Al-Baqarah: (221) "And do not marry polytheistic women..."
(And do not marry polytheistic women until they believe.) Al-Wahidi and others narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent a man from [the tribe of] Ghani, called Marthad bin Abi Marthad—a confederate of Banu Hashim—to Makkah to extract some Muslims who were being held captive there. When he arrived, a woman named 'Anaq—who had been his lover during the Jahiliyyah—heard of him. When he became a Muslim, he distanced himself from her. She came to him and said, "Woe to you, O Marthad! Will you not spend the night with me?" He replied, "Islam has come between me and you, and it has forbidden that to us. But if you wish, I will marry you." She said, "Yes." He then said, "When I return to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), I will ask his permission for that, and then I will marry you." She said, "You are stalling me!" Then she called for help against him, and they beat him severely before letting him go. When he fulfilled his need in Makkah, he returned to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and informed him of what had happened to him and 'Anaq, and what he had encountered because of her. He said, "O Messenger of Allah, is it permissible for me to marry her?" (In another narration, "She pleases me.") Then this verse was revealed. Al-Suyuti commented that this is not the cause for the revelation of this verse; rather, it is the cause for the revelation of the verse in [Surah] An-Nur: "The adulterer does not marry [anyone] except an adulteress or a polytheist."
Al-Suddi narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that this was revealed regarding Abdullah bin Rawahah. He had a black slave girl, and he became angry with her and slapped her. He then became terrified and went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and told him her story. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him, "Who is she, O Abdullah?" He replied, "She is a Muslim, O Messenger of Allah! She fasts, prays, performs ablution well, and testifies that there is no god but Allah and that you are His Messenger." The Prophet said, "O Abdullah, she is a believer." Abdullah said, "By the One who sent you with the truth as a prophet, I will free her and marry her." He did so. Some of the Muslims criticized him, saying, "He married a slave girl!" They wanted to marry into the polytheists and marry them off [to their own], desiring their lineage. Thus, Allah the Exalted revealed: (And do not marry...) the verse.
It is recited with both the ta opened (fatha) and the ta closed (damma); the latter is narrated from al-A’mash. [The meaning is:] Do not marry them, or do not let them marry [those] among the Muslims. Many scholars of knowledge took "polytheistic women" to mean those other than the People of the Scripture, so marriage to women of the People of the Scripture is permissible in their view, because Allah the Exalted says: "Those who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists," and "Neither those who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture nor the polytheists." Conjunction implies distinction.
Ibn Humayd narrated from Qatadah that what is meant by "polytheistic women" are the polytheist women of the Arabs who have no scripture. Regarding Hammad, he said: I asked Ibrahim about marrying a Jewish or Christian woman, and he said: "There is no harm in it." I said: "Does Allah the Exalted not say: 'And do not marry polytheistic women'?" He said: "That refers only to the Magians and the idolaters."
Some maintained that it encompasses the People of the Scripture. It is said: because whoever denies the prophethood of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has denied his miracle and attributed it to other than the Exalted; and this is polytheism itself. Also, because polytheism occurred in contrast to faith later in the verse, and because He, the Exalted, applied [the term] polytheism to the People of the Scripture: "The Jews said, 'Ezra is the son of Allah,' and the Christians said, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah'..." until His saying, the Almighty: "...from what they associate [with Him]." Al-Bukhari and al-Nahhas in his Nasikh (Abrogating/Abrogated) narrated from Nafi' from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) that when he was asked about a man marrying a Christian or Jewish woman, he said: "Allah the Exalted has forbidden polytheistic women to the Muslims, and I do not know of any greater shirk (polytheism) than for a woman to say that her Lord is Jesus or a servant among the servants of Allah the Exalted." The Imamiyyah and some of the Zaydiyyah held this view, considering the verse of [Surah] Al-Ma'idah ("And [lawful for you are] chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture") to be abrogated by this verse—the abrogation of the specific by the general.
Even if that [Ma'idah] was revealed later, it is considered earlier in revelation, and the consensus that nothing from Surah al-Ma'idah was abrogated is refuted. In al-Itqan, it is stated: "From al-Ma'idah is His saying: '...nor the sacred month'—abrogated by the permission to fight during it; and His saying: '...if they come to you, judge between them or turn away from them'—abrogated by His saying, the Almighty: '...and judge between them by what Allah has revealed'; and His saying: '...and two others from outside'—abrogated by His saying, the Exalted: '...and bring to witness two just men from among you'." The well-known view upon which practice is based is that this verse [2:221] has been abrogated by what is in al-Ma'idah, according to what the apparent [meaning] necessitates. Abu Dawood narrated in his Nasikh from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that he said regarding (And do not marry polytheistic women): "This was abrogated, and the marriage to women of the People of the Scripture was made lawful for the Muslims, while the Muslim women were forbidden to their men." Al-Hasan and Mujahid said the same. This is what the Hanafis and Shafi'is went to; they argue for specification rather than abrogation. The basis of the disagreement is that restricting the general with an independent statement is "specification" according to Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him), and "abrogation" according to us.
