Al Islam

2023. Of all the Quranic Chapters, the present one has been specifically called 'a Surah,' the significance being that as the word, "Surah," means rank or dignity, the Muslims by acting upon the commandments and ordinances embodied in this Surah can and will rise to great honour and dignity. (close)

2024. The emphasis on the words, which We have revealed and the ordinances of which We have made obligatory, points to the great importance of the commandments of this Surah inasmuch as all other Quranic Chapters also have been revealed by God and their commandments have also been made obligatory. (close)

2025. It is to be regretted that in slavish imitation of the customs and manners of other nations the Muslims have infringed and violated the commandments of this Surah more than the ordinances embodied in other Surahs of the Qur’an. (close)

2591. Important Words:

سورة (chapter) is infinitive noun from سار. They say سار الحائط i.e. he scaled the wall. سار الیه means, he jumped upon him and attacked him. سورة means, trace, mark, sign; rank, dignity, degree, excellence; a very high and beautiful building; a thing complete and perfect; part or portion of a thing; a chapter of the Quran. They say له عندک سورة i.e. he has a rank or dignity with you, i.e. you respect him. له سورة فی المجد means, he possesses a degree or rank in dignity. فأتوا بسورة من مثله means, so bring a chapter like it (Lane, Aqrab & Qurtubi).

فرضنا ھا (We have made it obligatory). فرضه means, he made a notch or an incision in it, namely, a piece of wood. فرضmeans, (1) He (God) made a thing or prayer or statutes or ordinances obligatory or binding upon men, (2) he (the Prophet) instituted or prescribed a thing as an ordinance or statute; (3) he (a judge) decreed or adjudged; he assigned or appointed a particular time for doing a thing or he determined or defined or limited it. They say فرض اللّٰه الاحکام علی عبادہ i.e. God has made the commandments obligatory on His servants. فرضناھا means, in which We have set down the obligatory statutes (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

All the different chapters of the Quran are called Surahs. But the present chapter has been specifically called a Surahbecause it draws pointed attention to the importance of its contents. The implication of the use of the word Surah—also meaning rank or dignity—is that Muslims by acting upon the commandments and ordinances embodied in this Surahwould make great social progress and attain national eminence, glory and dignity. The emphasis on the words, "which We have revealed and which We have made obligatory," also points to the great importance of the commandments of this Surah inasmuch as all other Quranic Surahs also have been revealed by God and their commandments have also been made obligatory and the present Surah possesses no peculiarity in this respect. The implication also seems to be that whereas the commandments contained in this Surah are specially intended to raise the moral standard of the Muslim community and to make them a great nation, they would be neglected and ignored by them; and regrettably it has so happened. In slavish imitation of the customs and manners of other nations the Muslims have infringed and violated the commandments of this Surah more than the ordinances embodied in other chapters of the Quran.

The words, "that you may remember," signify that Muslims should not ignore the important lesson that the Surah has been revealed for their social and moral uplift, leading ultimately to their spiritual advancement. They should remember that just as defiance of commandments about sexual relations does serious injury to physical and social development of a people, similarly wrong spiritual connections lead to moral and spiritual deterioration. (close)

2025A. The words, az-Zani and az-Zaniyah, signify respectively both an adulterer and a fornicator; and an adulteress and a fornicatress. (close)

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, 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 (2:179) and imprisonment or banishment for the other crimes (5:33, 34) have been laid down as alternative punishments. Elsewhere in the Qur’an, where punishment for adultery for a married slave-girl is mentioned, it is stated that she will get half the punishment prescribed for that of a free, married woman (4:26), and evidently the punishment of stoning to death cannot be halved.

In spite of the fact that the Qur’an has quite clearly and unequivocally laid down 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 Zani means, both a fornicator and an adulterer) and 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 the Hadith when 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 had been revealed. It seems that in such cases 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 are to be found 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 inconceivable that the Holy Prophet should have contravened the quite clear and unequivocal Divine commandment in this respect.

