إِنَّ الَّذِينَ جَاؤُوا بِالْإِفْكِ عُصْبَةٌ مِّنكُمْ لَا تَحْسَبُوهُ شَرًّا لَّكُم بَلْ هُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ لِكُلِّ امْرِئٍ مِّنْهُم مَّا اكْتَسَبَ مِنَ الْإِثْمِ وَالَّذِي تَوَلَّى كِبْرَهُ مِنْهُمْ لَهُ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

Indeed those who initiated the calumny are a band from among yourselves. Do not suppose it is bad for you. Rather, it is for your good. Each man among them bears [the onus for] his share in the sin, and as for him who assumed its major burden from among them, there is a great punishment for him.

EXEGESIS

Ifk (calumny) literally means turning something away from its course, They said: ‘Have you come to turn us away (taʾfikanā) from our gods?’ (46:22). It also means to lie.[1] Affāk (45:7) is hence a person who constantly lies. Here ifk refers to a lie which upends the truth.[2] It is used as an emphatic expression to mean a blatant lie.[3]

ʿUṣbah (band) is from ʿaṣab which originally means the ligaments and tendons that hold a muscle together. This is why nerves are also called aʿṣāb.[4] Here it means a group which are closely tied to each other and act as a single body. The term thus indicates that the people referred to in the verse were a group who were cooperating together to spread the slanderous rumour.[5]

It is attributed to al-Farrāʾ that an ʿuṣbah is anything between 1-40 people.[6] Others have suggested it is between 10-40 people.[7] At least in this verse it cannot refer to one or two people because of the word alladhīna (those), which is used only for three or more people.

EXPOSITION

As the preceding verses discussed the rulings of zināʾ and slander, God now raises an example of how damaging such slander can be when directed against innocents, highlighting why it should not be taken lightly and also to what extremes it may end up. This verse, and the proceeding nine following it, refer to what is known as the event of ifk, whereby the spouse of Prophet Muhammad (s) was slandered by hypocrites and her chastity questioned. The fact that this happened is telling as to how shameless some hypocrites within the Muslim community can be and how much trouble they may cause when other foolish Muslims participate in the strife they create.

The verses themselves do not specify what the slander specifically was and entailed, nor against whom it was directed. Although from the context it is clear that it refers to adultery and from the tone that it was a major event. As such it should have been directed against the family of the Holy Prophet.[8] There are reports which give detailed accounts of the story of ifk which will be discussed in the next section. The reason for the indirect reference to the event is that such vile slander does not bear repeating. Hence, God in this and the following verses is showing to the believers how they should have behaved when they heard about it.

The forcefulness of the verses is meant to denote the importance of the rank and station of the Prophet and to vehemently deny any allegations meant to detract from his purity.[9]

Indeed those who initiated the calumny: meaning the ones who originally began fabricating and spreading the lie and whispering it to others. The apparent meaning of the ending of the verse is suggestive that it was one person, but those suggests it was many. Putting the two statements alongside each other we understand that one person originally came up with the idea, and then collected his band to help him in spreading it. Seemingly, the plan was that if several people claimed to have witnessed the fabricated event then it would lend credibility to the lie. The purpose of this collusion is unclear, but it was likely either aimed at degrading the character of the Prophet, or a member of his household, or possibly both. Verses 15-17 reveal to us that the plan worked and the rumour spread throughout the Muslim community, with the Muslims of weaker faith and character participating in spreading the rumour.

Are a band from among yourselves: the address here is to the Muslim community in general. From among yourselves indicates the slanderers were from amongst the Muslim community, whether they were actually believers or simply pretending to be such.[10] It was not something initiated by some external community such as the Medinan Jews. This is an important reminder that sometimes the worst strife comes from within the Muslim community and the willingness of the community to go along with it. It is also a sad reality that there are those who simply enjoy slandering others.

Do not suppose it is bad for you. Rather, it is for your good: it is said this is addressed to those targeted by the slander, that they should not worry as God will clear their name.[11] Keep in mind that you is plural here, referring to a group of three or more people, so even if we accept that claim, the address should be general as well.[12] The more likely meaning is that it is referring to the Muslim community in general.

