Al-Baqarah: (187) "It has been made permissible for you on the night of fasting..."
"It has been made permissible for you on the night of fasting to have relations with your women." Ahmad and a group of others narrated from Ka'b ibn Malik, who said: "People in Ramadan, if a man fasted and then slept, food, drink, and women were forbidden to him until he broke his fast the next day. One night, Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) returned from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—having stayed up with him—and found that his wife had fallen asleep. He tried to wake her, but she said, 'I have already slept.' He said, 'You have not slept,' and then he had intercourse with her. Ka'b ibn Malik did the same. The next day, Umar ibn al-Khattab went to the Prophet and informed him, and this verse was revealed." In a narration by Ibn Jarir from Ibn Abbas (may both be pleased with them): "While he was asleep, his soul enticed him, so he went to his wife. Then he came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said, 'O Messenger of Allah, I apologize to Allah and to you for this sinful soul of mine; it embellished [the act] for me, so I had relations with my wife. Can you find any dispensation for me?' He said, 'You were not worthy of that, O Umar.' When he reached his house, the Prophet sent for him and informed him of his excuse in a verse of the Quran, and Allah commanded His Messenger to place it in the middle hundred of Surah al-Baqarah."
He said: (It has been made permissible for you). The (night of fasting) is the night from which one wakes up fasting. The genitive construction (idafa) is for the closest association, and the intended meaning is the generic type. Its agent is al-rafath (the act of intercourse) or the implied verb for which al-rafath serves as evidence, based on the view that a verbal noun (masdar) does not govern when it precedes. It is permitted that it be an adverb for al-ihlal (the permitting), because the permitting of intercourse on the night of fasting and the permitting of intercourse that occurs in it are concomitant.
(Al-Rafath) is derived from rafatha in his speech, and arafatha, and tarafatha—meaning to speak obscenely, and it is the most eloquent term for that which is alluded to. The intended meaning here is intercourse, because it [the act] is rarely without the need for such clear expression. What is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) is that while he was in ihram (pilgrimage state), he recited: "They walk with us with a light gait / If the birds are truthful, we shall have intercourse with the beautiful ones." When it was said to him, "You have spoken obscenely (rafatha)," he replied, "True rafath is only what occurs with women." Thus, rafath in the verse can be both speech and action. Originally, the verb should be used with the preposition bi-, but it was used here with ila to encompass the meaning of ifda' (intimacy/merging). It was not made a mere euphemism from the beginning because the intention was to denote intercourse, so the distance [of metaphorical expression] was shortened. Its preference here over what was used as a euphemism throughout the rest of the Quran—such as al-taghashi (covering), al-mubasharah (physical contact), al-lams (touching), and al-dukhul (entering)—is due to the loathing of what had occurred among them before the permission; hence, it was later termed an "act of betrayal" (ikhtiyan).
(And women) is the plural of niswah; it is a plural of a plural or a plural of imra'ah (woman) based on a different root. Their attribution to the pronoun of the addressed (the men) is for specification, as intimacy is only permissible for those who have a specific relationship with the one being intimate, whether through marriage or ownership. Abdullah recited it as al-ruthu. (They are a garment for you and you are a garment for them), meaning they are a source of tranquility for you and you are a source of tranquility for them. This is what Ibn Abbas said when Nafi' ibn al-Azraq asked him. When he [Nafi'] asked him if the Arabs knew this, he [Ibn Abbas] recited the words of al-Dhubyani: "When the bedfellow turns his side, she turns upon him." Thus, she was a "garment." Because a man and a woman embrace and each of them wraps around the other, each one is likened to a garment to the other, or because each one conceals the other and prevents them from immorality. It has been mentioned in the Hadith: "Whoever marries has secured two-thirds of his religion." The two sentences are independent in a grammatical sense, and the rhetorical view dislikes this, as their content serves to explain the reason for the previous ruling: the difficulty of patience regarding them, as is understood from the first, and the difficulty of avoiding them, as is implied by the second. Due to the obviousness of the man's need for them and his lack of patience, the first was placed first. In the Hadith: "There is no good in women, and there is no patience without them. They overcome the noble, and the base overcomes them. I prefer to be a noble person overcome [by them] rather than a base person who overcomes [them]."
