Tafsir of An-Nur 24:24

Likewise, He, the Exalted, mentioned conditions specific to those [people], saying, Mighty and Majestic is He: "On the day when their tongues, their hands, and their feet will bear witness against them..." (24:24). The proof of this specificity is His saying, Exalted is He: "And on the day when the enemies of Allah are gathered..." up to the end of the three verses. From this, it has been said: It is not permissible to interpret "chaste women" (al-muhsanat) to mean the Mothers of the Believers and other women of the [Muslim] nation. There is no doubt that slandering those other than the Mothers of the Believers is not disbelief (kufr). What ought to be the basis for the ruling of disbelief is the one who slanders one of the Mothers of the Believers after the revelation of these verses and the clarification that they are pure, whether he deemed the slandering permissible, or intended to attack the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, or neither deemed it permissible nor intended [an attack]. As for those who slandered before [the revelation], the ruling of their disbelief as an absolute matter is not apparent.

The manifest [view] is that he is ruled a disbeliever if he was deeming it permissible or intending by it to attack him, peace and blessings be upon him, like Ibn Ubayy—may the curse of Allah be upon him—for that is what is necessitated by persistence in enmity against the Messenger of Allah. He is not to be ruled a disbeliever if he was not like that, such as Hassan, Mistah, and Hamnah, for the apparent [fact] is that they were not declaring it lawful nor intending to attack the Master of the Messengers, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and all his family. Rather, they said what they said due to imitation, so they were rebuked for that with a severe rebuke. Among what provides clear proof for the non-disbelief of those who slandered before [the revelation] is that he, peace and blessings be upon him, did not treat them with the treatment of apostates by consensus; rather, he established upon them the penalty for slander (hadd al-qadhf) according to what has come in some narrations. Thus, the verse, based on the opinion of the specificity of "chaste women"—which is what most narrations support—if it is for clarifying the ruling of one who slanders Aisha or one of the Mothers of the Believers absolutely after that story, as is the appearance of the present tense verb serving as the relative clause (silat al-mawsul), then the matter of the threat mentioned therein, on the opinion that it is specific to the disbelievers and hypocrites, is apparent due to what you have heard of the statement regarding the disbelief of one who slanders one of the Mothers of the Believers afterwards, absolutely. If it is to clarify the ruling of one who slandered before [the revelation], the matter of the threat requires the statement that the "relative pronoun" (al-mawsul) refers to specific people who slandered Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, while deeming her honor permissible and intending to attack the Messenger of Allah, like Ibn Ubayy and his brothers, the hypocrites, may the curse be upon them. On this basis, the use of the present tense is to bring to mind the image, which is among the strangest of the strange, or to indicate, as has been said, that their habit is slander and that it renews from them time after time. Based on this, it is possible to say the intent is to clarify the ruling of one who has not repented from slander, for one who repents from an action, it is rarely said of him that it is his habit, so the threat would be specific to one who has not repented.

What the reports necessitate is that everyone who fell into that sin repented, except for the cursed Ibn Ubayy and his associates among the hypocrites. From Ibn Abbas, it is reported that it was revealed specifically regarding him, and the way to reconcile [the views] upon that is not hidden. It has been said the intent is to clarify the ruling of one who slanders, and the threat is conditional upon the lack of repentance, and it was not mentioned because it is known from established principles; for any sin, however it may be, is forgiven by repentance. So there is no need to say: The intent is "those whose habit is slander" to imply the lack of repentance. The apparent [truth] is that whoever has not repented after the revelation of these verses is a disbeliever, and he is none other than the cursed one. A group chose—and al-Nahhal said: "It is the best that has been said"—that the ruling is general regarding whoever slanders the [women] described with the mentioned attributes from among the women of the nation. If their slander is accompanied by deeming it lawful, it is disbelief, so he deserves the mentioned threat if he does not repent, according to what is known from the principles. If it is without deeming it lawful, it is a major sin and not disbelief. This requires preventing the restriction of those punishments and conditions to the disbelievers and hypocrites, or committing to the statement that this is established for the genus, and it suffices for it to be established for some of its individuals. There is no doubt that among them are those who die as disbelievers. In al-Bahr, it is fitting that this verse, as has been said, was revealed regarding the polytheists of Mecca; when a woman would go out to Medina as an emigrant, they would slander her and say: "She went out to commit adultery." Abu Hamza al-Yamani said this, and it is supported by His saying, the Almighty: "On the day when [their tongues] will bear witness..." end quote.

