15. This is an allusion to that storm of falsehood that the hypocrites had raised against a chaste and pious woman of faith. This gang was apparently among the Muslims, but this group of the people had not only not accepted Islam sincerely but were also always plotting to harm its interests in every possible way. They had embraced Islam because their tribe had done so or there were some other compelling reasons, but actually they had no interest or sympathy for Islam and Muslims. They nursed a rancour against them. Because of this ill will they were always busy inventing ways and means of hatching dangerous plots against Islam. After the Battle of Ahzab (05 A. H.), this group of hypocrites had started the nefarious activity of defaming the faithful Muslim ladies by floating rumours in order to tarnish good name of Islam. On this occasion they had invented a very heinous fictitious story against a chaste Muslim lady, and they tried to spread the slander in such a way that some careless Muslims also joined in spreading this rumours. Towards this new mischief these ayat make a hint, and such Muslims are very severely warned as were influenced by these rumours and had participated in discussing it and abetting the mischief.

Qur’an has not clarified who this Muslim lady was against whom this storm of slander was raised, therefore, it is not necessary to fix who this lady was. And since any discussion about it was prevented, as is clear from the following ayat, the companions of the Prophet did not quote the event of the slander campaign in their commentaries of these ayat. Therefore, it is unnecessary and improper to trace against which lady this slander was invented and what story was woven. The stories of immodesty, when narrated even in order to refute them -leave very bad effects behind them, therefore, it is better not to quote or narrate them, and the safer course is to be satisfied with the cursory information given by the Qur’an and to concentrate on the relevant commands given by it in this connection.

As for those narratives in which the story of the slander against Ummul Mumineen (Mother of the faithful) Ayesha (R), is narrated, it is not supported by Qur’an, as the Quranic statement is concerning general chaste and modest Muslim women, as is clear from the ayat Nos. 12 and 23. In them there is no hint at all of any holy wife of the Prophet (Sallal Lahu Alaihi Wa Sallam ). If the event were concerning Ayesha (R). then the crime of the slanderers would have been more serious, because then they would have been guilty of slandering against the mother of the believers and by this heinous act they would have caused considerable pain to the Prophet himself, and would have become the medium of defamation of the family of the Prophet. But nothing of this sort, not even a hint, is found in these ayat. Again these narratives are questionable from the viewpoint of their sources, and from the standpoint of the text itself, many points concerning this story are unacceptable. Among these narrative the most famous and detailed narrative is that of Zohri, who was a well known Taba’ee. This narrative has been quoted in detail in Bukhari, Muslim and other books of Hadith, Moreover in the Seerat Ibn Hisham it has been quoted through Ibn Ishaq. It would take a lot of space if it is quoted here. Besides it will not be proper if a narrative, the quoting of which creates unpleasant feeling, should be given a place in a commentary of the holy Qur’an. Therefore, we will state briefly the reasons why this narrative is unworthy of acceptance:

(1) The first thing which is difficult to accept is that when the information of the slander reached the Prophet, his favourable inclination towards Ayesha (R) had ceased, although in those days she was ill. The Prophet used only to inquire of her health and go away. Ayesha (R) felt that there must be something amiss. When Um Mistah informed her that she has been made the victim of a slander, she was greatly shocked and she went on crying. It appears that the Prophet, after hearing this rumour, did not refute it immediately, and he suspected her without asking her and without trying to find out the facts, although it is far from his august personality that the Prophet should adopt such an altitude, concerning his own faithful and pious wife whose purity and chastity is above all kinds of doubts. Qur’an asks the people of faith that when you heard the story of slander, why you did not think good of each other and why you did not say that it was clearly a false accusation (Verse No.12). The direction of the Quranic wrath is towards those Muslims who did not instantly reject the slander against a chaste Muslim lady. If the narrative which is under discussion is accepted, then it becomes difficult to explain the attitude of the Prophet, and any narrative which puts the office of the prophethood in a bad light deserves to be rejected outright.