(Allah knew that you used to betray yourselves). This is a parenthetical sentence between His saying: "(It has been made permissible)..." and what relates to it, namely: "So now...", etc., to clarify their state regarding what they had committed before the permission. The meaning of "(Allah) knew" is the attachment of His knowledge. Al-Ikhtiyan is the movement of human desire to seek betrayal or extreme betrayal, so it means "you were depleting yourselves" entirely by exposing it to punishment and depleting your share of reward, which amounts to the meaning of "you were wronging yourselves" through it. The intent is the continuity of that in the past before they were informed of the situation, as indicated by the past and present tense forms, and it is related to knowledge. The first form’s implication—that they were in a state of betrayal before the knowledge—precludes interpreting this as the pre-eternal knowledge held by some. (So He accepted your repentance) is linked to "(Allah) knew," and the fa is for mere sequence. The intent is: before your repentance, when you repented from the forbidden act you had committed. (And He forgave you), meaning He erased its traces from you and removed its prohibition. It is said: the first [phrase] is for removing the prohibition, and this [second] is for forgiving the sin.
(So now) is consequent upon His saying—Exalted is He—(It has been made permissible for you), considering the goal of the permission, which is the removal of the prohibition. That is: when the prohibition of intercourse was abrogated for you, which is the night of fasting, as is indicated by the limit mentioned later—for it is the limit of the four commands for which this [night] is the setting. The "presence" understood from it is in view of the act of abrogating the prohibition; it is not "present" in view of the address in His saying: "(have relations with them)." It is said that even if it is literal to the present time, it may be used for the near future, treating it as the present, which is the meaning here. Or, it is used in its literal sense, and the estimation is: "We have allowed you to have relations with them." Mubasharah (relations) originally means the touching of skin against skin, and it was applied to intercourse due to its necessity.
(And seek what Allah has ordained for you), meaning: seek (what) Allah—Exalted is He—has ordained for you in the Preserved Tablet, regarding children. This is what is narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Dahhak, Mujahid (may Allah be pleased with them), and others. The intent is the supplication to seek that by saying: "O Allah, grant us what You have ordained for us." This does not depend on each individual knowing that a child has been ordained for him. It is said the intent is what He has ordained for your kind. The expression using "(what)" is in view of the attribute, as in His saying: "(And the sky and what built it)." The verse contains evidence that one who has relations should intend through marriage the preservation of offspring, not merely the satisfaction of desire; for He—Exalted is He—has given us the desire for intercourse for the survival of our species until an end point, just as He gave us the desire for food for the survival of our individuals until an end point. Merely satisfying desire should not be for anything but animals. Some considered this request to be a metonymy for forbidding azl (coitus interruptus) or for approaching [the wives] from the rear. Others interpreted "what Allah has ordained" from the beginning as what He has set and legislated: the pouring of water into its place, meaning to seek that without azl or the aforementioned approach. The famous view is their prohibition. As for the first, what is mentioned in the books is that a man should not practice azl with a free woman without her consent, nor with a slave woman who is married without her consent or the consent of her master, according to the disagreement between the Imam [Abu Hanifa] and his two companions. There is no harm in azl with one’s own slave woman without her consent, as she has no right. As for the second, the full discussion of it will come in the most complete manner, if Allah wills. It is narrated from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) that this is interpreted as the Night of Decree. It is also narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) and from Qatadah that the meaning of "(seek)" is the dispensation "(which Allah has ordained for you)," for Allah—Exalted is He—loves for His dispensations to be acted upon just as He loves for His firm commands to be carried out. Based on this, the sentence is like an affirmation of what preceded it. From 'Ata', it is narrated that he asked Ibn Abbas (may both be pleased with them) how to read this verse: "(seek)" or "(follow)." He said, "Whichever you wish, but follow the first reading."
(And eat and drink) for the whole night (until the white thread becomes distinct to you), which is the first appearance of the true dawn (the horizontal dawn) that spreads on the horizon before it diffuses. Carrying it to the false dawn (the vertical dawn)—which stretches and extends like a wolf's tail—is a misunderstanding. (From the black thread) is the darkness of the end of the night that stretches along with the whiteness of dawn. "From the dawn" is an explanation of the first of the two threads, and from it, the second is made clear. He singled out the first for clarification because it is the intended [target]. It is said: it is an explanation for both of them, based on the fact that "dawn" is an expression for the sum of them both, according to the poet al-Ta'i: "The blue dawn appears before its white one." It is on the scale of saying: "until the scholar becomes distinct from the ignorant among the people." With this clarification, the two threads exit the realm of metaphor into simile, because the condition for metaphor in their view is to forget [the literal meaning] entirely and claim that the likened is the likened-to. If it were not for the contextual evidence, the clarification would scream that the meaning is "like this thread" and "like this thread," for they would not need such clarification. It is permitted that "(from)" be partitive, because what appears is a part of "the dawn," just as it is dawn, based on the fact that it is a name for the amount common to the whole and the part. As for the first "(from)," it is said to be for the beginning of the limit. The objection is that a verb governed by it would be extended or the origin of an extended thing, and its sign is that "to" or what conveys the same meaning would be good in its place, and "from" here is not like that. Thus, the apparent meaning is that it is related to "(becomes distinct)" by incorporating the meaning of "differentiation." The meaning is: until the dawn becomes clear to you, distinguished from the darkness of the night. The limit is the permission of what preceded: "(until) one of them becomes distinct from the other and is distinguished." From this arises the reason for not being satisfied with "until the dawn becomes distinct to you" or "until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the dawn," because the distinctness of the dawn has many levels, so the ruling would become ambiguous and in need of clarification.