You know that the most appropriate for the context and sequence is what the majority hold: that it was revealed regarding the matter of the Mother of the Believers, Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her. The ruling of slandering the rest of their [the Prophet's] Mothers is the same as the ruling of slandering her, and likewise the ruling of slandering the rest of the wives of the prophets, peace be upon them, and likewise their mothers. In my view, the ruling of slandering the daughters of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is the same, especially his pure and noble piece of his own heart, Fatima al-Zahra, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon her father and her. I have not seen anyone address this, so contemplate it.

Know that there is no disagreement regarding the permissibility of cursing a specific disbeliever who dies in a state of disbelief, provided it does not involve harming a Muslim or a dhimmi, if we say he is equal to the Muslim in the sanctity of not being harmed. As for if it involves that, it is forbidden. Among the forbidden is the cursing of Abu Talib, based on the opinion that he died as a disbeliever; rather, it is among the greatest things that involve harming one whom it is forbidden to harm. Furthermore, cursing one whom it is permissible to curse is not considered an act of worship unless it involves a legislative interest. As for cursing a specific living disbeliever, the famous [opinion] is that it is forbidden. The requirement of the words of the Proof of Islam, al-Ghazali, is that it is disbelief, because it contains a request to fix him upon the disbelief which is the cause of the curse, and requesting that is disbelief. Al-Zarkashi emphasized his approval of it, saying thereafter: "Pay attention to this issue, for it is strange and its ruling is directed, and a group has erred in it." The scholar Ibn Hajar said regarding this: "It ought to be said: If he intended by cursing him a supplication against him to intensify the matter, or [if] he spoke out, he does not disbelieve. But if he intended to request his remaining upon disbelief or to be pleased with his remaining upon it, he disbelieves." Then he said: "Contemplate that with true contemplation, for it is a directed detail which their words have affirmed," end quote.

Like the cursing of a specific disbeliever, the cursing of a specific immoral person (fasiq) is [also] forbidden in sanctity. Al-Siraj al-Mufini said the permissibility of cursing a specific sinner, and he argued for that with the hadith in the Sahihayn: "If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses to come, and he spends the night angry, the angels curse her until morning." This is apparent in what he claims. The statement of his son, al-Jalal al-Bulqini, in his debate with him—"It is possible that the angels' cursing of her is not specific, but rather they say: 'May the curse of Allah be upon whoever her husband calls to his bed and he spends the night angry'"—is very far-fetched. What supports the statement of al-Siraj is the report in Muslim that he, peace and blessings be upon him, passed by a donkey whose face had been branded, so he said: "May Allah curse the one who did this." This is further from the possibility mentioned by his son. It has been authenticated that he, peace and blessings be upon him, cursed specific tribes of the Arabs, saying: "O Allah, curse Ri'l, Dhakwan, and Usayyah, for they disobeyed Allah, the Almighty, and His Messenger." In this, there is also a type of support for that. However, it has been said: It is possible that he, peace and blessings be upon him, knew of their death or the death of most of them in a state of disbelief, so he, peace and blessings be upon him, did not curse except one whom he knew died upon it. It is not hidden from you that the most cautious path in this chapter [is better], for it has been authenticated that whoever curses something that does not deserve it, the curse returns to him. I see that supplication for the specific sinner for righteousness is more beloved than cursing him, based on the opinion of its permissibility. I see that cursing one whom the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, cursed—either by description or by person—is an act of worship in that it contains an emulation of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. Likewise is the cursing of one whom Allah, the Almighty, cursed, in the way He, the Exalted, cursed him.