Another possible cause of misunderstanding about the form of punishment for adultery may be some sayings attributed to Caliphs ‘Umar and ‘Ali. ‘Umar 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 pure fabrication or at best the result of misunderstanding of what ‘Umar might actually have said. How by writing down in the Qur’an what was part of it could be called an addition to it, and how of all men, ‘Umar could have been afraid of any body for doing the right thing, least of all for restoring to the Qur’an a lost text. And ‘Ali after flogging a woman, who had committed adultery, and then stoning her to death, 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 these sayings two inferences manifestly emerge: (1) In the matter of punishing an adulterer the practice of the Holy Prophet was at variance with the commandment of God as laid down in the Qur’an, 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, but it was only the practice of the Holy Prophet according to which he (‘Ali) stoned to death persons guilty of adultery. These sayings are not only mutually contradictory but demonstrably conflict with the express Divine commandment and therefore must be rejected as pure fabrications or at best distorted versions of what they said. See also "The Larger Edition of the Commentary," pp. 1836-1838. (close)

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. (close)

2026A. Nikah signifying coitus with or without marriage and marriage without coitus (Lane), the meaning of the verse is quite clear, viz. that when a man is having sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife, he is evidently an adulterer and the woman an adulteress; Nikah here signifying sexual intercourse and not marriage. But if Nikah here be taken to signify marriage, as some have done, then the meaning would be that az-Zani, i.e. a wicked man, who is not ashamed of freely indulging in adultery, can never prevail upon a chaste believing woman to marry him. Only a bad woman of low moral character or an idolatrous woman whose standard of morality like him is very low can be persuaded to marry him. (close)

2027. The pronoun 'that' signifies the committing of adultery. Islam regards adultery as one of the most heinous of all social crimes and seeks to close all those avenues through which this disease finds its way among a people and severely punishes it and condemns the guilty parties as social pariahs. While the preceding verse has laid down the punishment which is to be meted out to adulterers or fornicators the present one stigmatises them as social lepers with whom all social relationship should be avoided. (close)

2593. Important Words:

لا ینکح cannot have sexual intercourse. نکح المرأة means, he married the woman; he had sexual relations with her. نکحت المرأة means, the woman married so she had a husband. نکاح signifies the (i) marriage without coitus; (ii) coitus with marriage; (iii) coitus without marriage. نکح المطر الارض means, the rain mixed with the sub-soil of the earth. نکح النعاس عینه means, slumber overcame his eyes (Lane & Aqrab).

The words الزانی لا ینکح الا زانیة may have all or one of the following interpretations: (i) a man given to adultery shall not marry but a woman given to the same evil practice. That is to say a wicked man who is not ashamed of freely indulging in adultery and has not repented of his evil ways, can never prevail upon a chaste believing woman to marry him. Only a wicked woman of low moral character like him or an idolatress whose standard of morality like him is very low can be persuaded to marry him.

(ii) An adulterer can have sexual relations only with a woman given to adultery. It is impossible for a chaste and believing woman to stoop so low as to yield to the wicked advances of an adulterer. Such a wicked man can only get an adulteress to pander to his carnal passions. An adulteress and idolatress have been bracketed together because of the very low standard of sexual morality obtaining among idol worshippers because they have no revealed Law to guide them.

(iii) The adulterer (or fornicator) cannot have sexual relations but with an adulteress (or fornicatoress). This meaning is supported by a saying of the Holy Prophet. He is reported to have said لا یزنی زان و ھو مؤمن i.e. a believer does not commit adultery while he remains a Muslim.

The hadith signifies that no true believing man or woman can commit adultery. It is only disbelievers or idolaters who can light-heartedly commit such heinous crimes.

The words حرم ذالک علی المؤمنین may signify that (i) marriage between a true believer and an adulteress or idolatrous woman and vice versa is forbidden; (ii) the committing of adultery is forbidden to the believers, the pronoun ذالك (that) in this case standing for adultery.

