JOURNAL OF ARABIC AND ISLAMIC STUDIES

JAIS
Pavel Pavlovitch
Having stated that Allāh revealed Qurʾān 24:2 specifically about the
fornicators (thumma anzala l-lāh u fī l-bikrayni “Fa-jlidū kull a wāḥid in
min-humā miʾat a jaldat in ”...), Muqātil continues with a grammatically
awkward clause: “…fa-n-s-khat hādhi-hi l-āyat u l-latī fi-l-nūr ‘al-zāniya
wa-l-zānī fa-ajlidū kull a wāḥid in min-humā miʾat a jaldat in ’.” The verb ns-kh
may be read in the active voice (nasakhat) or in the passive voice
(nusikhat). The active voice implies that Qurʾān 24:2 (in which Muqātil
specifies al-zāniya wa-l-zānī as bikrayni) abrogated something, which,
given the absence of an accusative object, remains unclear (i.e. the text is
understood as, “This verse, which is in Sūrat al-Nūr, that is, ‘The female
sexual transgressor and the male sexual transgressor, flog each one of
them a hundred lashes’, abrogated [something]”).
The passive voice removes the semantic deficiency by making Qurʾān
24:2
ONLINE
an object of abrogation (i.e. “This verse, which is in Sūrat al-Nūr,
that is: ‘The female sexual transgressor and the male sexual transgressor,
flog each one of them a hundred lashes’, was abrogated”). The
abrogation is effected by means of the prophetic sunna:
1. Fa-lammā amara l-lāh u ʿazza wa-jalla bi-l-jald
2. qāla l-nabī, ṣalʿam: Allāh u akbar, qad jāʾa l-lāh u bi-l-sabīl
3. (a) al-bikr u bi-l-bikr i jald u miʾat in wa-nafy u sanat in , (b) al-thayyib u bi-lthayyib
i jald u miʾat in wa-rajm un bi-l-ḥijāra.
1. When Allāh the Almighty, the Exalted ordained flogging,
2. The Prophet, may Allāh bless him and grant him peace, said: “Allāh
has come with the way”
3. (a) A virgin with a virgin [punish them with] one hundred strokes and a
year’s banishment, (b) A non-virgin with a non-virgin [punish them with]
one hundred strokes and stoning
151
By mentioning the divine order for flogging, clause 1 apparently
invokes the jald verse (The female sexual transgressor and the male
sexual transgressor, flog each one of them a hundred lashes [Qurʾān
24:2]). It should be immediately recalled, however, that the reference to
Qurʾān 24:2 is equivocal. It may be considered either as abrogating
specifically Qurʾān 4:16, because Muqātil has already stated that both
verses are devoted to virgin offenders; or as abrogating Qurʾān 4:15,
because Muqātil has also stated that the verse in Sūrat al-Nūr abolishes
the requirement for detainment (i.e. Qurʾān 4:15). The contradiction is
removed by means of the prophetic sunna (clauses 2 and 3). The use of
sabīl in clause 2 signals a chronological and substantive dependence on
the ḥabs verse (Qurʾān 4:15). To justify the stoning of the adulterers,
Muqātil introduces the sunnaic requirement for a dual penalty for each