had been revealed but that it was abrogated afterwards, though the ordinance contained in it remained effective. There is no sense at all in this explanation. If the words of the verse were abrogated, the ordinance contained in those words went along with them. No ordinance can be given except in words, and if the words are abrogated, the ordinance is also abrogated. If therefore such a verse was ever revealed (for which there is no testimony worth the name), the admission that it was abrogated leaves the matter where it was before its revelation25 .
A false accusation of adultery is punished almost as severely as adultery itself: “And those who accuse free women and bring not four witnesses, flog them (with) eighty stripes and never accept their evidence, and these are the transgressors — Except those who afterwards repent and act aright; surely Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful” (24:4, 5).
It may be added here that while in ordinary matters two witnesses are required,26 in the case of an accusation of adultery four witnesses must be produced. Thus a case of adultery can be established only on the strongest possible evidence. That circumstantial evidence is accepted is shown by the Holy Qur’ān itself in Joseph’s case who, when accused of an assault on the chief’s wife, was declared free of the charge on circumstantial evidence.27 There are also a number of ḥadīth showing that circumstantial evidence was accepted when it led to the establishment of a certain fact.
The Holy Qur’ān does not speak of any punishment for the man who drinks intoxicating liquors, but there are ḥadīth showing that the Holy Prophet inflicted punishment in such cases. This punishment seems to have been of a very mild type and it appears that it was inflicted only in cases when a man was intoxicated with drink. Thus it is related that a certain person called Nu‘aimān or Ibn Nu‘aimān was brought to the Holy Prophet in a state of intoxication, and it distressed the Holy Prophet, so he ordered those who were in the
25 Also see pp. 37-46.
26 2:282.