Prophet g said to Unays, ‘Go to this woman and if she confesses, stone her.’ He did not mention flogging. If it had been prescribed, he would not have been silent about it. The response to that was that he was silent
about it because it is confirmed by the Book of Allah. It is not impossible for him to have been silent about it since it was well known and there is a text on it in the Qur’an since Allah says: ‘A woman and a man who commit fornication: flog both of them with a hundred lashes.’ (24:2) This includes all fornicators. Allah knows best. This
explains what ‘ Alī did by adopting it from the caliphs and no one objected to it. The answer to this is that he acted by the abrogated and left the abrogating. This is clear.
They disagree about the exile of unmarried people in addition to flogging. The position of the majority is that they are exiled as well. The Rāshidūn caliphs, Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān and ‘ Alī, said that. It is the position of ‘ Aṭā’ Ṭāwus, Sufyān, Mālik, Ibn Abī Laylā, ash- Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Abū Thawr. Ḥammād ibn Abī
Sulaymān, Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ash-Shaybānī said that it is abandoned. The evidence of the majority is the hadith of ‘Ubādah and that of Abū Hurayrah and Zayd ibn Khālid in which the Prophet g said, ‘By the One who has my soul in His hand, I will decide between you two by the Book of Allah. Your sheep and slave-girl should be returned to you.’ He flogged his son with a hundred and exiled him for a year. The imams transmitted it. Those who do not think that there should be exile use the hadith of Abū Hurayrah about the slave-girl in which flogging rather than exile is mentioned. ‘ Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned from Ma‘mar from
az-Zuhrī that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said, ‘‘Umar exiled Rabī‘ah ibn Abī Umayyah ibn Khalaf to Khaybar for drinking wine where he joined Heraclius and became a Christian. ‘Umar said, “I will not exile a Muslim after this.”’ They said, ‘If exile had been a ḥadd punishment of Allah, ‘Umar would never have abandoned it. The text which is in the Book is flogging and increase beyond the text is abrogated.’ In reply to this, the hadith of Abū Hurayrah is about slave-girls, not free people. There is a sound report that ‘ Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar beat his slave-girl for fornication and exiled her. As for the hadith of ‘Umar, he meant for wine, and Allah knows best, since Nāfi‘ related
from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet g flogged and exiled as did Abū Bakr and ‘Umar. At-Tirmidhī in the Jāmi‘ and an-Nasā’ī in the Sunan transmitted it from Abū Kurayb Muḥammad ibn al-‘ Alā’ al- Hamdānī from ‘ Abdullāh ibn Idrīs from ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Umar from Nāfi‘. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that ‘ Abdullāh ibn Idrīs alone had it and the only reliable person who has it from him is Abū Kurayb.Exile is reported in a sound transmission from the Prophet g, so no one can debate its validity . Whoever differs from the Sunnah argues with it. Success is by Allah. What they said about increase over the text being abrogated is not sound. There can be an additional ruling to the basic one. There are many instances of this about things which are not in the Qur’an. This was discussed in al-Baqarah. Those who disagree about exile do not do so about exiling free males. They disagree about exiling slaves or slave-girls. Ibn ‘Umar was one of those who thought that they should be exiled: he flogged a slave-girl for fornication and exiled her to Fadak. It is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr, ath-Thawrī, aṭ-Ṭabarī and Dāwud. They disagree about ash-Shāfi‘ī’s position about exiling slaves. Sometimes he said that exiling slaves is subject to doing an istikhārah, sometimes he said that it is for half a year, and sometimes he said that it is a
year to a different town, as aṭ-Ṭabarī said. They have two positions about exiling slave-girls. Mālik said that men should be exiled but not women or slaves. The one who is exiled is detained in the place to which they are exiled, as from Egypt to the Hijaz, Shaghb, Aswan and the like, and from Madīnah to Khaybar and Fadak. That is what ‘Umar ibn ‘ Abd al-‘ Azīz did, and ‘ Ali exiled people from Kufa to Basra. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the minimum is the journey of a day and a night. Ibn al-‘ Arabī said, ‘The basis of exile is that the tribe of Ismā‘īl agreed that someone who committed something wrong in the Ḥaram should be exiled from it and so that became a sunnah in their
dīn. That is why the sunnah of the people was that when someone committed something wrong, they were exiled. That continued in the Jāhiliyyah until Islam came and then it was confirmed only in the case of fornication.’ Those who did not think that exile applied to slaves used the hadith of Abū Hurayrah as evidence. That is also because exile then becomes a punishment for the owner who is denied the use of the slave during the period of exile. That is not in keeping with the usage of the Sharī‘ah. None but the perpetrator should be punished. Allah knows best. Furthermore, Jumu‘ah, ḥajj and jihad which are Allah’s right are cancelled for him because of his master. The same is true of exile. Allah knows best. When a woman is exiled, that could be a cause for her falling into the very thing she was expelled for, which is fornication. Exile might act as a cause of her being exposed and possibly ruin her. That was the reason for not letting her leave her house and for her praying in
it being better. This restricts the generality of the hadith about exile to the aspect of welfare that is witnessed in it. It is a topic of disagreement among those who deal with uṣūl and thinkers. One group took an aberrant view and said that flogging and stoning are combined in the case of an old man while a young man is flogged.