(2) The second thing which has been ascribed to the Prophet in this narrative is that when he saw Ayesha (R) crying he called Usamah (R) and Ali (R) and consulted them about leaving his wife. Usamah (R) replied : ‘O Prophet! We do not know anything except good about your family, and Ali (R) said that Allah had not made anything difficult for him to get, besides Ayesha (R) there are many women whom he could marry. He advised to call his female slave, who would give the correct assessment. He then called Burairah, who reported that she did not see anything in her behaviour which could raise any doubt. It is also unbelievable that in a matter which was concerning a private family affair he consulted a boy of young age like Usamah.

It is also very strange that he would consult a female slave but he would not consult his other wives except Zainab, and that he would consult Ali (R) but would not consult and totally ignore his great companions like Abu Bakr (R) and Umar (R). There is no reference to his drawing the attention of Abu Bakr (R) to consider what people were talking about his daughter. Then again the reply given by Ali (R) was also very casual. Instead of the words which were expected to come out of the mouth of a man of faith, that is he should have said: ‘Allah ! You are Immaculate, and this is a great slander; he said that besides Ayesha (R) he could get many other women. What kind of a reply this was, in a matter under investigation! We do not have such a wrong impression about Ali (R) that he would have given such a reply, but we think that it is the invention of the narrator himself, which creates an impression that Ali(R) did not pay due respects to Ayesha (R) from the very beginning. This creates a doubt in our minds about the Shi’a mentality of Zohri.

(3) In the said narrative it is reported that after consulting Ali (R), the Prophet ascended the ‘mimber’ and addressing the Muslims said: “Who would defend me against that person who has given me pain concerning my home people, and by Allah! I have only seen good in my home people, and I have seen good in the person, who is being slandered.” Upon this Sa’ad bin Muaz said that if the slanderer was from the Tribe of Aus, he would behead him, and if he was from the Tribe of Khazraj, then they would follow whatever order the Prophet would give. Hearing this, Sa’ad bin ubadah got up and said that he was telling a lie, he could never kill him. Sa’ad bin Muaz said that they would surely kill him, and that he was a hypocrite and was speaking on their behalf. It was very likely that the tribes of Aus and Khazraj would have fought among themselves, but the Prophet pacified them.

It is unbelievable that in the presence of the Prophet the two tribes of Ansar would have quarreled in this way. Sa’ad bin Muaz and Sa’ad bin Ibadah were very respectable companions of the Prophet, and one cannot imagine of such a behaviour by them that they would have hurled offensive remarks against each other. This narrative tarnishes their character. And it is also very strange that if this event had taken place, then how could Abu Bakr (R), Umar (R) Usman (R) and Ali (R) remain silent, and why did they not rise in defence of the Prophet? These questions make this narrative exceedingly doubtful.

(4) In the narrative it is further stated that the Prophet went to Ayesha (R) and told her that he had heard such reports about her and that if she was innocent, Allah would manifest her innocence, and if a sin has been committed by her, then she should ask for Allah’s pardon and repent; when a slave admits his sin and begs for pardon, repenting for his sin, Allah accepts his repentance. Ayesha (R) states that hearing this, her tears dried up. Thereafter came the revelation to the Prophet, who informed her “O Ayesha ! Allah has sent down a revelation expressing your innocence.” From this narrative an impression is created that the Prophet had become suspicious of Ayesha (R), which, in the light of the instructions in the ayah No.12 that people of faith should always think well of each other, is untenable. Then again the Prophet’s saying to Ayesha (R) that if the sin has been committed by her, she should repent means that after committing such a great sin, merely repenting by her would have sufficed, and it is ignored that in such a case the Islamic penal law would have become applicable to her, and the Prophet would not have continued to keep her as his wife, for such a thing would have tarnished the fair name of the Prophet. It is thus elicited that it was a mere fictitious story.

(5) Before the revelation of Surah Noor, Surah Ahzab had been revealed, in which the wives of the Prophet were declared to be the mothers of the people of faith, and persons who caused any suffering to the Prophet were declared to be liable for punishment. After this what Muslim who would have been sincere in his belief, would have dared to slander the holy mothers of the faithful?