(And a believing slave girl is better than a polytheist woman) is a justification for the prohibition and an encouragement to pursue believing women, initiated with the "lam of inception," which is similar to the "lam of the oath" in conveying emphasis, [used] as an exaggeration to compel one to refrain. The root of amah (slave girl) is amaw; its lam was deleted in an irregular fashion and replaced by the feminine ha. That its lam is a waw is proven by its return in the plural, as in the saying: "As for the slave girls, they do not call me 'son' when the tribe of the Amaw calls out with shame." It also appears in the verbal noun; it is said: "She is a slave girl, and her amuwwah (servitude) is evident," and "She confessed to him her amuwwah."
Whether its weight is fa'lah (with a quiescent 'ayn) or fa'lah (with a fathah 'ayn) are two views; the majority chose the latter. It is pluralized as awwah, which is less common in usage than ima'. Its root is a'amuw, with two hamzahs: the first is an added, opened hamzah, and the second is quiescent, acting as the fa of the word. The waw fell as the final letter with a vowel preceding it in a declinable noun, which has no parallel, so it was changed to a ya, and the damma preceding it became a kasra to make the ya valid. Thus, the noun became in the category of ghazin (invader) and qadin (judge). Then the second hamzah was established as an alif because of its quiescence after another opened hamzah, becoming a'am. Its declension is like qadin. It is apparent that what is meant by amah is the opposite of a free woman, and the cause of revelation supports this, for it is the criticism of the one who married the slave girl and the encouragement to marry a free polytheist woman. The verse grants superiority to the believing slave girl over the polytheist woman absolutely, even if she is a free woman; and from this, the superiority of the free [believing] woman over her [the slave] is known by way of priority.
Furthermore, the superiority necessitates that there is "goodness" in the polytheist woman. Either "goodness" means worldly benefit, which is shared between them, or it is in the vein of: "The companions of Paradise, that day, are better in settlement." It is said: The intent of amah is "servant," whether free or owned, for all people are servants of Allah and His maidservants. It should not be confined to the bonded woman, because the described noun in "polytheist woman" must be estimated; if amah is estimated by the context, it does not convey the superiority of the believing slave girl over the polytheist free woman. And if "free woman" or "woman" is estimated, it is contrary to the apparent meaning. What is mentioned in the cause of revelation is marriage to a slave girl after her manumission, and an "slave girl" after manumission is a free woman; she is not called "slave girl" except by the metaphor of what she was. The truth is that "slave girl" means the bonded one, as is commonly understood, and the estimated described noun for "polytheist" is general. Even if being contrary to the apparent is conceded, it is a mutual obligation. Perhaps committing to this at the end is easier than doing so at first, as it is in the category of "taking off one's sandals before reaching the water." What is in the cause of revelation is supporting evidence, not a definitive proof. It has been said about it: "Indeed, Abdullah married a slave girl," whether in truth or in falsehood.
Thus, the meaning: (And a believing slave girl)—with all her lowly status of servitude and lack of social standing—(is better) than one who is characterized by polytheism, despite the honor of freedom and high status she possesses—(even if she pleases you) by her beauty, wealth, and all that causes desire for her. Sa'id bin Mansur and Ibn Majah narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: "Do not marry women for their beauty, for their beauty might cause them to fall, and do not marry them for their wealth, for their wealth might make them transgress; but marry them for [their] religion. A black, slave girl with a chipped ear who is religious is better." And the Two Sheikhs [Bukhari and Muslim] narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: "A woman is married for four: for her wealth, for her lineage, for her beauty, and for her religion; so win the one with religion, may your hands be dusted [with poverty, if you do not]."