What al-Bukhari, Muslim, and others narrated from Sahl ibn Sa'd (may both be pleased with them) said: "(And eat and drink)... etc., was revealed, but '(from the dawn)' was not revealed. So men, if they wanted to fast, would tie a white thread and a black thread to their legs, and would continue to eat and drink until they could distinguish between them. Then Allah—Exalted is He—revealed '(from the dawn),' so they knew that He only meant the night and the day." It does not contain a text saying that the verse before was in need of clarification such that the intent could not be understood without it, nor that delaying the clarification from the time of need is permitted, for it is possible that the two threads were well-known in their intended meaning, except that the clarification was made explicit because it became confused to some. This is supported by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) described the one who did not understand the intent of the verse before the clarification as "dull-witted." If the matter were dependent on the clarification, the intelligent and the dull-witted would be equal in it. Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah, Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and a group narrated from 'Adi ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "When this verse was revealed, I took two strings, one black and the other white, and placed them under my pillow. I kept looking at them, but the white was not distinct to me from the black. In the morning, I went to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and told him what I had done. He said, 'Your pillow is truly wide! It is only the whiteness of the day and the blackness of the night.'" In another narration: "You are indeed wide-necked." It is said that the revelation of the verse was before the entry of Ramadan, and it was ambiguous, and the clarification was necessary, except that it was delayed from the time of the address, not from the time of need, which does not harm. Abu Hayyan said: "This is from the category of abrogation; do you not see that the Companions acted according to the apparent meaning indicated by the wording, then it became metaphorical through the clarification?" This is countered by the fact that abrogation occurs through an independent speech, and such abrogation is not known. In these commands is evidence for the permissibility of abrogating the Sunnah with the Quran, or rather its occurrence, based on the saying that the abrogated ruling of the prohibition of intercourse, eating, and drinking was established by the Sunnah, and there is nothing in the Quran indicating it. "(It has been made permissible)" also indicates this, but it was abrogated without a replacement, and that is a matter of disagreement.
The verse is used as evidence for the validity of the fast of one who is in a state of janabah (major ritual impurity), because from the permissibility of relations until the dawn becomes distinct, it follows that it is permissible in the last part of the night connected to the morning. If it occurs thus, the person wakes up in a state of janabah. If his fast were not valid, the relations would not be permissible, because janabah is necessitated by it, and the nullifier of a necessity is a nullifier of that which is necessitated. It is not an objection to say that the emission of semen after morning through relations occurring before it [invalidates the fast], because it only invalidates the fast by being the completion of the intercourse; thus, it is intercourse occurring in the morning, and it is not a necessity of intercourse like janabah. Some disagreed with this and prevented its validity, claiming that the limit is related to what is at the time of it, and they argued with reports that are considered authentic by the scholars of Hadith. It is also used as evidence for the permissibility of eating, for example, for someone who doubts the rising of the dawn, because He—Exalted is He—made permissible what He made permissible, limited by its becoming distinct, and there is no distinctness with doubt—contrary to Malik and Mujahid regarding [the absence of] making up the fast in this situation if it becomes clear that he ate after dawn, because he ate at a time he was permitted to. From Sa'id ibn Mansur is the like, and it is not supported. The four Imams (may Allah be pleased with them) hold that the beginning of the legal day is the rising of the dawn, so it is not permitted to perform any of the forbidden acts after it. Al-A'mash disagreed with this—and none follow him except the blind—claiming that its beginning is the rising of the sun, like the customary day, and he permitted the performance of forbidden acts after the rising of the dawn. The Imamiya also did this, interpreting "(from the dawn)" as partitive, intending the last part of it. What drove him to this is the report: "The prayer of the day is silent, and the dawn prayer is not." So it is in the night. Some supported him by saying that the mixing of darkness with light, just as it did not prevent [the ruling of] it being night after sunset, should not prevent it before its rising; the equality of the two ends of a thing is something praised in wisdom, and to the beginning, the return shall be. The objection is that "day" in the Hadith, after conceding its authenticity, could be in the customary sense. If He—Exalted is He—had intended it in this ruling, He would have said: "Eat and drink until the day." Then, "(Complete the fast until the night)"—even though it is more concise and more suitable than what was resorted to. Since He did not do so, it is understood that the command is tied to the dawn, not the rising of the sun, whether that is considered day or not. What was mentioned about the praise of the equality of the two ends of a thing, while they are things that neither nourish nor satisfy hunger, can be countered in this chapter by saying that making the beginning of the day like the beginning of the night—while they are opposites—is evidence of the greatness of the power of the Wise Creator.