As for how it was good for them, different opinions have been suggested:

1. By being patient and persevering it was cause for the elevation of the status for the slandered believer(s).[13]
2. It was a chance for the community to learn important lessons.[14]
3. The event allowed the believers to identify the hypocrites and the wicked amongst them who would have otherwise remained unknown or at least remained more hidden.[15]
4. It was cause for these verses of the Quran to be revealed, which expunged the slandered individual(s) of any wrongdoing.[16]

While some of these are clearly better understandings than others, none of them are problematic nor mutually exclusive, and we may opt for any or all of them. Having said that, the third option is the most apparent one. Those who slandered the Prophet’s wife were now identified and known, and instead of humiliating him they themselves were humiliated.[17] The identification of some of the hypocrites was very important to the nascent Muslim community as it allowed them to mitigate the harm they could have caused.

There is also a general lesson here, that the believers should not only consider the superficial and immediate aspects of things, but look for deeper meanings and silver linings.[18] Something may seem harmful and bad, but may in reality be good and beneficial.

Each man among them bears [the onus for] his share in the sin: while the next statement tells us that the idea initially originated with one person, we understand from this that there were a group of people who planned this attack on the character of the Prophet and his household, and worked together to spread this slanderous rumour. Unfortunately, the plan of the hypocrites worked insomuch as the larger Medinan community then engaged with that slanderous rumour and thus it spread throughout the city. Hence there are three categories of guilt involved in this event:

1. The one who came up with the idea, who assumed its major burden.
2. The core group that helped him, a band from among yourselves.
3. The larger Medinan community that engaged with the slander, When you were receiving it on your tongues, and were mouthing something of which you had no knowledge (verse 15).

God informs us that each is guilty to the extent of their involvement. As for the one who initiated it, he would be punished for all those who followed in his footsteps without reducing the share of guilt from any of them. After that, the major share of guilt lay with his co-conspirators who knowingly aided him. Finally, anyone who repeated it was guilty of the sin as much as they had a role in perpetuating and spreading the vile slander. 

This is an important reminder that it is not just coming up with a lie that is sinful, but repeating lies or retelling vile talk (ghībah) about others is also a sin. It is not a valid excuse to say ‘I heard that so-and-so …’, as if adding the prefix of ‘I heard’ would expunge one of any guilt of backbiting.

Sin (ithm) can also be understood to mean the negative consequences of an action. In this sense it can also mean the worldly consequences. In material terms this means that certain sins cannot be accomplished except via collaboration with others. Each collaborator is then held responsible in accordance with the degree in which they participated.

And as for him who assumed its major burden from among them: this refers to the one who initially came up with the slanderous story.[19]

There is a great punishment for him: the apparent meaning of this is the punishment of hell.[20]

This is also evidence for the legal principle that the one who carries the main responsibility for a crime should also suffer the harshest punishment.[21]

INSIGHTS FROM HADITH

While the Quran does not mention the details of what happened and who was slandered, there are several reports that purport to provide those missing details. The most famous one is reported from ʿĀʾishah herself, saying that she was accompanying the Prophet on the expedition of Banī al-Muṣṭaliq, in the fifth or sixth year AH,[22] and she lost a necklace belonging to her and went back to search for it. When she returned to where the expedition had been camped, she found that they had proceeded without her. She remained where she was, hoping someone would be sent back to look for her. After some time, Ṣafwān ibn Muʿaṭṭal al-Sulamī[23] – who had also lagged behind the main force – came upon her. Recognising who she was, he lowered his camel and bade her to ride it, leading them to the army. When people saw the two of them approaching like that, some used it to spread vile rumours.[24] Eventually, verses 11-20 of Sūrat al-Nūr were revealed clearing ʿĀʾishah of any wrongdoing. Reportedly, the Prophet ordered all those who were guilty of the slander to be lashed for slander.[25]

It is related that the person who made up the slanderous story was ʿAbd-Allāh ibn Ubayy,[26] or alternatively three people: Misṭaḥ ibn Athāthah,[27] Ḥassān ibn Thābit,[28] and Ḥamnah bint Jaḥsh.[29] Others have also added Zayd ibn Rafāʿah to this list.[30]

While Ṭūsī only reports what we mentioned above, many sources give a more detailed account of the story of ʿĀʾishah.[31] According to these reports, when ʿĀʾishah returned to Medina she became ill and was unable to leave her home for a month; meanwhile, the rumours about her continued to spread in Medina without her knowledge. During this time, she reports that the Prophet was harsh towards her and did not show her kindness during her illness. He then reportedly sought advice from his companions about what to do, and while others advised him to stay with her, she reports that Imam Ali (a) advised him to divorce her.

