Tafsir of Al-Mu'minoon 23:5-6

This is a description of them regarding chastity. Although the description of them as turning away from vain talk [mentioned previously] might seem to entail their description as having the essence of chastity, this was brought forward to show concern for its importance. It may also be said that while what preceded entailed the essence of chastity, this was introduced to signal that their appetitive force invites them to that which is not hidden, yet they are guarding it against fulfilling its demands, and thereby complete chastity is realized.

The lam (in li-furujihim) is for reinforcement, as passed in its counterpart. 'Ala (in 'ala azwajihim) is connected to "guarding" (hafizun) because it implies the meaning of "refraining upon," according to the view chosen by Abu Hayyan; for "refraining" (imsak) is connected by 'ala, as in the saying of the Exalted: "Retain (amsik) your wife for you ('alayk)." A group held that one must consider the sense of negation implied by "retaining" to validate the exception (as in istithna' mufarragh). It is as if it were said: "They guard their private parts; they do not release them upon anyone except their wives." Others said: This is not necessary, as universality is valid here, so the exception is valid in an affirmative sentence. In al-Kashshaf, the view is that the verse is like the expression "I guarded his wealth for the boy," meaning I kept it restricted to him and did not let it exceed him. The origin is "They guard their private parts upon (restricted to) the wives and do not exceed them," then it was said "not guarding except upon the wives" as an emphasis upon emphasis. According to this, the inclusion of the meaning of negation mentioned by al-Zamakhshari stems from the context and the requirement of the istithna' mufarragh, not from the meaning of prevention and restraint inherent in "guarding," because the particle of elevation ('ala) prevents that. End quote.

However, there is much to be said regarding this. How could the particle of elevation be considered a preventive of that, when the fact that "restraint" (imsak) is connected by it is a common matter?

Al-Farra, followed by Ibn Malik and others, said that 'ala here is in the sense of min (from)—i.e., "except from their wives"—just as min is in the sense of 'ala in the saying of the Exalted: "And we helped them against (min) the people," meaning 'ala (against) the people.

It is also said that it is connected to an elided word serving as a state (hal) for the pronoun in hafizun, and the exception is mufarragh from the most general of states; meaning: they guard their private parts in all states, except the state of their being masters and maintainers of their wives, from the expression "So-and-so was over ('ala) such-and-such a woman," and he died having her as a widow, and from this is their saying "Such-and-such woman is under (taht) so-and-so," and that is why a woman is called a "bed" (firash).

Or, it is connected to an elided word indicated by "they are not blameworthy" (ghayru malumin), as if it were said: "They are blamed, except regarding their wives"—meaning they are blamed for every act of intercourse except that which is permitted for them, for which they are not blameworthy. Both these views were mentioned by al-Zamakhshari. It has been objected that both are forced and appear non-Arabic. Against the latter, it was argued that establishing blame upon them in the midst of praise is inappropriate, nor is such blame specific to them. The fact that this is based on the assumption of their disobedience—like the saying of the Exalted "Whoever seeks beyond that..."—does not dispel this as it might be imagined.

It is not permissible to connect it to the word "blamed" mentioned afterwards, because Abu al-Baqa' said that what comes after an cannot act upon what precedes it, and the mudaf ilayh (genitive possessor) cannot act upon what precedes it.

"Those their right hands possess" means bondwomen (surriyat). The restriction to this is due to the consensus on the prohibition of a male slave. They are expressed with ma (which is for non-rational beings) either because they resemble merchandise in being bought and sold, or because their femininity—which indicates a deficiency in their intellects—places them in the category of non-rational beings. This is the case if they are from the Circassians, the Romans, or their like. So how is it if they are from the Zanj, the Habash, or the rest of the Sudanese? By my life, in that case, if they are not of the species of beasts, then the species of beasts is not far from them!

The verse is specific to men, for concubinage is for women only by consensus. It is narrated from Qatada that a woman took a slave as a concubine, and it was mentioned to Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). He asked her, "What drove you to this?" She said, "I thought that what is lawful for men regarding the right hand is lawful for me." Umar consulted the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) regarding her, and they said: "She interpreted the Book of Allah against its proper interpretation." So Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "By Allah, I will never make you lawful for a free man after this." It is as if he punished her for that, averted the legal punishment (hadd) from her, and ordered that the slave not approach her. If a woman were married to a slave and then owned him and set him free while in a state of ownership, the marriage would be dissolved according to the jurists of the urban centers. Al-Nakha’i, al-Sha’bi, and Ubayd Allah ibn Abd Allah ibn Utba said: They remain in their marriage.

There is disagreement regarding combining two sisters from those the right hand possesses, and between a bondwoman and her paternal or maternal aunt, according to what is in al-Bahr. Al-Adami mentioned in al-Ahkam that Ali (may Allah's face be honored) argued for the permissibility of combining two sisters in ownership by the saying of the Exalted: "Or those your right hands possess."