"Until the night" is the limit for the completion. It is permitted that it be a state of the fast, so it is related to an implied [verb]. It is not permitted to make it a limit for the obligation due to its lack of extension. Based on both estimations, the verse indicates the negation of the night being a time for fasting and that the fasting of two days should not be a single fast. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) derived from it the prohibition of wisal (continuous fasting without breaking), as it is said. Ahmad narrated from the path of Layla, the wife of Bashir ibn al-Khasasiyah, that she said: "I wanted to fast two days continuously, but Bashir forbade me and said: 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade it and said: The Christians do that. But fast as Allah has commanded you: (And complete the fast until the night).' So when it is night, break your fast." The verse does not indicate that it is not permissible to fast until the breaking of the fast is entered, contrary to the claim of its proponent. Yes, it is used as evidence for the validity of the intention for Ramadan during the day. The explanation of that is that His saying: "(Then complete the fast)..." is linked to His saying: "(have relations with them)" until His saying—Exalted is He—: "(until it becomes distinct)." The word "then" is for delay and sequence with a span of time. The al- in "(the fast)" is for reference, as is the origin. So the implication of "(Then complete the fast)..." is the command to complete the referenced fast, meaning the withholding indicated by the limit, whether it is interpreted as performing it complete or making it so, delayed after the aforementioned matters which end with the rising of the dawn, to confirm the meaning of "then." Thus, the intention for the fast became [valid] after the passing of a part of the dawn, because the intention for the act only binds us when the address is directed, and it is directed to the completion after the dawn, because it is after the part that is the limit for the end of the night for the meaning of delay. And the night only ends when connected to a part of the dawn. So the intention is after the passing of the part of the dawn by which the night was interrupted and in which the withholding indicated by the limit was achieved. If it is said: "If that were so, the obligation of intention after the passing [of the part] would be necessary," the answer is that this is abandoned by consensus, and that acting upon two proofs—even if in one aspect—is better than neglecting one of them. If we were to say the intention is obligatory then, acting upon the verse, we would invalidate the action according to the Hadith: "There is no fast for whoever does not intend the fast from the night." If we were to say the intention is required before it, acting upon the Hadith, we would invalidate the action according to the verse. So we say it is permissible, acting upon both. If it is said: "The implication of the verse, based on what was mentioned, is obligation, and the solitary report does not oppose it," the answer is that its apparent meaning is left by consensus, so it does not remain definitive. Thus, it is possible that the report is a clarification of it. Some of our companions have another way of formulating the argument, and perhaps what we mentioned is less burdensome, so reflect upon it.
Some of the Shafi'is claimed that the verse indicates the obligation of tabyit (making the intention at night), because the meaning of "(Then complete the fast)" is: make it complete after the dawn bursts, and that necessitates starting it before it, and that is only by intention, as there is no obligation to withhold before that. It is not hidden what is in that.