In some reports, the Prophet went up on his pulpit and complained to the people that his family had been targeted with slander, and Saʿd ibn Muʿādh got up saying if the man who had done so was from the Aws he would strike him down, and if he were from Khazraj they would deal with him as he commanded. This angered the Khazrajite[32] Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah, who called him a liar, and Saʿd ibn Muʿādh retorted that Ibn ʿUbādah was a hypocrite and defending other hypocrites. This almost led to fighting breaking out amongst the two factions of the Anṣār.[33]

It is also reported that when Ṣafwān found out about Ḥassān’s slander he confronted him and struck him with his sword. Afterwards, when Ḥassān complained to the Prophet, the Prophet asked Ḥassān to forgive him for his sake and gifted him instead a garden, which Ḥassān later sold to Muʿāwiyah during the latter’s reign.[34]

It is reported that years later, ʿĀʾishah was performing the circumambulation (ṭawāf) of the Kaaba with a group of women and they happened upon Ḥassān ibn Thābit, who had become blind. She turned to them and said: ‘Do not badmouth him, for what God promised has come true, For such there is a painful punishment [42:42], he has become blind.’[35] During her illness, ʿĀʾishah was not aware of the rumours about her, until one night she went out with the mother of Misṭaḥ, and when she stumbled, she cursed her own son. ʿĀʾishah was taken aback as to why she should say such a thing about her own son, and Umm Misṭaḥ – surprised ʿĀʾishah did not know – then told her about the rumours. At some point, the Prophet then approached ʿĀʾishah and informed her that should she be blameless God would inform him, but if she had sinned then she should admit it and repent. ʿĀʾishah asked her parents to say something to him on her behalf and they both simply retorted that they did not know what to say. Upset, she then insisted on her innocence and fell to her bed, crying. The Prophet was then overcome with revelation and verses 11-20 of Sūrat al-Nūr were revealed to him. When she saw him once again collect himself, he gave her glad tidings that God has informed him that she is blameless. Her mother then told her to get up and go and make amends with the Prophet but she refused, saying she only thanks God as He is the one that cleared her name.[36]

It is necessary to be critical of several points in these accounts. Firstly, they portray the Prophet in a negative manner as cold and uncaring (the same may be said of how they portray the Commander of the Faithful). This is far from the kind and gentle nature of the Prophet that is well known, peace and blessings be upon him. How can we assume that the Prophet would behave with ʿĀʾishah in such a manner when no evidence had been presented for the rumours, so as to shatter her self-esteem and lower her character and behave in a way that indicated he had believed the rumours about her?[37]

Secondly, it is well established amongst the scholars of all schools of thought that the wives of prophets would never commit the sin of adultery. While it is possible for them to be disbelievers, they should not be adulterers, because the latter would be something that would reflect badly on the status of a prophet and would be cause for people to disparage him. This is because an insult to the chastity of a wife also besmirches the honour of the husband and makes people think less of him[38] (for various reasons, for example because there is always a portion of people who will think that perhaps he was a bad husband and that is why she was unfaithful to him). Thus God protects His prophets from that and it is an extension of their error-free (maʿṣūm) nature.[39] Based on this, we cannot imagine that the Prophet would ever have questioned ʿĀʾishah’s chastity, nor would the Imam have done so.[40] But the reports portray him as asking her to come clean, of being cold towards her, of seeking the advice of his companions; all suggesting that he had believed there was possibly some truth to the claims.[41]

Thirdly and most importantly, the Prophet nor any of the truly faithful believers (such as Imam Ali (a))[42] would never have questioned the integrity of his wife, as that would have been contrary to what God says in the very same surah, When you [first] heard about it, why did not the faithful, men and women, think well of their folks, and say: ‘This is an obvious calumny’? (verse 12), and, And why did you not, when you heard it, say: ‘It is not for us to speak of such a thing. [O Allah!] You are immaculate! This is a monstrous calumny!’ (verse 16). Any faithful believer would have disregarded such claims as obvious lies, let alone the Prophet himself. However, the reports on more than one occasion indicate that the Prophet supposedly was in severe doubt with regards to ʿĀʾishah’s fidelity[43] (some of them even explicitly state it).[44] Related to that, the Prophet supposedly asks in addition to Imam Ali (a) the opinion of Usāmah ibn Zayd as to whether or not he thinks ʿĀʾishah could have done what she was accused of and what he should do in this situation. This is also problematic, because Usāmah would have been around thirteen years of age at that time. It is highly doubtful that any man would ask a thirteen-year-old boy whether or not he thinks his wife could have been guilty of infidelity and what he should do.[45]

