The Exegesis of the Saying of Allah the Exalted: << إن الذين يرمون المحصنات الغافلات المؤمنات لعنوا في الدنيا والأخرة و لهم عذاب عظيم >> .

[Regarding] the relatives, the poor, and the emigrants in the cause of Allah. And this [verse] was revealed concerning Abu Bakr and Mistah ibn Uthathah, the son of his aunt. However, the lesson is to be drawn from the generality of the wording, not from the specificity of the cause. The verse mentioned is among the verses we told you to bring out the benefits of. Accordingly, it is added to what preceded in the latter part, from His saying: to His saying: to His saying: . And these, if Allah wills, are the three [verses] that will come to you tomorrow; you will sit and extract their benefits. Do you understand this?
Then Allah the Exalted said: . [They] accuse [them] of zina. [The] chaste, pure women who are unaware of lewd acts, meaning that the act does not occur in their hearts. "Is this correct with you? Is this the correct [reading] that it does not occur in their hearts?" The believing women in Allah and His Messenger. The accusation is the false charge of zina. It is called "ramy" (throwing) because it resembles throwing stones in terms of the pain it causes the accused. And regarding His saying "the chaste women," it has been mentioned previously that the intended meaning is those who are pure from zina. And "muhdhan" in the Qur'an is used with several meanings, among which are these women who are pure from zina, and those who have husbands, as Allah the Exalted said:
And among them are the free women. Meaning the free women. We also mentioned regarding this statement that shared terms that are used for multiple meanings are clarified by the context. The context is what specifies the intended meaning. "Unaware" means regarding lewd acts, that the act does not occur in their hearts. This is what is intended by "unaware." And this restriction is not a condition; meaning, it is not a condition that the accused woman be one who is unaware. This is what some scholars said, with the evidence that if one falsely accuses a chaste woman of zina, the hadd of qadhf is obligatory upon him, even if she is not unaware. But what is the original rule regarding the restriction? What is the original rule regarding it? That it is considered, and that its contrary implication (mafhum al-mukhalafah) is not included in it. This is the original rule. So if someone says that this restriction is not considered, for example, based on the predominant case or something similar, we can demand evidence from him. We say: "Bring evidence that this restriction is for clarifying the predominant case and that it is not intended." Otherwise, the original rule is that restrictions are intended to exclude what contradicts their singular terms, and that one who contradicts them contradicts them in the ruling. I don't know if you understand this or not. Well, "the chaste, unaware women." Some scholars say that "unaware" is a restriction to clarify the reality and is not intended, meaning that if one accuses a chaste woman, this curse is upon her, even if she is not unaware. He said: "Because if one falsely accuses a chaste woman, the hadd of qadhf is obligatory upon him, even if she is not unaware." Unawareness is that this matter she is accused of does not come to her mind. This is more emphatic than her not having done it and not having intended it. Unawareness is more emphatic than not being suspected of it, because one might not be suspected of it, but this thing might come to her heart, yet she does not do it. So the "unaware" are in a more complete state than merely being "chaste." So this person who holds the view that "unaware" is a restriction to clarify the reality and has no implication supports his view by saying that if a chaste woman is falsely accused, the hadd is obligatory upon the accuser, even if she is not unaware. Do you understand this or not? We say to him, in response to his statement and his assertion: "Your claim that 'unaware' is a predominant restriction and has no implication, and your argument for that that accusing a chaste woman of qadhf obligates the hadd even if she is not unaware, this is not accepted. Why? Because the original rule regarding a restriction is that it is considered and excludes what is other than it by the contrary implication. This is the original rule: that restrictions that occur in the Qur'an or the Sunnah are originally restrictions that exclude their protected matters from this ruling. For example, we have the implication that 'unaware' is a predominant restriction that does not exclude its protected matter. This is contrary to the original rule, and the one who claims it must provide evidence. What is it? And he argued for that by saying that falsely accusing a chaste woman obligates the hadd even if she is not unaware. Is this correct or not? This is correct. The chaste woman who is not suspected of zina, if the accuser falsely accuses her, the hadd is obligatory upon her, even if she is not unaware. Because we refute this argument or this support by which he supported his view, that the ruling is different. There is the hadd of qadhf, and here there is the curse: "Cursed in this world and the Hereafter is the one who falsely accuses a chaste woman." He who deserves the hadd of qadhf, but the curse is only upon the one who falsely accuses a chaste, unaware woman. This is the original rule. And therefore we support that "unaware" is a considered restriction, not a predominant one, and that the ruling, which is the curse in this world and the Hereafter, is only for the one who falsely accuses a chaste, unaware woman. This is because the original rule, as you heard in this derivation, is that restrictions are considered and exclude their protected matters from the ruling. This is the original rule. So whoever departs from this original rule is obligated to provide evidence.
Well, as for the one who says that the intended meaning of this verse is Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), for example, and that she was unaware of this matter, this is correct. Aisha was unaware. But we also refute his statement. Why? Because the verse is general. So this is also like the first case: restricting the general to the specific requires evidence. So whoever claims it, the evidence is upon him. Otherwise, it is obligatory to take the generality. Well, Allah the Exalted says: Well, the believing women in Allah and His Messenger. The believing women. If someone asks: Why did Allah precede the description of chastity over faith, even though faith is greater and is the foundation? Why did He precede it? We say: The reason for its precedence here is clear, because the accusation of zina negates chastity and contradicts it. So He began with the description that negates what she was accused of, which is chastity. Why? Because a believing woman might be a believer but not chaste. But the chaste woman, who is the furthest from what she was accused of, is not only a believer but also chaste. So on this basis, we say: The reason for preceding the chaste woman over the believing woman, even though faith is more perfect and more worthy of consideration, is that the matter is in a statement related to chastity, so it was appropriate to mention what is related to the ruling, which is the description of chastity, before the description of faith. And His saying: What is the grammatical position of the sentence?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : What is it? The answer to the condition. We do not have a condition.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is the predicate of "inna" (indeed). "Indeed, those who accuse" Here He did not say "Allah cursed them," He said "They were cursed," in order to include the curse of Allah and others. Glorified and Exalted is He. "They were cursed," like His saying: And the passive construction of the verb has the benefit of generality, and... this is among the benefits. But this is for generality, like . He did not say "other than those upon whom He was angry," like those who said "upon whom You bestowed favor." Why? Because the favor is from Allah, and the anger is from Allah and from others. Everyone who is arrogant against the truth is one upon whom anger is directed, not only from Allah, but from Allah and others. This is also the case with the curse here: it is from Allah and from others. And therefore it was constructed in the passive. The curse is expulsion and distance from the mercy of Allah. This is regarding the curse of Allah. So they, may Allah protect us, are expelled from the mercy of Allah the Exalted in this world and the Hereafter. And regarding others, they are cursed in this world such that they are reviled and rebuked, and people are kept away from mixing with them. You find people staying away from them. What is the reason? Because they are detested and feared. Everyone fears them and is afraid that they will be accused of what they accused others of, so-and-so and so-and-so. Well, this verse Are the chaste, unaware men like them? Yes, by consensus, that the chaste women, indeed, that the chaste men are like the chaste women in this. So what is the reason for mentioning this regarding women and not men, since they share in the ruling? Because the prevalence of false accusation is more in women. Because false accusation is more in women than in men. Because a woman being falsely accused and suspected of zina is more intentional than in men. Therefore, she was mentioned, and the man was mentioned by way of agreement.