(And do not have relations with them while you are observing i'tikaf in the mosques), meaning while you are secluded in them. I'tikaf in the language is confinement and adherence absolutely, from which is his saying: "The daughters of the night spent the night around me, confined... weeping around them, the fallen one." In the Shari'ah, it is a specific stay. The prohibition is linked to the first of the commands, and the relation in it is like the relation in it [during the night]. It was previously mentioned that the intent is intercourse, but it followed from the permissibility of intercourse the permissibility of touching, kissing, and others—unlike the prohibition, for the prohibition of intercourse does not entail the prohibition of them [touching, etc.]. So they are either permissible by agreement, provided they are without desire, or forbidden if they are with it, invalidating the i'tikaf unless ejaculation occurs. Most of the companions of al-Shafi'i authenticated the invalidation. It is said: the intent of mubasharah is the meeting of two skins, so the verse prevents absolute mubasharah, but this is nothing. For 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) used to comb the hair of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) while he was in i'tikaf. In limiting i'tikaf to mosques is evidence that it is not valid except in the mosque; if it were permitted legally in other than it, it would be permitted in the house, which is false by consensus. It is specific to the congregational mosque according to al-Zuhri. It is narrated from Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) that it is specific to a mosque that has a regular Imam and Muezzin. Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "It is specific to the three mosques." From Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) it is not allowed except in the Sacred Mosque. From Ibn al-Musayyib: it is not allowed except in it or in the Prophet's Mosque. The school of al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) is that it is valid in all mosques absolutely, based on the generality of the wording and the non-consideration that the absolute is directed to the complete. The verse is used as evidence for the validity of a woman's i'tikaf in a mosque, based on the fact that she is not included in the address to men, and on the condition of fasting for i'tikaf, because he shortened the address to the fasting ones; if fasting were not one of its conditions, there would be no meaning to that. This is what is narrated from Nafi', the freed slave of Ibn 'Umar, and 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with them). And [also evidence] that not less than a day is sufficient for it, just as fasting is not otherwise. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) does not condition a day or fasting, based on what al-Daraqutni and al-Hakim narrated—and authenticated—from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "There is no fasting required of the one in i'tikaf unless he makes it binding upon himself." The like of it is from Ibn Mas'ud. From Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) are two narrations, both narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah from two paths; one is of the conditioning, and the second is the absence of it. And [it is used as evidence] that if the one in i'tikaf leaves the mosque and has relations outside, it is permitted, because he restricted the prohibition of relations to when he is in it. The answer is that the meaning is "Do not have relations with them" at the time when it is said to you: "You are (observing i'tikaf in the mosques)." Anyone who leaves the mosque to fulfill a need, his i'tikaf remains. This is supported by what is narrated from Qatadah: "A man would be in i'tikaf, then go out to his wife and have relations with her, then return, so they were forbidden from that." It is also used as evidence that intercourse invalidates i'tikaf, because the prohibition is for forbidding, and in acts of worship, it necessitates invalidity. The objection is that what is forbidden here is relations while in i'tikaf, and that [act] is not of the acts of worship. Do not say: "If a forbidden matter occurs in an act of worship, such as intercourse in i'tikaf, that act of worship is forbidden in view of its including the forbidden act and its accompanying it," for it is said: there is a difference between a thing being forbidden in view of what accompanies it, and the accompaniment being forbidden in that thing. The discussion in the first [point] is what we are in, which is of the category of the second.
(These), meaning the six mentioned rulings containing obligation, prohibition, and permission, (are the boundaries of Allah), meaning they are the barrier between right and wrong. (So do not approach them), so that falsehood does not draw near. The prohibition from approaching those boundaries, which are the rulings, is a metonymy for the prohibition from approaching falsehood, because the first is a necessity of the second, and this is more eloquent than "Do not transgress them," because he forbade approaching falsehood by way of metonymy, which is more eloquent than explicit statement, and that forbade falling into falsehood by way of explicit statement. On this basis, "Do not approach them" in those rulings, with them including what you heard, does not pose a problem, nor does the occurrence of "Do not transgress them" in another verse, for the combination has been achieved and "Do not approach them" is valid for all. It is said: it is permitted that "(boundaries of Allah)"—Exalted is He—refer to His prohibitions and limits, either because the previous commands entail the prohibitions, as they are limited by the limit, or because the reference is to His saying—Exalted is He—: "(And do not have relations with them)" and its like. Abu Muslim said: the meaning of "(Do not approach them)" is: do not expose them to change, like His saying: "(Do not approach the orphan's wealth)." Thus, it includes all rulings. It is not hidden what is in the two views of forcing. The saying that "these" is a pointer to the rulings, and "the boundary" is either in the sense of prevention or in the sense of a barrier between two things: in the first, the meaning is that those rulings are the prohibitions of Allah—Exalted is He—against others; it is not for another to rule with something, (so do not approach them), meaning do not judge upon yourselves or His servants from yourselves with anything, for judgment belongs to Allah—Exalted is He. In the second, he intends that those rulings are boundaries acting as a barrier between divinity and servitude; the God judges, and the servants comply. So do not approach the rulings lest you be polytheists to Allah—Exalted is He. It is something a wise person would not likely be presented with and then approve of, and it is stages away from the intent, as is not hidden.
Likewise—meaning like that clarification which occurred in the rulings of fasting—Allah clarifies His signs, either absolutely, or the signs indicating the rest of the rulings which He has legislated for people, so that they may be righteous in opposing His commands and prohibitions. The sentence is a parenthetical one between the linked and the linking, to confirm the previous rulings and encourage their implementation, as they were legislated for the sake of your righteousness. Since He—Exalted is He—mentioned fasting and what is in it, He followed it with the prohibition of forbidden eating that leads to the non-acceptance of his worship—of his fasting and his i'tikaf—so He said: <<...>>