(6) The really responsible person for this mischief was the chief of the hypocrites, Abdullah bin Ubai, but in this narrative there is no mention of the punishment of Qazf having been levied on after the manifestation of Ayesha (R)’s innocence by the divine revelation. However in other narratives a reference is found which shows that the punishment of Qazf was levied on Mistah (R),a companion of the Prophet, who participated in the Battle of Badr, on Hassan bin Thabit, a panegyric writer in praise of the Prophet and on Hamnah bint Hajash. It is very strange that the one who had raised all this storm goes scot free, while those who were influenced by that mischief are subjected to punishment, while the Quran says that the person who takes leading part in this slandering campaign is liable to receive very severe punishment.

Mistah was a companion who fought in the Battle or Badr, and therefore, he could not be irresponsible as to have falsely implicated the mother of the faithful. Hassan (R) used to silence the opponents of the Prophet by his beautiful poetic compositions and was an expert competitor in his field. Can a person of such a stature be imagined to have taken part in slandering Ayesha (R)? Even if it is presumed that some doubt was created in his mind, then he could have brought it to the notice of the Prophet. To defame a member of the Prophet’s family, without bringing it to the notice of the Prophet, is not the work of a Muslim. How can then such an opinion be formed in the case of a companion of the Prophet? According to the Seerat Ibn Hisham, the Prophet had rewarded Hassan (R), because Safwan had attacked him with his sword, being enraged. If Hassan (R) were guilty of Qazaf and therefore permanently debarred as a witness, then how could be Prophet have blessed him with rewards? Hamnah (R) was the sister of Zainab (R), had according to this narrative zainab (R) had expressed a favourable opinion concerning Ayesha (R) when asked by the Prophet, therefore there is no reason to believe that Hamnah (R) might have disregarded all these facts and would have participated in falsely implicating Ayesha(R).The fact is that this narrative tarnishes the image of many companions of the Prophet.

(7) From the viewpoint of sources too the narrative ‘concerning slander is exceedingly dubious. This lengthy narrative is reported to have been quoted by’ Shihab Zohri and he is considered among the reliable narrators, but as Hafiz Zahabi has written in his book of Asmaur Rijal: Almeezanual I’tidal : he used to commit (tadlees) errors in rare narratives. (Meezanul I’tidal, Vol.4, page 40).

The words tadlees used by Zahabi to describe his practice means that the narrative should not be shown to emanate from its real source but to ascribe it to some other narrator, so that the reality remain concealed, and the narrative may become acceptable to the people.

And Ibn Hijr writes:

“His hearing it from Urvah is not proved.”- (Tahzeebut Tahzeeb; Vol.-9, page 450). About Zohri there arises a feeling that he is a narrator of such narratives that bring Ayesha (R) and the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa-i-Rashideen) in questionable situations, which creates doubt about Zohri being of Shi’a mentality. However, since he, was attached to the court of Khalifa Abdul Malik, he might have adopted a middle course.

In short, Zohri’s narrative is not at all satisfactory from any aspect and it cannot be considered a proper Commentary or a correct interpretation of this ayah in which the event of ‘Ifk’ (slander) had been treated. As for the other narratives in which the slander against Ayesha (R)has been cursorily mentioned, there is also scope for subjecting them to criticism. (For a research of this problem, see Hakim Niyaz Ahmed’s book, (Urdu) “Riwayat-e- Ifk”, published by Mashkoor Academy, 89/F/2, Khalid bin Walid Rd., Karachi 29).

16. It is good, because the hypocrites who had mingled with the Muslim society will now be exposed, and they will appear in their true colours. In this way the simple Muslims who were fooled by their scheming will get a lesson and the cautious Muslims will feel elated, and they will deserve to be rewarded for their cautious and righteous attitude.

17.That is: The person who played a major role in spreading this shameful falsehood will deserve to receive extremely severe punishment from Allah.

18. Although what is said here is concerning a particular event, but a general principle can be derived from it that when a modest Muslim lady is falsely implicated in a charge of unlawful sex, Muslim men and women, should not nurse any doubts in their hearts and that they should not only think well of her but should also refute that charge and for such a refutation it is enough to say that it is an open slander. In this ayah, the matter concerning a Muslim lady, for a slander against a lady results in serious repercussions, but from the manner of writing it is clear that to implicate a modest Muslim gentleman also in a false charge of unlawful sex is a very big sin.