Fourthly, the narrations indicate that a whole month passed from the start of the rumours, and the Prophet ordered the slanderers to be punished only after the verses were revealed stating ʿĀʾishah’s innocence. This, while the ruling for slander is clear, if the slanderer does not produce evidence or four witnesses, they should be struck eighty lashes for slander. The solution suggested by some is to assume that the rulings of slander were revealed after this event, which could theoretically solve this problem,[46] although that is not what the reports themselves directly state, but it could be inferred for example from the Prophet going on the pulpit and complaining about the slander. If the ruling on slander had been revealed, he could have simply carried out the punishment for it.[47] However, this is all contrary to verse 13, where God demands of the slanderers, Why did they not bring four witnesses to it? So if they did not bring the witnesses, they are liars in Allah’s sight. The only way that demand makes sense is if God had already revealed that four witnesses are required to establish zināʾ, otherwise how could the believers be expected to know that they should have demanded four witnesses? Therefore, we must assume that the rulings in verses 2-4 were already revealed.[48]

Fifthly, if we accept the premise that no punishment was carried out for a whole month for the slander, it is strange to assume that in this time Ṣafwān – when he heard about the slander directed against him – attacked his slanderer and struck him, whereas there was no man from ʿĀʾishah’s clan willing to defend her honour, not even her own father or brothers or cousins. This, while the Arabs were known for their feelings with regards to such slander and notorious for their intense tribal loyalty; and yet all their swords remained sheathed for a whole month.[49] This is especially difficult to believe, considering it was the wife of the Prophet who was thus slandered, which would have incensed them even more. Indeed, even any Muslim not of her clan could be expected to take action. Based on this, ʿAskarī argues that the spouse of the Prophet that was slandered should not have been an Arab woman, because otherwise tribal mentality and tribal prejudice (ʿaṣabiyyah) would have resulted in the injured party’s tribal members retaliating on their behalf[50] (assuming that the ruling for slander had not yet been revealed).

Sixthly, considering that there are so many elements to this story that were public: the month-long lasting rumours, the arguments between Aws and Khazraj, the Prophet asking for the opinions of his companions, the punishments carried out on the slanderers, and so on, it is strange that virtually only ʿĀʾishah reports on the matter. We should expect such an event to be very widely reported and well documented indeed.[51]

Seventhly, another historical inaccuracy is the argument mentioned between Saʿd ibn Muʿādh and Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah, whilst Saʿd ibn Muʿādh famously died shortly after the Battle of Banī Qurayẓah, a year or so before the battle of Banī al-Muṣṭaliq, while the reports claim the event of ifk to have occurred after that.[52]

There are many other contradictions in the reports that have been pointed out,[53] all of which we cannot mention here. Additionally, there are also problems with the chains of narration of some of the reports.[54] It is good to keep in mind that the character of the Holy Prophet and his role as the Messenger of God and the consideration we must give to the importance of that far outweighs the consideration given to anyone else who might report such things about him.[55]

Regardless, the event is reported in virtually all the Sunni books of exegesis and many of the Shia ones as well.[56] There is an alternative report which is mentioned in books such as Tafsīr al-Qummī, although Ṭūsī and Ṭabrisī for example do not mention any other report than the one relating to ʿĀʾishah, and consider that to be the authentic account.[57]

The alternative accounts such as the one in Tafsīr al-Qummī revolve around Māriyah Qibṭiyyah, a slave girl gifted to the Prophet by Muqawqis of Egypt along with her sister Sīrīn (Shīrīn) (who then married Ḥassān ibn Thābit, who appears in the earlier accounts) and her cousin, a male servant.[58] Māriyah gave birth to the Prophet’s son Ibrāhīm who died shortly thereafter. The Prophet was greatly saddened by the event. ʿĀʾishah then retorted to the Prophet that he should not be sad since it was not even his son, but rather the son of Jurayḥ al-Qibṭī (presumably her cousin). The Prophet was so angered upon hearing this that he ordered Imam Ali (a) to kill Jurayḥ. The Imam came to him with sword bared, and seeing him thus, Jurayḥ fled, running up a tree. Seeing the Imam approaching him he jumped down from the tree to run elsewhere, when his shirt was stuck on a branch and lifted up, revealing that he had neither male nor female genitalia. The Imam then returned to the Prophet and asked him if he should simply carry out the order or if he should investigate matters? When the Prophet said he should investigate first, he then informed him of what he had seen. The Prophet then thanked God and ordered Jurayḥ to be left alone, after which the verses from Sūrat al-Nūr were revealed.[59]

