24: The Light (An-Nur)

Chastity, as a virtue, is not given the first place in modern civilized society. The breach of the greatest trust which can be imposed in a man or a woman, the breach which ruins families, destroys household peace, and deprives innocent children of their loving mothers, is not looked upon even as seriously as the breach of trust of a small sum of money. Hence the Islamic law seems to be too severe to the West. The punishment for adultery is here stated to be flogging, not stoning to death, which was really prescribed by the Jewish law. The cases of stoning to death for adultery by the Prophet’s orders relate actually to a Jew and a Jewess in one case (Bukhari, 23:61), and others apparently occurred before the revelation of this chapter. That stoning to death was never contemplated by Islam as a punishment for adultery is made clear by 4:25, where it is stated expressly that the punishment for adultery in the case of slave-girls, when they are married, is half the punishment which is inflicted on free married women, and stoning to death could not be halved. Besides, the Quran nowhere speaks of stoning as a punishment for adultery. Flogging was aimed more at disgracing the culprit than at torturing him. In the time of the Prophet, and even for some time after him, there was no whip, and flogging was carried out by beating with a stick or with the hand or with shoes. The culprit was not stripped naked, but he was required to take off thick clothes.

The idolater or the idolatress is mentioned along with the adulterer or the adulteress on account of the low standard of morality among the idolaters.

This is an effectual restraint against slander and gossip, which so often bring disaster upon the heads of innocent women. Unless there is the clearest evidence of adultery against a woman, the slanderer is himself to be punished.

The ordinance relates to the case of husbands who accuse their wives of adultery and have no evidence (see a case in Bukhari, 68:30). In such a case divorce is effected, the husband not being punishable for the accusation, though he cannot produce witnesses, and the wife not being punishable for adultery, if she denies the charge in the manner stated. The same procedure would be adopted in a reverse case.

Editor’s Note: In this procedure, the testimony of the husband and of the wife are treated as of equal value and weight.

The incident referred to here took place when the Prophet, accompanied by his wife Aishah, was returning from an expedition in 5 A.H. Aishah had gone out on a private occasion, but, when she returned, she realized that she had lost her necklace, and went back to search for it. In her absence the attendants, supposing her to be in her howdah, started while it was yet dark. When she returned, finding the camel and the men gone, she sat down there and was brought to Madinah by a man who was in the rear of the party. Some mischievous persons from among the hypocrites spread false reports, slandering her, and some of the Muslims also associated themselves with the slander. Aishah’s innocence was at length established by this revelation (Bukhari, 52:15). Those who had taken part in the accusation were punished, according to one hadith (Ibn Maja, 20:13). It may be added here that the tongue of gossip has never spared even the most virtuous women. Another case of a virtuous woman being thus defamed is that of Mary, the mother of Jesus, about whom the Jews talked similar slander. The words — do not consider it an evil to you; rather, it is good for you — aim to bring solace to such aggrieved people.

There was not a single witness, nor any circumstance that could lend colour to the false story.

While the Quran takes a very serious view of crimes against chastity, it also makes criminal the circulation of false reports affecting a woman’s chastity. Thus even a lighter accusation in connection with the misconduct of women required the evidence of four witnesses; see 4:15.

The same words in the next verse are followed by the statement, not one of you would ever have been pure.

This passage shows that the companions of the Holy Prophet were purified from sins by Allah’s grace.

This verse was revealed in connection with the action of Abu Bakr, Aishah’s father, who had sworn not to allow maintenance to one of his relatives named Mistah, who had taken part in spreading the false reports against Aishah. After inflicting the legal punishment on the culprits the Prophet was required to bear them no ill-will and to hide no rancour in his heart even towards the slanderers of his wife. Revelation even required his companions to be kind and forgiving to them. Abu Bakr is spoken of here as one possessing grace and abundance (Bukhari, 65.24:13), the former of these words referring to his moral and spiritual superiority and the latter to abundance in wealth. (Editor’s Note: Upon hearing this revelation, Abu Bakr exclaimed: “I certainly love that Allah should forgive me”, and then he resumed providing assistance to Mistah. This verse shows also that it is entirely baseless and false to assert that Islam prescribes the death penalty for those who commit “blasphemy” against its sacred personalities.)

This refers to those who continue to spread evil reports concerning chaste women, the gossip-mongers in every society.