Islam regards adultery as one of the most heinous of all social crimes and looks upon sexual chastity of a man or woman as one of his or her most precious possessions. As the present Surah deals with the subject of establishment of the dominion and kingdom of Islam, it fittingly opens with condemnation of the most deadly of all social crimes which if not checked and suppressed in due time is calculated to bring about total disintegration and destruction of the Muslim community. The Quran seeks to close all those avenues through which this disease finds its way among a people and severely punishes the act of adultery and condemns the guilty parties as social pariahs. While the preceding verse has laid down the punishment which the Quran metes out to adulterers, the verse under comment stigmatizes adulterers and adulteresses as social lepers with whom all social relationship should be avoided. The verse, however, should not be understood to mean that the Quran bars, for all time, to such persons the entrance to respectable Muslim society. It does leave the door of repentance always open. The verse speaks only of persons who are lost to all sense of shame and who habitually indulge in this fell vice and show no sign of repenting of their evil ways. (close)

a. 24:24. (close)

2028. The other social evil, second to adultery in heinousness, which eats into the vitals of human society, is the slandering of innocent persons. Islam also views with extreme disfavour this social evil which has become so common in the so-called civilized modern society, and severely punishes the accusers of innocent people. The verse mentions three forms of punishment in an ascending order which are to be meted out to a slanderer: (a) the physical punishment of scourging; (b) the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer and a liar which invalidates his evidence and (c) the spiritual stigma of being adjudged as a transgressor. It may be noted that no mention is made here of the accusation being true or false. So long as the accuser cannot produce the necessary evidence in support of his charge, the charge would be considered as false and the accuser would render himself liable to the prescribed punishment. Whatever the facts of the case, the woman with whom adultery is alleged to have been committed will be held innocent so long as the required evidence is not produced. The law, in fact, is intended to suppress with a strong hand the offence of slandering and scandal-mongering. The commandment contained in this verse covers both men and women although the word used is Muhsanat which means 'chaste women.' In the Arabic language when something has to be said which relates equally to both men and women the gender used is masculine. But when something is said regarding a matter which concerns women more than men, then the feminine gender is used. The commandment here relates to punishment for slandering whether the victim of the slander is a man or a woman but as women generally are more often the victims of such slanders, the verse speaks of 'chaste women.' Similarly, the word Alladhina (those), though in the masculine gender, applies to both men and women slanderers. (close)

a. 24:24. (close)

2594. Commentary:

The other social evil, second to adultery in heinousness which eats into the vitals of human society, is the slandering of innocent persons. Islam views also with extreme disfavour this social evil which has become so common in the so-called civilized modern society, and severely punishes the accusers of innocent people. The verse under comment mentions three forms of punishment in an ascending order which are to be meted out to a slanderer; first, the physical punishment of scourging; secondly, the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer and a liar which invalidates his evidence and thirdly, the spiritual stigma of being adjudged as a wicked transgressor.

It may be noted that the punishment prescribed for the slanderer who accuses a chaste woman without producing adequate evidence seems to be even more serious than the punishment prescribed for the crime of adultery itself. In the latter case the punishment prescribed is one hundred lashes, only twenty lashes more than those prescribed for slandering. But after undergoing the punishment the adulterer or adulteress has not to carry the disgrace of being branded as a perjurer, nor does he or she lie under the more serious spiritual stigma of being adjudged by God as a wicked transgressor.

The commandment about scandal-mongering is of particular importance in the present state of the so-called civilized society where it has assumed the form of a common social pastime. No wonder that as a result of scandal-mongering sexual immorality has greatly increased, particularly in western countries.

It may also be noted that in this verse no mention has been made of the accusation being true or false. So long as the accuser cannot produce the necessary evidence in support of his charge, the charge would be considered as false and the accuser would render himself liable to the prescribed punishment. Whatever the real facts of the case, the woman with whom adultery is alleged to have been committed will be held innocent so long as the required evidence is not produced. The law is, in fact, intended to suppress with a strong hand the offence of slandering and scandal-mongering which is calculated to encourage the spread of those very crimes which the scandal-mongers hold up to public gaze.

It follows from this verse that a person charged with adultery is held guilty only if four witnesses, in addition to the accuser, are forthcoming who solemnly declare and testify to the fact of having seen with their own eyes the accused person actually committing the crime.