Almost the same narration is related by Nayshābūrī.[60] Something similar is also reported in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and some other sources as well, where an unnamed man was falsely claimed to have had relations with Māriyah and the Prophet ordered Imam Ali (a) to kill him and then the Imam discovered he was a eunuch.[61] Or that rumours spread claiming that another Coptic man[62] had a secret affair with Māriyah and the Prophet ordered the Imam to kill him.[63] These reports do not make mention of Sūrat al-Nūr or ʿĀʾishah.

There is also a group of reports related by Ibn Kathīr and others that may be relevant. They simply state when the Prophet was gifted Māriyah, ʿĀʾishah became very jealous of her, and when the Prophet said to ʿĀʾishah how Ibrāhīm resembles him, she retorted that she saw no resemblance.[64] For some more regarding ʿĀʾishah’s attitude towards Māriyah, see the commentary on 66:1.

In any case, the report of Qummī in reality combines what is in these reports and the reports about the accusation against Māriyah leading to the supposed reveal of her cousin’s private parts. Most of the same problems exist with the second account of Qummī as they did with the account reported from ʿĀʾishah. It too assumes the Prophet as immediately believing such claims. Like the previous account it also portrays the Prophet as some sort of maniacal despot, immediately ordering Jurayḥ to be killed, and it does not even occur to him to investigate the truth of the matter until the Imam suggests it after the fact.[65] Furthermore, the punishment for fornication (zināʾ ghayr muḥṣan) is a hundred lashes, not execution.[66]

It also shows disregard for the punishment of slander. The hadith even ends without any punishment being ordered for ʿĀʾishah. If ʿĀʾishah had indeed been guilty of slander she should have been punished with eighty lashes[67] (unless we succumb to the false assumption that the Prophet was some sort of nepotistic despot, only applying laws where it suited him), and if she had so been punished, such a major event would have been known to all Muslims and widely reported.

It is also in contradiction with the verses, which clearly state that a group of people were spreading the slander and that it became widespread amongst the Muslim community, whereas the second account involves only ʿĀʾishah.[68] The verses also state that the one who came up with the slanderous lie was a man, and as for him who assumed (alladhī tawallā) its major burden from among them, there is a great punishment for him (lahu), where alladhī tawallā and lahu are all masculine.

There is another report that tries to explain some of the contradictions by stating that the Prophet knew that Jurayḥ was innocent and intended the outcome so as to prove to ʿĀʾishah that she was lying and to see if she would regret and come clean if it meant killing another man.[69] This in contradiction to the aforementioned report in Qummī though, which clearly states the Prophet did not know and was relieved when he found out. It is also quite a silly proposition. If the Prophet wished to prove to ʿĀʾishah that Jurayḥ could not have been guilty because he was a eunuch, he could have simply stated that. There would have been no need for some comical reveal of his private parts in the presence of the Imam. Notably, ʿĀʾishah was not present there to see that, so it would have established nothing for her and she would still have to rely on his say-so.

In conclusion, considering the conflicting nature of the reports, the myriad of historical and theological problems in them, and the fact that they are all in contradiction to the Quranic verses themselves, we have no choice but to reject them, as we cannot accept any of the reports at face value. Out of the various possible remaining options, three should be given most serious consideration. The first is to say that none of the reports are correct and we simply do not know about whom the verse was revealed.[70] The second is the position taken by some, that someone fabricated the story about the event of ifk being about ʿĀʾishah in order to elevate her status. This does not necessitate accepting the reports in Qummī, as those reports must be rejected for the reasons we discussed. The third is to adopt a stance similar to Ṭūsī’s, to accept the general nature of the report being about ʿĀʾishah, but to reject the majority of the details.

