Tafsir of Al-Mu'minoon 23:7

"But whoever seeks beyond that" (meaning what has been mentioned of the expansive boundary, which is four free women and whatever [bondmaids] his right hand possesses). The noun wara’a (beyond) is in the accusative case as the object of ibtagha (seeks); meaning, seeking other than that. This is the view adopted by Abu Hayyan. Some verifiers have said: Wara’a is a locative noun (adverb) that is not fit to be a direct object; rather, it occupies the place of the direct object. For this reason, al-Zamakhshari said: "That is, whoever innovates seeking other than that, then those are the transgressors" (those complete in transgression, reaching its limit, as is indicated by the definite article al- and the placement of the pronoun between them, which serves to establish them as the genus of the transgressors, or all of them). The verse observes both the wording of man (whoever) and its meaning. Included in "beyond that" are fornication (zina), sodomy (liwat), and intercourse with animals. This is a matter upon which there is no disagreement.

There is disagreement regarding intercourse with a bondmaid who has been made lawful for him to have intercourse with. The majority said: It is also included in "beyond that," and is therefore prohibited. This is the view of al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin, and it has been narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both of them). Ibn Abi Shaybah and Abd al-Razzaq recorded that he was asked about a woman who made her bondmaid lawful for her husband, and he replied: "It is not lawful for you to have intercourse with a private part—meaning other than your wife’s private part—except for a private part that you own; if you wish, you sell, if you wish, you gift, and if you wish, you manumit."

Conversely, it is reported from Ibn Abbas that it is not included [in the prohibition], and thus it is not forbidden. Abd al-Razzaq recorded that he (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "If a man’s wife, or his daughter, or his sister makes her bondmaid lawful for him, he may have relations with her while she is hers." This is also the view of Tawus; Abd al-Razzaq recorded from him that he said: "It is more lawful than food. If she gives birth, the child belongs to the one to whom she was made lawful, and she remains with her original master." It is also recorded from ‘Ata’ that he said: "This used to be done; a man would make his bondmaid lawful for his servant, his son, his brother, and his father, and a woman for her husband. It has reached me that a man would send his bondmaid to his friend." The Shi'a adopted this view.

However, the verse is manifest in its prohibition, for it is apparent that one who is "loaned" for intercourse is neither a wife nor a slave. Likewise is the Almighty’s saying: "But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry] one or those your right hands possess." Silence in a context of explanation conveys exclusivity, especially when the context requires the mention of all that does not require justice. In the absence of an obligation for justice, the "loan" is the furthest from all [types of intimacy], as it entails no obligation other than enjoying the owner's possession of a private part. Similarly, the Almighty’s saying: "And whoever among you cannot afford to marry free, believing women, then [let him marry] from those your right hands possess... that is for those among you who fear sin, but to be patient is better for you." If "loaned" [women] were permissible, there would be no fear of sin, and the necessity to marry bondmaids or to be patient in refraining from marrying them would not exist. Similar to this is His saying: "And let those who find not [the means for] marriage abstain until Allah enriches them from His bounty." If the "loan" were permissible, those who find not the means for marriage would not have been commanded to abstain. Perhaps the aforementioned report from Ibn Abbas is not authentic.

There is also a disagreement regarding Mut'ah (temporary marriage). The Shi'a went to the extent of permitting it. They are refuted by the aforementioned verses, which are clear in prohibiting the "loan," and by what Abd al-Razzaq and Abu Dawood in his Nasikh recorded from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, who, when asked about Mut'ah, said: "It is prohibited in the Book of Allah," and he recited: "And those who guard their private parts," [to the end of the] verse. He established the manner of the verse’s indication of that: the one enjoyed temporarily is neither a mulk al-yamin (a possession) nor a wife, therefore she must not be lawful to him. That she is not mulk al-yamin is manifest; as for her not being a wife, it is because they do not inherit from one another by consensus. If she were a wife, inheritance would occur according to the Almighty’s saying: "And for you is half of what your wives leave."

Al-Kashf refuted this by stating that they could argue: "She is a wife whom death reveals to be divorced just before it occurs, just as she is divorced by the expiration of the term, in fulfillment of the right of condition and postponement." The essence of this is the denial of the premise in the logical necessity; if the meaning is "if she were a wife during life," it is not useful, and if the meaning is "after death," then the necessity is denied. If it is said: "She is not divorced by death like a permanent marriage," the answer is that this is an analogy regarding the very thing in which the two marriages differ, which is invalid by consensus.

This was refuted by al-Islam—due to the obscurity of its meaning to him—by saying that the bifurcation has no established meaning. If he had said: "If the intent is 'if she were a wife during life,' the necessity is denied, and if the intent is 'after death,' it is useless," there would be some merit to it. In refuting the argument, he said: "They can argue that she is a wife in a general sense, and as for the claim that every wife inherits, they do not concede that." Some said: The truth is that the verse is proof against the Shi'a, for the manifest nature of their own speech is that she is not a wife at all, as they negate from her all the requirements of marriage: the waiting period ('iddah), divorce, ila', zihar, the attainment of ihsan (chastity), the possibility of li'an (oaths of condemnation), maintenance, clothing, and inheritance. They permit collecting as many as one wishes through Mut'ah. There is no doubt that negating the consequence is proof against the antecedent. This was refuted by noting that this would be true if it were conceded that they negate all the requirements, but that is not conceded. Negating some requirements is not sufficient to refute them if they argue: "Marriage is of two types: complete and incomplete," as by negating that part, only the first type is negated, which does not harm them.