This is based on holding to the word ‘old man’ in the hadith of Zayd ibn Thābit who heard the Messenger of Allah g say , ‘When an old man and old woman fornicate, stone them completely .’ An-Nasā’ī transmitted it. This is unsound because in another hadith he called him ‘previously married (thayyib).’ If they repent and reform, leave them alone.‘If they repent’ of fornication and ‘reform’ with respect to what they do afterwards, ‘leave them alone,’ meaning do not castigate them. That was before the revelation of the ḥadd punishments. When the ḥudūd were revealed, this āyah was abrogated. What is meant by ‘leave them alone’ is not emigration but being shunned and left alone. That is abasement for them because of their disobedience and because of the ignorance in the other āyah. Allah is Ever-Turning means that He makes His slaves turn back from acts of disobedience.
‘Two’ (alladhāni): it is the dual of alladhī. By analogy , one would say , ‘alladhayāni’ like raḥayāni, muṣṭafayāni and shajayāni. Sībawayh said that the yā’ is elided in order to differentiate between declinable nouns with nunnation and demonstrative pronouns. Abū ‘ Alī said that the yā’ is elided for lightening when one is safe from confusion in alladhānī because the nūn is not elided, although the nūn of the dual in declinable nouns is elide when it is in iḍāfah in raḥayā, and muṣṭafayā. If the yā’ had been elided, it would have resembled the singular with two. Ibn Kathīr recited ‘alladhānni’ with a doubled nūn which is the dialect of Quraysh. The reason is that the doubling takes the place of the alif of dhā as will be explained in al-Qaṣaṣ. (28:32) There is another dialect which has ‘alladhā’ with the nūn elided. This is the view of the Kufans. The Basrans said that the nūn is elided because of the length of the word when connected. Similar is the reading of ‘hadhānni’ and ‘fa-dhānnaka burhānāni’. The rest have ‘alladhāni’. Abū ‘ Amr has the aberrant ‘fa-dhānnika’.
‘Two’ is in the nominative for the inceptive. Sībawayh says that it means: ‘in what is recited to you: if two men among you commit it (meaning fornication).’ The fā’ is added to ‘punish them’ because the words have the meaning of a command because when ‘alladhī’ is connected to a verb, it is possible for it to have the meaning of a
precondition when nothing specific is applied to it. When a precondition is possible and nothing is defined, then it acts as a precondition and the fā’ is added, and what is implied before it does not act on it, as the precondition is not affected by what is implied or clearly stated before it. Then it is unlikely that what is implied before it acts on ‘those’, then the implication is not good.The accusative is permitted when a verb is implied, and that is preferred when the words convey the meaning of a command or prohibition, like: ‘Those who are with you: honour them.’ punish them. Qatādah and as-Suddī said that it means to rebuke and reproach.