Ṭūsī argues that verse 13 is proof that ʿĀʾishah did not commit adultery, and that anyone who claims she did is a liar.[71] In fact, all of the Muslim scholars are unanimous in their agreement that none of the wives of the Prophet, including ʿĀʾishah, could ever commit adultery. As the Sunni scholar Ālūsī points out: ‘It is attributed to the Shia that they slandered ʿĀʾishah – may God be pleased with her – with what God exonerated her from, and they vehemently deny this, as there is no credible source in their books that supports this accusation, or any trace of such a thing at all. Similarly, they reject what is attributed to them regarding any claim that such an incident occurred after the death of the Prophet – peace and blessings be upon him. There is no clear evidence or trace of this in their books. Apparently, there is no faction within the Islamic sects that entertains such thoughts, let alone regarding the event of ifk which God, the Almighty, has exonerated her from.’[72]

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

From Hasan al-Baṣrī, that Do not suppose it is bad for you. Rather, it is for your good is addressed towards the slanderers, as the revelation of the verses presents them an opportunity to repent.[73] This is a weak opinion as the slanderers are addressed in the third person in the beginning of the verse, whereas Do not suppose it is bad for you is in the second person.[74] Furthermore, it makes little sense to say that performing a sin is good since it presents an opportunity to repent, unless one argues that it is referring to something else than the calumny, in which case it is again grammatically a far weaker understanding.