The evidence of the members of the body is sometimes witnessed in this very life against the doers of evil, in the consequences of the evil done. On the day of Resurrection the consequences of the evil deeds will assume a palpable form, as is also indicated in the paying back in full of the just rewards in the next verse, and thus bear witness to the evil done. This highly developed idea of the Resurrection did not exist before the Quran.

The meaning of this whole passage is made clear by the concluding words, i.e., nothing impure can be attributed to the pure ones, and they are free from what the impure ones say.

The law revealed in this verse lays down the basis of domestic peace and security needed for an advanced society. It is also a preventive measure against slander. (Editor’s Note: This verse also supports the principle of having laws to safeguard the privacy of the individual within the home vis-à-vis the powers of the state authorities.)

Men are told to lower their gaze, just as women are enjoined to do in the next verse. This injunction is given as a preventive against the evil of illicit sexual relations. The Quran does not only forbid an evil, but also points out the way, by walking in which a person may be able to avoid it. Both men and women are required to keep their eyes cast down, so that when they meet each other, neither should men stare at women nor women at men. In a society in which women never appeared in public, the injunction to men to lower their gaze would be meaningless; and the similar injunction to women given in the next verse, if they never left the compounds of their houses, would be absurd.

To guard the relations between males and females and to check a too free intermingling of men and women, the Quran requires women in particular not to display their adornment. But there is a clear exception here — except what appears of it or except that which it is customary and natural to uncover. What is prohibited is really the display of beauty, as elsewhere expressly indicated: “And do not display (your beauty) like the displaying of the earlier (days of) ignorance” (33:33). According to Ibn Jarir, the exception mentioned relates to the face and hands. As an argument corroborating this opinion he says that, when praying, the woman is not required to keep her face and hands covered — hands up to the elbow — while she is required to cover the rest of the body. According to Hadith, the Holy Prophet himself is reported to have told Asma, his wife Aishah’s sister, when she appeared before him in thin clothes, through which parts of her body could be seen: “Asma, when a woman attains her puberty it is not proper that any part of her body should be seen except this, and he pointed to his face and hands” (Abu Dawud, 31:30). This settles conclusively that Islam never enjoined the veil or covering of the face.

The Quran looks upon the married state as the normal state, and hence it enjoins that, so far as is possible, those who are single should be married. It also requires both male and female slaves to be kept in a state of marriage. The keeping of concubines is clearly inconsistent with this. Islam is against celibacy, and considers parenthood to be the duty of every human being. The Holy Prophet, too, laid stress on Muslim men and women living in a married state. Thus he said: “He who is able to marry should marry. For it keeps the gaze low and guards chastity; and he who cannot should take to fasting (occasionally), for it will have a castrating effect on him” (Bukhari, 30:10). On another occasion he said, addressing some young men who talked of fasting in the day-time and keeping awake for prayer during the night, and keeping away from marriage: “I keep fast and I break it, and I pray and I sleep, and I am married, so whoever inclines to any other way than my sunnah, he is not of me” (Bukhari, 67:1).

The words translated as those who cannot find a match may also mean those who cannot find the means to marry. Marriage thus becomes an obligatory institution in Islam, only those being excused who cannot find a match or who lack the means to marry. Marriage, in fact, affords the surest guarantee for the betterment of the moral tone of society.

Allah is called here the light of the heavens and the earth because He has manifested hidden things and brought them into existence. Mishkāt means a niche, but it also has the meaning of pillar. In this parable, Islam is represented as a likeness of the Divine light, a light placed high on a pillar so as to illuminate the whole world; a light guarded by being placed in a glass, so that no puff of wind can put it out; a light so resplendent that the glass itself in which it is placed is as a brilliant star. It should be noted that the religion of Islam is repeatedly spoken of as Divine light in the Quran: “They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will allow nothing except the perfection of His light, though the disbelievers are averse” (9:32, 61:8). Hence it is of Islam that the parable of Divine light speaks. The blessed olive, from which that light is lit, and which stands here for a symbol of Islam, as the fig stands for a symbol of Judaism (see 95:3), belongs neither to the East nor to the West. Even so is Islam, which must give light to both the East and the West, and which, therefore, does not specially belong to either of them. The reference seems to be to the welding together of the East and the West in Islam, a prophecy which is now approaching its fulfilment in the awakening of the West to the truth of the principles of Islam. The parable becomes clearer if light is taken to refer to the Holy Prophet. The Prophet was by nature gifted with the highest qualifications. Even before he received Divine revelation, his life was a life of purity and devoted to the service of humanity. Light emanated from him even before the light from on High came to him in the form of Divine revelation, so that when revelation came to him it was light upon light.