It was said: What the evidence dictates is that the verse is manifest in the prohibition of Mut'ah, for the one enjoyed is not called a "wife" in custom, and what is the secret behind the legality of marriage—procreation and the continuation of the species—is not intended by it, but merely satisfying desire and pacifying the agitation of semen. This is the fashion of establishing the argument for prohibition from the verse, whether the requirements are negated or not, as is the view of some who permit it, as we will indicate, Allah willing. Perhaps the closest to fairness is to say: Whenever the negation of the requirements—such as the attainment of ihsan, the prohibition of exceeding four, and the like—is maintained, the verse is proof of prohibition, because the primary understanding of "marriage" within it is the marriage that these things necessitate. This is sufficient for arguing such a secondary requirement. When the requirements are not negated and no distinction is made between it and a permanent marriage except for the time limit, the verse is not proof of prohibition.

Here, there is an inquiry I have not seen anyone address: it is mentioned in the Sahihayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibited Mut'ah on the day of Khaybar, and in Sahih Muslim that he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibited it on the day of the Conquest [of Mecca]. Ibn al-Humam reconciled this by stating it was prohibited twice: once at Khaybar and once at the Conquest. This requires that it was lawful before these two days. You have heard just now what indicates that this verse is Meccan by consensus. If it is indicative of prohibition, as you heard from al-Qasim ibn Muhammad—and similar was narrated by Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and al-Hakim, who authenticated it from ‘A’isha (may Allah be pleased with her)—it follows that it was prohibited in Mecca on the day the verse was revealed, which is before these two days; thus it would have been prohibited three times. I have not seen anyone state this explicitly.

If we commit to this, another matter remains: the incompleteness of using it alone as proof for the prohibition of Mut'ah for those who know that it was made lawful after its revelation, as is not hidden. One should not say: "People have three conventions regarding Meccan and Medinan surahs." First: The Meccan is what was revealed before the migration, and the Medinan is what was revealed after it, regardless of whether it was revealed in Medina, Mecca on the day of the Conquest, the Farewell Pilgrimage, or during travels. Second: The Meccan is what was revealed in Mecca, even after the migration, and the Medinan is what was revealed in Medina; in this, there is an intermediary category, so what was revealed during travels is labeled neither Meccan nor Medinan. Third: The Meccan is what was addressed to the people of Mecca, and the Medinan is what was addressed to the people of Medina.

In this case, it is possible that this verse is Meccan by the second convention, and was revealed on the day of the Conquest when Mut'ah was prohibited the second time. The prohibition would only be twice, and the argument of those Companions, Successors, and others who used it for prohibition, even if they knew Mut'ah was made lawful after the migration in some battles, would be beyond reproach. If this convention is applied to the Meccan status of the entire surah upon which there is consensus, you heard from al-Bahr that the difficulty of assuming Zakat refers to the legal Zakat despite its obligation in Medina is resolved by saying: "The beginning of the surah was revealed after the obligation of Zakat in Medina, on the day of the Conquest in Mecca." For we say: There is no doubt that the verse could be Meccan by the second convention and revealed on the day of the Conquest. Likewise, it is possible that the whole surah or most of it is Meccan by that convention, and everything built upon that is correct based on it. However, the primary meaning of Meccan and Medinan is the first convention, as it is the most famous of the three, as stated by al-Jalal al-Suyuti in al-Itqan.

Thus, the apparent meaning of their saying that this surah is Meccan is that it was revealed before the migration. Indeed, the aforementioned al-Jalal explicitly stated that—except for what he exempted from it, which you heard—it is Meccan according to the first convention, not the second. Someone like him would not be certain of that except based on evidence. What was mentioned is merely a conjecture of a matter that explicit transmission does not support; rather, the explicit is contrary to it, and that is the authority in our current subject.

Al-Qadi Abu Bakr said in al-Intisar: "One should only return to the memorization of the Companions and Successors in knowing what is Meccan and Medinan." The fact that they might be known by analogy, as mentioned by al-Ja'bari and others, is worthless since it is of no benefit. Yes, if the argument of a Companion or Successor—who is aware of the permissibility of Mut'ah after the migration—is taken as a statement of its exemption from its peers among the verses of the surah, and a ruling that it was revealed after the migration unlike the others, then the matter is clear. You will also see, Allah willing, what necessitates the exemption of other things. In short, when it is said that the standard in such places is explicit transmission, it becomes necessary to say that the verse is Meccan in the sense that it was revealed before the migration, and using it as an argument for the prohibition of Mut'ah after its being made lawful after the migration becomes difficult, because the evidence for its lawfulness specifies its generality. The school of the Four Imams is that it is permissible to specify the generality of the Quran by the Sunnah absolutely, and this is the chosen view. In that case, there is a need for evidence other than it for the prohibition. Once that evidence is established, the verse becomes further evidence with its assistance. This evidence is the authentic reports regarding the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibiting it, some of which have passed. In Sahih Muslim, he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "I had permitted you the Istimta' (enjoyment) of women, but Allah has prohibited that until the Day of Resurrection."