[1] Tahqiq, 1/108.
[2] Tibyan, 7/415.
[3] Zamakhshari, 3/217; Munyah, 19/86.
[4] Nemuneh, 14/394.
[5] Munyah, 19/87; Sharawi, p. 10211.
[6] Thalabi, 7/77.
[7] Zamakhshari, 3/217; Alusi, 9/310; Tantawi, 10/93.
[8] Mizan, 15/89.
[9] See Zamakhshari, 3/224.
[10] Razi, 23/338; Mizan, 15/89.
[11] Tabrisi, 7/206; Thalabi, 7/77-78.
[12] Razi, 23/338.  
[13] Tibyan, 7/415; Tabrisi, 7/206; Razi, 23/338.
[14] Zamakhshari, 3/217-218; Munyah, 19/87.
[15] Razi, 23/338; Mizan, 15/90; Nemuneh, 14/395; Munyah, 19/87.
[16] Razi, 23/338.
[17] Mizan, 15/90.
[18] Nemuneh, 14/395.
[19] Tibyan, 7/415; Tabrisi, 7/206; Tabari, 18/69.
[20] Tabrisi, 7/206; Muhit, 8/20.
[21] Qaraati, 6/153.
[22] Taqī al-Dīn al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-Asmāʾ (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d.), 1/203. Subḥānī dates that event to the sixth year AH; see Jaʿfar Subḥānī, Furūgh-e Abadiyyat (Qum: Būstān-e Kitāb-e Qum, 1385), 1/658.
[23] The reports add that he was martyred sometime after that in battle. It has been clarified elsewhere that this was during the reign of ʿUmar or Muʿāwiyah (Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, al-Iṣābah (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1995), 3/358).
[24] Tibyan, 7/415; Tabrisi, 7/204-206; Tabari, 18/71-72; Thalabi, 7/72-73; Bukhari, 3/154-155 Muslim, 8/113-117. In most reports ʿĀʾishah also mentions that she never expected verses of the Quran to be revealed about her, but rather instead hoped that the Prophet would see a dream in which her innocence would be revealed to him.
[25] Thalabi, 7/77. Misṭaḥ, Ḥassān, and Ḥamnah are mentioned specifically as amongst those punished (Muhit, 8/21). According to some reports, after these ten verses of Sūrat al-Nūr were revealed, the Prophet went to the mosque, called the people together, recited the verses, then ordered for Ibn Ubayy to be brought to him and carried out two punishments of eighty lashes on him, once for slandering ʿĀʾishah and once for slandering Ṣafwān. After that the other three were punished once each (Alusi, 9/312). Some have said that Ibn Ubayy was punished twice because the one who slanders the wife of a prophet has a double share of punishment (Mizan, 15/101). There is also the claim that Ibn Ubayy was not punished at all because he did not admit to the slander and no evidence could be produced that he had initiated it. Or even that no one was punished at all (Alusi, 9/312). This is the opinion preferred by Muhammad al-Wāqidī, al-Maghāzī (np.: Nashr-e Dānish-e Islāmī, 1405 AH), 1/434. Or that the Prophet did not punish Ibn Ubayy fearing it would lead to discord in Medina (Muhammad Ṣāliḥ Māzandarānī, Sharḥ Uṣūl al-Kāfī (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 2000), 11/307.
[26] Tibyan, 7/415; Tabrisi, 7/206; Tabari, 18/70; Thalabi, 7/78; Bukhari, 3/155. He is the one famously referred to as the ‘leader of the hypocrites’.
[27] One of the early Muslims who fought alongside the Prophet in the Battle of Badr.
[28] Ḥassān was known as a famous poet, who composed many poems in defence of Islam and in praise of the Prophet.
[29] Tibyan, 7/415; Tabrisi, 7/206; Tabari, 18/68-70. Thalabi, 7/78-79; Bukhari, 5/56; Abu Dawud, 2/358, h. 4475. Ḥamnah was the sister of the Prophet’s wife, Zaynab bint Jaḥsh.
[30] Zamakhshari, 3/217. Ālūsī says there is no authentic report regarding his participation (Alusi, 9/311).
[31] Although Ṭūsī seems to consider this the authentic account. He later adds that the Prophet then punished Misṭaḥ with the ḥadd of slander (Tibyan, 7/422).
[32] ʿAbd-Allāh ibn Ubayy was also a Khazrajite. The implication is that everyone understood to whom the Prophet and Saʿd ibn Muʿādh were referring.
[33] Thalabi, 7/74; Bukhari, 3/156.
[34] Thalabi, 7/76. See also Ibn Hishām, al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah (Cairo: Maktabah Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṣabīḥ, 1963), 3/772; Ṭabarī, Tārīkh (Beirut: Al-Aʿlamī, 1983), 2/270.
[35] Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1993), 2/515; Ibn Asakir, 12/394-395. For reports with a similar gist see also Tabarani, 23/108; Thalabi, 7/78; Ṭabarī, Tārīkh (Beirut: al-Aʿlamī, 1983) Tabari, 18/70.
[36] Tabrisi, 7/205-206; Tabari, 18/72-73; Thalabi, 7/73-75; Bukhari, 3/154-157, h. 4141; Muslim, 8/113-117, h. 2770. The full report is generally traced back to Zuhrī, who mentions that he has amalgamated it from various different sources.
[37] Fadlallah, 16/252.
[38] Munyah, 19/89; Zamakhshari, 3/220-221.
[39] Razi, 23/337.
[40] Mizan, 15/102; Fadlallah, 16/253. Rāzī attempts to resolve the conflict between the established principle and the reports by saying the Prophet often might have become saddened by what the faithless say, even though he knew what they say is false (15:97). This is an unsatisfactory attempt and does not answer the problem at all. The Prophet being saddened by the denial and idolatry of the faithless is not the same. He was saddened by the sins they committed, knowing what punishment awaited them, and wished he could have made them see the truth. However, in the case of ʿĀʾishah, if he knew his wife was innocent, why should he be cold towards her and question her innocence?
[41] Nemuneh, 14/392.