A group said that it is castigation and being harsh without reproach. Ibn ‘ Abbās said, ‘It is attacking with the tongue and hitting with sandals.’ An-Naḥḥās said that some people claim it is abrogated. Ibn Abī Najīḥ related that Mujāhid said that this and the previous āyah existed at the beginning and then were abrogated by the āyah in an-
Nūr. An-Naḥḥās said that it more fitting that it is not abrogated and it is obliged to punish them with rebuke, saying, ‘You committed this, sinned and opposed Allah’s command.’ Scholars disagree about the interpretation of the prepositions ‘they’ (fem.) in the previous āyah and ‘two’ here. Mujāhid and others said that the first āyah is about women in general, muḥṣanāt or not. The second is about men in particular, and the dual makes the category of men clear, muḥṣan or not. The punishment of women is imprisonment and that of men is castigation. This is what the words demand and the words deal in full with the types of fornication. That is reinforced by what His words in the first, ‘your women’ and ‘you’ in the second. An-Naḥḥās preferred that and related it from Ibn ‘ Abbās. As-Suddī, Qatādah and others said, ‘The first is about muḥṣanāt women, and so includes men who are muḥṣan, and the second is about men and women who are virgins.’ Ibn ‘ Aṭiyyah said, ‘ According to this, the meaning is complete, although the expression of the āyah is unsettled about it.’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī preferred that but an- Naḥḥās rejected it, saying that it is unlikely that the feminine preposition would dominate the masculine. It is said that a fornicatress is imprisoned rather than the man, but hey are both castigated. Qatādah said, ‘ A woman is imprisoned and both are castigated. This is because a man needs to earn and work.’ Scholars disagree about the position according to the hadith of ‘Ubādah which clarifies the rulings of fornication as we made clear. ‘ Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s position, in which there is no dispute, was in agreement with it. He flogged Shurāḥah al-Hamdāniyyah with a hundred lashes and stoned her afterwards. He said, ‘I flogged her by the Book of Allah and stoned her by the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah g.’ Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ ibn Ḥayy and Isḥāq said that. A group of scholars said, ‘Someone previously married is stoned without being flogged.’ This is related from ‘Umar and is the position of az-Zuhrī, an-Nakha‘ī, Mālik, ath-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, ash- Shāfi‘ī, the People of Opinion, Aḥmad and Abū Thawr, holding to
the fact that the Prophet g stoned Mā‘iz and the Ghāmidiyyah woman without flogging them, and to what the Prophet g said to Unays, ‘Go to this woman and if she confesses, stone her.’ He did not mention flogging. If it had been prescribed, he would not have been silent about it. The response to that was that he was silent
about it because it is confirmed by the Book of Allah. It is not impossible for him to have been silent about it since it was well known and there is a text on it in the Qur’an since Allah says: ‘A woman and a man who commit fornication: flog both of them with a hundred lashes.’ (24:2) This includes all fornicators. Allah knows best. This
explains what ‘ Alī did by adopting it from the caliphs and no one objected to it. The answer to this is that he acted by the abrogated and left the abrogating. This is clear.
They disagree about the exile of unmarried people in addition to flogging. The position of the majority is that they are exiled as well. The Rāshidūn caliphs, Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān and ‘ Alī, said that. It is the position of ‘ Aṭā’ Ṭāwus, Sufyān, Mālik, Ibn Abī Laylā, ash- Shāfi‘ī, Aḥmad, Isḥāq and Abū Thawr. Ḥammād ibn Abī
Sulaymān, Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ash-Shaybānī said that it is abandoned. The evidence of the majority is the hadith of ‘Ubādah and that of Abū Hurayrah and Zayd ibn Khālid in which the Prophet g said, ‘By the One who has my soul in His hand, I will decide between you two by the Book of Allah. Your sheep and slave-girl should be returned to you.’ He flogged his son with a hundred and exiled him for a year. The imams transmitted it. Those who do not think that there should be exile use the hadith of Abū Hurayrah about the slave-girl in which flogging rather than exile is mentioned. ‘ Abd ar-Razzāq mentioned from Ma‘mar from
