Before addressing this issue directly, I would like to conduct a comparative analysis of how adultery was treated under various legal systems: Roman, English, Islamic, and modern secular law.
Roman Law
Under Roman Law, there was no standardized procedure for establishing or punishing adultery. It was largely considered a private matter and typically served as grounds for divorce or a civil claim for damages by the husband. However, a woman could not initiate a legal case against her husband if he committed adultery. Women were heavily subjugated under Roman legal tradition, Malik knows this. He is welcome to try and prove me wrong.
Recommended scholarly sources:
Law and Family in Late Antiquity: The Emperor Constantine’s Marriage Legislation by Judith Evans Grubbs
The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome by Catharine Edwards
English Law
In English common law, adultery was not classified as a criminal offence. It was treated as a civil wrong, an infringement on the sanctity of marriage. Adultery served as a valid ground for divorce or legal separation, but, again, the husband was generally granted superior rights to initiate proceedings or claim damages. It was, as usual, a system that privileged men.
Academic sources:
Marriage, Separation, and Divorce in England, 1500–1700, edited by Tim Stretton and K.J. Kesselring
Criminality and the Common Law Imagination in the 18th and 19th Centuries by Erin Sheley
Modern Secular Law
Today, in most secular legal systems, adultery is no longer a criminal offence. It remains relevant primarily in family law, particularly in divorce, custody battles, and property settlements. But let’s be honest, even today, proving adultery in court is messy, invasive, and often shameful.
Reference:
Adultery, Law, and the State: A History by J.D. Weinstein
For the Nigerian legal context:
Family Law in Nigeria by E.I. Nwogugu, a core text studied intensively in Nigerian law faculties.
Islamic Law
Now, let us turn to Islamic Law, as revealed in the Immutable and Immaculate Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Contrary to the claims of detractors like Malik Odyssey, Islamic rulings on adultery are designed to protect women, not to oppress them.
Qur’anic Texts:
Surah An-Nūr (24:2) – Punishment for adultery:
> “The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse — lash each one of them with a hundred lashes. And do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.”
Surah An-Nūr (24:4) – Punishment for false accusation:
> “And those who accuse chaste women and do not bring four witnesses — lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept their testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient.”
These verses emphasize Islam’s careful balance between:
Proving adultery: requiring the testimony of four eyewitnesses.
Preventing false accusations: punishing slanderers with 80 lashes and banning them from ever bearing witness again.
This strict evidentiary standard ensures that the honour, dignity, and privacy of women are preserved — unlike other systems that allowed men to accuse their wives with impunity and little evidence.
You may ask, “Why must the witnesses be men?”
The apparent wording of the Qur’an (dhaahir al-nass) and scholarly consensus indicate that the four witnesses must be men. Now, you raise this issue in Islam but turn a blind eye to the lack of any clear evidentiary requirement in Roman or English law. That’s your double standard, not Islam’s shortcoming.
If you believe modern systems are more enlightened, I challenge you to show how a man today can definitively prove adultery in court. Even in modern secular courts, proof of adultery is elusive, often relying on circumstantial evidence, which Islam outright rejects in such serious matters.
Islam, on the other hand, requires absolute certainty — four adult men witnessing the actual act of penetration. Why such a high bar? Because Islam knows that the subject is extremely shameful to expose and damaging to reputations.
Why not allow women to testify?
Because, in many cases, such open and explicit testimony about sexual acts would subject women to undue emotional and psychological harm. Islam, with divine foresight, protects them from that burden. Can men testify to it? Yes — and even for them, it is not taken lightly.
Now, if your argument is, “That’s unfair!” — it only proves you misunderstand the divine objective of protecting honour, not publicizing immorality. Islam prioritizes justice, modesty, and societal cohesion — not performative fairness or legal loopholes.
Malik, your complaint is that Islam, if it’s divine, should have had the foresight to grant full and equal rights to women — but what you're really doing is ignoring the fact that divine foresight is precisely what shaped these rulings. While Roman and English systems had no objective standard, Islam established a universal, strict, and protective framework.
In Roman law, adultery was a private grievance; in English law, a civil matter privileging men; in modern law, an awkward footnote in divorce proceedings. Only in Islam do we see a comprehensive, moral, and balanced legal approach — with clear guidelines, strict evidentiary rules, and consequences for false accusations.
You call it backward. I call it divinely wise.
That’s Part One. I’m going to ten, in shaa’ Allah.