[42] This is of course a highly problematic claim in and of itself. It is unimaginable that Imam Ali (a) would advise the Prophet to divorce his wife because of unsubstantiated rumours and allegations (Munyah, 19/99).
[43] Mizan, 15/101; Nemuneh, 14/391-392; Munyah, 19/98.
[44] See for example Suyuti, 5/28, where one report states that when the Prophet heard the accusations ‘there was something of it in his heart’.
[45] Munyah, 19/98-99. Subḥānī relates Ibn Ḥajar’s attempt to explain that in Fatḥ al-Bārī, where he claims that the Prophet asked Usāmah because he was young and would have been honest. This explanation is far from satisfactory though.
[46] Related in Mizan, 15/102-103; Nemuneh, 14/392.
[47] Related in Mizan, 15/103.
[48] See Munyah, 19/88.
[49] Murtaḍā al-ʿAskarī, Aḥādīth Umm al-Muʾminīn ʿĀʾishah (Beirut: al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-Islāmī, 1997), 2/176.
[50] Murtaḍā al-ʿAskarī, Aḥādīth Umm al-Muʾminīn ʿĀʾishah (Beirut: al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-Islāmī, 1997), 2/167. ʿAskarī is alluding of course to Māriyah. See below.
[51] Murtaḍā al-ʿAskarī, Aḥādīth Umm al-Muʾminīn ʿĀʾishah (Beirut: al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-Islāmī, 1997), 2/179.
[52] Taqī al-Dīn al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-Asmāʾ (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d.), 1/220; Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-Qārī (Beirut: Dār al-Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, n.d.), 13/232; Murtaḍā al-ʿAskarī, Aḥādīth Umm al-Muʾminīn ʿĀʾishah (Beirut: al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-Islāmī, 1997), 2/171-172. The occurrence of the event of ifk as being after the Battle of Banī al-Muṣṭaliq is not mentioned in Bukhārī and Muslim, rather they say simply it was after a battle, whilst other sources like Ibn Hishām mention that. ʿAskarī speculates that the admittance of Zuhrī, that he has amalgamated the report from many sources, is suggestive that he was aware of the many contradictions in it with historical facts and attempted to clean it up.
[53] For a more detailed discussion of these see for example Jaʿfar Murtaḍā al-ʿĀmilī, Ḥadīth al-Ifk (Beirut: Markaz al-Islāmī lil-Dirāsāt, n.d.), 93-281; Munyah, 19/94-100.
[54] Murtaḍā al-ʿAskarī, Aḥādīth Umm al-Muʾminīn ʿĀʾishah (Beirut: al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-Islāmī, 1997), 2/168-172. For example, al-Bukhārī reports some portions of the story from Masrūq from Umm Rumān, ʿĀʾishah’s mother (see Bukhari, 4/123, h. 3338), whilst Umm Rumān died during the lifetime of the Prophet and Masrūq could never have met her. This is why any reports of Masrūq from Umm Rumān are considered disconnected (mursal). See Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-Qārī (Beirut: Dār al-Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, n.d.), 15/279; Abū ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istīʿāb (Beirut: Dār al-Jalāl, 1992), 4/1937. For a more detailed discussion on all the various chains see Jaʿfar Murtaḍā al-ʿĀmilī, Ḥadīth al-Ifk (Beirut: Markaz al-Islāmī lil-Dirāsāt, n.d.), pp. 55-92. He points out things such as, for example one of the main sources for the report – ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwām – the nephew of ʿĀʾishah, has been accused of harbouring hatred towards Imam Ali (a) and cursing him. See for example, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, 4/64, 69, 102; Ibn Asakir, 13/240. Some of ʿĀmilī’s criticisms regarding the chains of narration are not very valid.
[55] Fadlallah, 16/254.
[56] Most later exegetes either accept the account or at least relate it. In addition to al-Tibyān and Majmaʿ al-Bayān, which we referenced above, another early Shia source that alludes to the event is Faḍl ibn Shādhān, al-Īḍāḥ (Tehran: Muʾassaseh-ye Intishārāt wa Chāp Dānishgāh-e Tehrān, n.d.), p. 514. In that it is reported that Misṭaḥ was punished with lashes amongst other people for their role in the event of ifk.
[57] Tibyan, 7/415; Tabrisi, 7/204-206.
[58] Bidayah, 5/324-325; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī al-Taʾrīkh (Beirut: Dār Bayrūt, 1965), 2/225-226.
[59] Qummi, 2/99-100; Mizan, 15/103-104; Nemuneh, 14/391.
[60] Mustadrak.S, 4/39.
[61] Muslim, 8/119, h. 2771.
[62] Māriyah’s cousin.
[63] Ibn Sad, 8/214-215; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ (Cairo: Dār al-Ḥaramayn, 1995), 4/89-90. The reports also claim that the Prophet nevertheless remained in doubt until Gabriel had to come and give good news to the Prophet that Ibrāhīm was indeed his son.
[64] Bidayah, 5/326; Taqī al-Dīn al-Maqrīzī, Imtāʿ al-Asmāʾ (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, n.d.), 5/336.
[65] See also Nemuneh, 14/393.
[66] Fadlallah, 16/256.
[67] Nemuneh, 14/393; Fadlallah, 16/256.
[68] Nemuneh, 14/393; Fadlallah, 16/256.
[69] Qummi 2/319, who mentions this report under verse 49:6. In that report Marwān ibn Muslim asks Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) if the Prophet really would have ordered the killing of the Coptic man, whilst he knew ʿĀʾishah had lied.
[70] This is the opinion in for example Nemuneh, 14/393.
[71] Tibyan, 7/416. See also Razi, 23/342.
[72] Alusi, 9/318.
[73] Tabrisi, 7/206.
[74] Razi, 23/338.