This, and His saying, the Almighty: "On the day when [their tongues]..." is either connected to what precedes it, intended to establish the great torment by specifying the time of its arrival and terrifying [the reader] by explaining the appearance of the crime of the slanderers—which entails its punishments—in a terrifying manner and a state extraordinary to norms. Thus, "day" is an adverb for what is in "against them" (alayhim) of the meaning of settlement, not for "torment" as al-Hufi went, due to the disagreement in the permissibility of the action of the described verbal noun, and it has been said because it ruins the elegance of the meaning, and there is a view on it. As for it being disconnected from it, as an adverb for a mentioned [word] that is elided, or for "to repay them" (li-yuwaffiyahum)—which will come—as has been said for all, it has been chosen that it is an adverb for a delayed verb, and it has been omitted from the mention to signify that the expression can hardly encompass the detail of the terrors that occur therein. The speech is intended to terrorize the day by terrorizing what it contains, as if it were said: "On the day when their tongues, their hands, and their feet will bear witness against them for what they used to do."

[It will appear] from conditions and terrors what the scope of speech cannot encompass, provided that the mentioned "relative pronoun" is an expression for all their evil deeds and ugly crimes, not for their known crimes only. The meaning of the testimony of the mentioned limbs regarding them is that He, the Exalted, makes them speak by His power, so each of them informs of what was issued from it of its owner's deeds, not that each of them [informs] only of their known crime. The omitted relative pronoun is an expression for that and for all the types of punishments resulting from it, not for one of them specifically. Thus, there is in it of the types of terror through summarization and detail what cannot be exceeded, as Shaykh al-Islam said. Then he said: "Making the mentioned relative pronoun an expression for their known crimes and interpreting the testimony of the limbs as informing of all of them only is restricting the vast and belittling the deterrent matter. Combining the forms of the past and the future is to indicate their persistence in those deeds in the world and their renewal from them time after time. Placing 'against them' (alayhim) before the doer is to hasten to the fact that the testimony is harmful to them, along with what it contains of suspense for what is delayed," end quote. This is not without goodness.

It has been permitted that the testimony with what is mentioned is a metaphor for the appearance of its traces upon those limbs such that whoever watches them knows what they knew, and that is through a manner which Allah, the Exalted, knows. It was objected that this is contradicted by His saying, the Almighty: "Allah, who has made everything speak, has made us speak."

The response is that the one who permits what was mentioned makes the "speech" a metaphor for the clear indication, as has been said regarding their saying "the state spoke," or he says: "This is in a state and that is in a state," or each of them is in a [different] nation. It is not hidden that the apparent [truth] is the preservation of the testimony on its literal reality, except that it was deemed problematic that in that case a contradiction would occur between what is here and His saying, the Almighty, in Surah Ya-Sin: "This day, We will seal up their mouths..." the verse, because the sealing of the mouths contradicts the testimony of the tongues. The response is that the intent of the sealing of the mouths is to prevent them from speaking with the tongues that are in it, which does not contradict the speech of the tongues themselves, which is the intent of the testimony, as we indicated. For the tongues in the first are an instrument of the action, and in the second are the doers of it. Thus, the sealing of the mouths and the testimony of the tongues combine by their being prevented from speaking with the tongues, and the tongues themselves are made to be speaking and talking, just as He, the Exalted, made the poisoned arm speak and talk until the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was informed that it was poisoned. The Mu'tazilah have a statement regarding this. It has been said in the reconciliation: It is permissible that each of the sealing and the testimony is in a place and state, and that the testimony is in the right of the slanderers and the sealing in the right of the disbelievers. It is as if, since this verse is in the right of the one who slanders with his tongue, and he is demanded along with it for four witnesses, He mentioned in it five also and specified the tongue with which he acted to disgrace him as a punishment from the same genus as his action, al-Khafaji said this and said: "It is a secret nuance." And Allah, the Almighty, knows best the secrets of His Book, so contemplate.

The brothers, al-Za'farani, Ibn Miqsam, and Ibn Sa'dan read "yashhadu" (will witness) with the 'ya' as the last of the letters, and the direction is apparent.