The Divine light spoken of in the last verse is here stated as being met with in certain houses, the distinctive mark of those houses being that the name of Allah is remembered in them, thus showing that these houses are the houses of Muslims, and the light is therefore the light of Islam. These houses, we are further told, though humble now, will be exalted. And the exaltation of the humble huts of the Arab dwellers of the desert to royal palaces is a fact of history.

In these houses Allah is glorified in the morning and the evening, and therefore these can be the houses of no other than Muslims, because the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the due charity is the distinguishing characteristic of Islam. The opposition to His light, and the end of that opposition, are described in verses 39–40. The turning about of the hearts and the eyes means either that they will be transformed in the new life or that they will be in a state of commotion by reason of fear. The verse that follows lends support to the first meaning.

As the first part of the section gives a picture of the brilliant and dazzling Divine light given to the believers, the last part describes the utter darkness of doubt and ignorance in which the disbelievers are. Their apparent hopes of success are compared with a mirage, and, when they are undeceived of these, they will find themselves in the presence of God and will have their dues paid to them.

Here only animals are spoken of as having been created from water, but in 21:30 we are told that all life, whether animal or plant, has been created from water.

This verse not only prophesies the establishment of the kingdom of Islam, but also its permanence, so that successors will be raised to the Holy Prophet and the Muslims made a ruling nation on earth. By those before them are meant in particular the followers of Moses. Islam at the time of the revelation of these verses was still surrounded by enemies on all sides; there was still fear for the believers, as the verse clearly shows, and idol-worship still had the upper hand in Arabia. The triumph of Islam, which is prophesied in the parable of the Divine Light first, and the gradual advent of which is referred to afterwards, is here predicted in the clearest and most emphatic terms: the believers will be made rulers in the earth; their religion will be firmly established; security will be given to them in place of fear; Divine Unity will rule supreme. All these favours will be bestowed upon the Muslims, for which they should be thankful; but, if they are ungrateful after that, they shall be dealt with as transgressors. The word kafara, to be “ungrateful”, also means to disbelieve, and would mean here a denial in practice, or disobedience to Divine commandments. There is also a reference here to the Divine promise to raise reformers (sing. mujaddid) among the Muslims, as prophets were raised among the Israelites. Such is the clear promise contained in a saying of the Holy Prophet: “Surely Allah will raise up for this people (i.e., the Muslims) in the beginning of every century one who will revive for it its religion” (Abu Dawud, 36:1). The promise given in the verse may therefore refer not only to the temporal successors of the Holy Prophet, but also to his spiritual successors or reformers. The analogy of the Israelites, to which the verse refers, points to the appearance of a Messiah among the Muslims as a Messiah was raised among the Israelites, and it was on this verse that the claim of the late Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement, was based. He claimed to be a reformer (mujaddid) for the fourteenth century of the Hijra and the Messiah whose advent among the Muslims was foretold.

Rules relating to personal and family privacy are of the utmost importance in the betterment of social relations, and their non-observance leads to all kinds of false reports, which scandal-mongers are always ready to lay hold upon, thereby creating dissensions in society.

The word used signifies a woman who has ceased to bear children and to have the menstrual discharge. The reference in putting off clothes is to the over-garment spoken of in 33:59.

The Arabs had their scruples in eating with the blind, etc., in which respect they were like the Jews and some other people, including Hindus. Islam lays down a middle rule, and allows the individual a great latitude in this respect. A man may eat alone or with others, he may eat with the maimed, etc., or he may eat in the houses of near relations and friends. The latter part of the verse shows that a certain degree of familiarity with near relatives is recommended, so that one can take food with them, even though he may not have been invited specially.

It does not mean how the Prophet is to be addressed, but in what manner his call is to be responded to. The context makes it clear. The previous verse states that none is to leave without the Prophet’s permission, when they are gathered together for some important matter requiring their presence, and the words that follow this passage are to the same effect. What is stated here is that the Prophet’s call to the believers is to be respected, and not to be treated as their calling of one another; because the Prophet’s call relates to some important affair affecting the welfare of the community, while their mutual calling of one another relates to their own private affairs.