The waw is for the state (hal), and law (even if) is merely for the sake of the assumption, devoid of the meaning of a condition, and therefore it does not need a consequence (apodosis); the estimation is "even if you assume her beauty and the like." Al-Jurmi said: "The waw is for conjunction to an estimated [preceding part]," meaning "they did not please you, (even if they pleased you)." The apodosis of the condition is deleted, indicated by the previous sentence. Al-Radi said: "It is an intercalary sentence that occurs in the middle and at the end of speech." In all cases, the judgment is established in the opposite of the condition by way of priority, so that it is established in all cases. Some cited the verse as evidence for the permissibility of marrying a believing slave girl even when one has the means for a free woman. Al-Kiya objected to this by saying that there is no mention of marrying slave girls in the verse; rather, it is to disparage the marriage of a polytheist free woman, because the Arabs, by their nature, were averse to marrying slave girls. So it was said to them: "If you are averse to a slave girl, then the polytheist [woman] is more deserving [of being avoided]." There is contemplation in this. In al-Bahr, it is stated that the concept of the adjective necessitates that it is not permissible to marry a polytheist slave girl, whether she is a Scripture-bearer or otherwise. As for having intercourse with her through ownership (milk al-yamin), it is permissible absolutely.
(And do not marry [your women] to polytheist men until they believe) means: Do not marry off the female believers to the disbelievers, whether the disbeliever is a Scripture-bearer or otherwise, and whether the female believer is a slave or a free woman. Thus, tunkihu is with the ta damma only; it cannot be [read with] a fatha, otherwise it would be mandatory: "And they should not marry [themselves] to the polytheists." This is used as evidence for the necessity of the guardian (wali) in marriage absolutely, which is contrary to our school of thought. There is obscurity in the verse's indication of that, for the intent is a prohibition against causing this act to occur and facilitating it, and all Muslims are guardians in that regard.
(And a believing slave is better than a polytheist)—with all the humiliation of servitude—(even if he pleases you) with the inducements of desire that he possesses. (Those)—that is, those mentioned among the polytheist men and women—(invite to the Fire), meaning disbelief, which leads to it, either through speech or through love and interaction. Therefore, marrying them is not befitting. If it is said: "Just as the disbelievers invite the believers to the Fire, likewise the believers invite them to Paradise by one of two ways," it is answered that the purpose of the verse is that the believer must be cautious of what harms him in the Hereafter and must not hover around that sanctuary, and should avoid what has potential [for harm], especially since the self and Satan cooperate on what leads to the Fire, and the habits of the Jahiliyyah have accustomed [people] to that. Some researchers said this. The sentence, etc., is a justification for the superiority of the believing men and women over the polytheist men and women.
(And Allah invites)—through the believers—to those who are close to them, (to Paradise and to forgiveness), meaning to the true faith and righteous action that lead to them. The priority given to "Paradise" over "forgiveness," despite the saying that "clearing [of obstacles] is more befitting to be presented before adornment," is to observe the correspondence to "the Fire" initially. (By His permission) is connected to "invites," meaning: He invites to that while encompassed by His success (tawfiq), among which is guiding the believers to those close to them toward goodness; so they are the most entitled to association. (And He makes clear His verses to the people that perhaps they may remember)—so that they may take heed or recall their knowledge, based on the fact that the knowledge of Allah the Exalted is rooted in the minds. The sentence is a suffix to the counsel and guidance. The waw is either intercalary or conjunctive. The previous verse was separated with "they might reflect" because it was for the explanation of rulings, benefits, and interests, and the desire for them, which is the place for the mind's exercise, and the clarification is for the believers, so reflection was appropriate. This verse [ends] with "they might remember," because it is a suffix to the news of the invitation to "Paradise" and "the Fire," which there is no way to know except through revelation and clarification for all people, so remembrance was appropriate.
And of the people, some estimated an added noun in the verse, meaning: "The party of Allah or His allies, and they are the believers." Thus, the added noun was deleted, and the possessor of the addition was placed in its position as an honor to them. It was objected that the pronoun in the conjunction to the predicate is for Allah the Exalted, so dissociation follows without a reason for that. It was answered that the reason is that this sentence is a justification for the previous superiority, and the justification does not appear without the estimation; likewise, the appropriateness of His saying, the Exalted: "By His permission" does not appear without that. For if His invitation, the Exalted, is restricted by "by His permission," there is not much benefit in that case, regardless of how the "permission" is interpreted. The matter of dissociation is easy, because after establishing the possessor of the addition in place of the addition for honor, by making the action of the first the action of the second in form, the pronouns correspond, as in [al-Kashshaf]. And what is in it is not hidden. On all accounts, this is better than what was said: "The intent is 'And Allah invites' on the tongue of His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to that, so responding to him is mandatory by marrying His allies." Because, even if it requires the unity of the referent in the two conjoined sentences that act as the predicate, the justification and the beauty of the correspondence between it and "(Those) invite to the Fire" are lost, as is the subtlety of the restriction, as is not hidden.