19. Qur’an has fixed four witnesses to prove the charge of unlawful sex. If a person does not produce four witnesses after accusing a person of unlawful sex, then in Allah’s law he is a liar. If it is presumed that a person has actually seen the sex act being committed and he cannot bring four witnesses in his support, then he should keep quiet and should not spread the rumour, because due to insufficient proof the accused cannot be punished, and by spreading the rumour about it obscenities will circulate in society. It is also necessary that the witnesses be honest (Adil), for at another place Qur’an has clarified :

“And produce two honest witnesses from amongst yourselves.” -(Talaq-2)

Penalty cannot be levied on the evidence given by people of questionable character. As for the question, whether the witness of women in such situations would be acceptable, the generality of the jurists do not consider the witness of women acceptable in case of Qasas (retribution in killings) and physical punishment. But Qur’an has not clarified it. Nor is it mentioned in any authentic hadith. The commands of Qur’an are equally applicable to men and women, except that an argument makes a command specifically applicable to men only. In Surah Baqarah in the case of loan the witness of one man and two women is declared to be acceptable. Therefore, there is no reason that in observable matters like unlawful sex and murder the witness of women should be unacceptable. Accordingly in a case of unlawful sex, Ata’ and Hammad had accepted the witness of one man and two women. And according to Ibn Hazam it is lawful to accept the evidence of two Muslim women in place of one Muslim man (At- Tashree’ul janai, Vol. 2. page 411). In cases of forced unlawful sex (rape) the evidence of women comes up as a necessity.

20. A few unintelligent Muslims had also taken part in the mischief created by the hypocrites. Here they are reproached for this very foolish act of theirs, as very dangerous consequences could accrue from such acts. It was a great favour from Allah that He warned you on time and saved you from great punishment. ‘Therefore’ you should be thankful to Allah and should be extra careful for future. Although in this ayah the aspect of warning is in relation to slander concerning unlawful sex, but it also contains this general aspect of warning that if Muslims fall a prey to the mischiefs of hypocrites, they will have to face very adverse consequences. And history is a witness that when Muslims became victims of the ‘Sabai’ mischief, they fought among themselves and were finally deprived of the righteous caliphate.

21. Some topics are such as are treated as ordinary and people speak of them freely and often quote them. But these topics are morally irresponsible, causative of great sin from the standpoint of shariah and very dangerous according to their results. Therefore, they should not believe in rumours or mere hearsay reports against anybody and should always avoid talking in an irresponsible manner.

22. From here we get the guiding principle that man should not put his faith in mere hearsay, but he should use his common sense and intelligence. In a hadith it is said :

“It is sufficient for a man to be counted a liar that he relates everything he hears.” (Muslim)

Similarly a guidance is derived concerning the narratives that those narratives or stories that are an open slander against Allah, His messenger and his sincere companions, should be rejected instantly, without worrying about from what sources the narratives emanate and who are their narrators, for what is prima facie wrong will be wrong any way. Its open example is the narrative about the praises of idols, which is imputed to the Prophet, and which have been refuted in Note No.91. Surah Hajj

23. Propagation of immodesty is a comprehensive term, which includes unlawful sex, slander concerning unlawful sex, discussing immodest topics, and talks leading persons to unlawful sex and indulge in similar antics and activities. In modern times new and modern forms have been invented for propagating lewdness all round, e.g. night clubs, exhibitions of mixed swimming, films inciting romance, immoral and titillating songs, advertisements showing near naked women, beauty competitions, exhibition of immodest postures of women on T. V., exciting novels, and stories, nude and semi nude pictures of women in newspapers and magazines, and programmes of dances, etc.

Since immodesty mars human dignity, destroys man’s honour and ruins his morals. Persons responsible for propagating immodesty in the Muslim society are warned that for them there is painful punishment not only in the Hereafter but in this world too. And this is a hint at the point that the Islamic state should propose very severe punishment for offenders of this nature. To propose suitable punishment looking to the nature of the crime and to enforce it is necessary in order to meet the demand of this ayah.

24. That is: You do not know how far reaching and serious are the effects of spreading immodesty.