In case the offender himself confesses to the crime, no witnesses will, of course, be required to prove his guilt provided he is in full possession of his senses. From Hadith it appears that in such an event the offender must himself testify four times to having committed the crime. In case a man alleges that he has committed adultery the woman implicated will not be held guilty unless she herself admits that she too has committed the crime. This provision is intended to save the good name of innocent men or women from being besmirched by persons of no character who are not ashamed of confessing to having committed adultery in order to implicate other innocent persons along with themselves.

Similarly, when a person makes an allegation against another, it is the accuser who is required to produce four witnesses to the crime alleged. The accused person has not to prove his innocence. It is only after four witnesses have been produced that he is asked to produce his defence. If the accuser fails to produce the requisite four witnesses, then both he and the witnesses will be liable to punishment on the plea of having made an allegation for which they had not produced the necessary evidence.

The object of such stringent provisions is to discourage the spread of indecent scandals. Such provisions amply refute the criticism that the penalty Islamic Law prescribes for adultery is barbarous. The evidence and the attendant conditions required to prove the commission of adultery are, in fact, almost impossible to produce save in cases where the offence is committed openly and in such cases a severe punishment, in order to be deterrent, is certainly very essential.

If a person confesses to having committed the crime and repeats his confession four times, he will not be punished if he recants at the time of infliction of the punishment. In such an event, however, the culprit will be liable to punishment for slandering the alleged accessory.

The commandment contained in this verse covers both men and women although the word used is المحصنات which means 'chaste women.' In the Arabic language when something has to be said which relates equally to both men and women the gender used is masculine. But when something is said regarding a matter which concerns women more than men, then feminine gender is used. The commandment here relates to punishment for slandering whether the victim of the slander is man or woman but as women generally are more often the victims of such slanders, the verse speaks of 'chaste women'. Similarly the word الذین (those) though in masculine gender applies to both men and women slanderers. (close)

a. 4:18. (close)

2029. Opinions differ as to which of the punishments prescribed for slandering is to be remitted after a slanderer repents and makes amends. The question of the first punishment does not arise because the corporal punishment is administered as soon as the offence of the guilty person is proved. The last two punishments can only be remitted after a real and true repentance is proved. (close)

a. 4:18. (close)

2595. Commentary:

Opinions differ as to which of the three punishments prescribed for slandering is to be remitted after a slanderer repents and makes amends. The question of the first punishment does not arise because the corporal punishment is administered as soon as the offence of the guilty person is proved. The last two punishments can only be remitted after a real and true repentance is proved. (close)

2030. As suspicion between husband and wife is likely to cast a severe strain on the whole family relations, a special regulation has been laid down in the verse under comment to meet such an unhappy situation if it ever happens to arise. (close)

2596. Commentary:

As suspicion between husband and wife is likely to cast a severe strain on the whole family relations, a special regulation has been laid down in the verse under comment to meet such an unhappy situation if it ever happens to arise. If a husband accuses his wife of adultery he has to declare on oath four times that his allegation is true. (close)

2597. Commentary:

Before the accuser invokes the curse of God upon himself, the serious consequences of a false oath should be fully explained to him. (close)

2598. Commentary:

After the accused woman has established her innocence by taking four oaths that her husband has falsely accused her and the fifth oath invoking God’s curse upon herself if her husband’s accusation is true, no punishment is decreed against her and the husband is also not held punishable for accusing her. But after such a serious breach the couple will cease to live as husband and wife, because no chance is then left of the restoration of amicable relations between them. (close)

2031. After the accused woman has established her innocence by taking four oaths that her husband had falsely accused her and the fifth oath invoking God’s curse upon herself if her husband’s accusation was true, no punishment is awarded to her and the husband is also not held punishable for accusing her. But after such a serious breach the couple will cease to live as husband and wife, because no chance will then be left of the restoration of amicable relations between them. (close)

2599. Commentary:

The verse means to say that God is merciful to mankind inasmuch as He has laid down in the Quran injunctions by acting upon which they can save themselves from those most dreadful social evils which are likely to undermine the whole social structure. The verse also implies a warning to Muslims to beware of these evils. It is, however, to be regretted that the Quranic injunctions in regard to these social evils have been honoured more in the breach than in the observance thereof. (close)