az-Zuhrī that Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab said, ‘‘Umar exiled Rabī‘ah ibn Abī Umayyah ibn Khalaf to Khaybar for drinking wine where he joined Heraclius and became a Christian. ‘Umar said, “I will not exile a Muslim after this.”’ They said, ‘If exile had been a ḥadd punishment of Allah, ‘Umar would never have abandoned it. The text which is in the Book is flogging and increase beyond the text is abrogated.’ In reply to this, the hadith of Abū Hurayrah is about slave-girls, not free people. There is a sound report that ‘ Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar beat his slave-girl for fornication and exiled her. As for the hadith of ‘Umar, he meant for wine, and Allah knows best, since Nāfi‘ related
from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet g flogged and exiled as did Abū Bakr and ‘Umar. At-Tirmidhī in the Jāmi‘ and an-Nasā’ī in the Sunan transmitted it from Abū Kurayb Muḥammad ibn al-‘ Alā’ al- Hamdānī from ‘ Abdullāh ibn Idrīs from ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Umar from Nāfi‘. Ad-Dāraquṭnī said that ‘ Abdullāh ibn Idrīs alone had it and the only reliable person who has it from him is Abū Kurayb.Exile is reported in a sound transmission from the Prophet g, so no one can debate its validity . Whoever differs from the Sunnah argues with it. Success is by Allah. What they said about increase over the text being abrogated is not sound. There can be an additional ruling to the basic one. There are many instances of this about things which are not in the Qur’an. This was discussed in al-Baqarah. Those who disagree about exile do not do so about exiling free males. They disagree about exiling slaves or slave-girls. Ibn ‘Umar was one of those who thought that they should be exiled: he flogged a slave-girl for fornication and exiled her to Fadak. It is the position of ash-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr, ath-Thawrī, aṭ-Ṭabarī and Dāwud. They disagree about ash-Shāfi‘ī’s position about exiling slaves. Sometimes he said that exiling slaves is subject to doing an istikhārah, sometimes he said that it is for half a year, and sometimes he said that it is a
year to a different town, as aṭ-Ṭabarī said. They have two positions about exiling slave-girls. Mālik said that men should be exiled but not women or slaves. The one who is exiled is detained in the place to which they are exiled, as from Egypt to the Hijaz, Shaghb, Aswan and the like, and from Madīnah to Khaybar and Fadak. That is what ‘Umar ibn ‘ Abd al-‘ Azīz did, and ‘ Ali exiled people from Kufa to Basra. Ash-Shāfi‘ī said that the minimum is the journey of a day and a night. Ibn al-‘ Arabī said, ‘The basis of exile is that the tribe of Ismā‘īl agreed that someone who committed something wrong in the Ḥaram should be exiled from it and so that became a sunnah in their
dīn. That is why the sunnah of the people was that when someone committed something wrong, they were exiled. That continued in the Jāhiliyyah until Islam came and then it was confirmed only in the case of fornication.’ Those who did not think that exile applied to slaves used the hadith of Abū Hurayrah as evidence. That is also because exile then becomes a punishment for the owner who is denied the use of the slave during the period of exile. That is not in keeping with the usage of the Sharī‘ah. None but the perpetrator should be punished. Allah knows best. Furthermore, Jumu‘ah, ḥajj and jihad which are Allah’s right are cancelled for him because of his master. The same is true of exile. Allah knows best. When a woman is exiled, that could be a cause for her falling into the very thing she was expelled for, which is fornication. Exile might act as a cause of her being exposed and possibly ruin her. That was the reason for not letting her leave her house and for her praying in
it being better. This restricts the generality of the hadith about exile to the aspect of welfare that is witnessed in it. It is a topic of disagreement among those who deal with uṣūl and thinkers. One group took an aberrant view and said that flogging and stoning are combined in the case of an old man while a young man is flogged.
This is based on holding to the word ‘old man’ in the hadith of Zayd ibn Thābit who heard the Messenger of Allah g say , ‘When an old man and old woman fornicate, stone them completely .’ An-Nasā’ī transmitted it. This is unsound because in another hadith he called him ‘previously married (thayyib).’ If they repent and reform, leave them alone.‘If they repent’ of fornication and ‘reform’ with respect to what they do afterwards, ‘leave them alone,’ meaning do not castigate them. That was before the revelation of the ḥadd punishments. When the ḥudūd were revealed, this āyah was abrogated. What is meant by ‘leave them alone’ is not emigration but being shunned and left alone. That is abasement for them because of their disobedience and because of the ignorance in the other āyah. Allah is Ever-Turning means that He makes His slaves turn back from acts of disobedience.