Al-Hazimi recorded with his chain to Jabir, who said: "We went out with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) on the Battle of Tabuk until, when we were at al-'Aqabah near Syria, some women came. We mentioned our temporary marriage, and they were walking in our camps. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came, looked at them, and said: 'Who are these women?' We said: 'O Messenger of Allah, women we have temporarily enjoyed.' The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) became angry until his cheeks reddened and his face changed. He stood among us delivering a sermon, praised and glorified Allah, and then prohibited Mut'ah. So on that day, we pledged, men and women, and we have never returned to it, nor will we ever." Its prohibition has also been narrated from him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and this is in Sahih Muslim. It occurred, as it is said, that there is consensus among the Companions that it is prohibited. It is established to some that Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) returned to the view of prohibition after saying it was permitted absolutely, or at the time of necessity. Ibn al-Humam argued for his return by what al-Tirmidhi narrated from him, that he said: "The Mut'ah was only in the early days of Islam; a man would come to a town, not knowing anyone there, so he would marry for as long as he thought he would stay, so she would guard his property and manage his affairs, until the verse was revealed: 'Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, then they are not blameworthy.' Ibn Abbas said: 'So every private part besides these two is prohibited.'" I do not know what he meant by "early days of Islam." If he meant what was in Mecca before the migration, the report informs that it was practiced before that until the verse was revealed. If its revelation was before the migration, there is no ambiguity in using it as an argument for prohibition, if not for the fact that there was permissibility after its revelation. But that did occur. If he meant what was after the migration in its early days, and that it was permissible then until the verse was revealed, that would be a statement that the verse was revealed after the migration, which contradicts what was narrated from him that the surah is Meccan, the primary understanding of which is the first convention. Perhaps he commits to that, and it is said: "His use of the verse as an argument is a statement of its exemption, as passed earlier." Or it is said: "This report is not authentic." This is supported by the statement of the scholar Ibn Hajar: "The story of Ibn Abbas’s return is not authentic; rather, as some have said, it is authentic from a group that they agreed with him on its permissibility, but disagreed with him, saying: 'The rulings of marriage do not follow from that.'" With this, al-Zarkashi disputed the claim of consensus and said: "The disagreement is established, even if a group claimed its negation." It is understood from this that Ibn Abbas includes the one enjoyed as a "wife," and in that case, the verse does not stand as proof against him. So reflect.

Attributing the view of the permissibility of Mut'ah to Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) is a slander against him; rather, he is like the other Imams, stating its prohibition. Indeed, it is said that in addition to the statement of prohibition, he requires the hadd (legal punishment) for the one who engages in it, while others who state its prohibition did not require it because of the ambiguity (shubhah).

Similarly, there is disagreement regarding a man masturbating with his hand, which is called al-khadkhadah and jild 'umayrah. The majority of Imams are of the opinion that it is prohibited, and in their view, it is included in "beyond that." Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to permit it because semen is waste in the body, so its removal is permissible when necessary, like bloodletting and cupping. Ibn al-Humam said: "It is prohibited, but if desire overcomes him and he does it with the intention of calming it, the hope is that he will not be punished." Some people have denied its inclusion in what was mentioned. In al-Bahr, it is said: "A discussion took place between me and the Chief Justice Abu al-Fath Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Muti' al-Qushayri ibn Daqiq al-'Id on that, and he argued against the prohibition of that using this verse." I said: "If it was revealed in the context of what the Arabs used to do of zina and boasting about it in their poetry—and that was frequent among them to the point that their prostitutes had banners, and they did not disapprove of it—whereas jild 'umayrah was not customary among them, nor did anyone mention it in poetry as far as we know, then it is not included in 'beyond that.'" You know that if it is proven that jild 'umayrah is a metonym for masturbation by hand among the Arabs, as is the appearance of the expression in al-Qamus, then the apparent meaning is that this act was present among them, even if it was not frequent and widespread like zina. Whenever it is one of the individuals of a general term, its inclusion under it does not depend on its frequency, like the rest of its individuals. In legal rulings, if it were the custom of the addressees to consume a specific food, for instance, and a general address arrived prohibiting food, such as "Food has been made prohibited to you," the majority of scholars agreed on applying the wording to its generality in prohibiting every food, in a manner that includes both the customary and the non-customary, and that custom is not considered for generalizing to prohibit the customary and not the other, contrary to Abu Hanifa (upon him be mercy). That is because the argument is in the wording that arrived, and it is inclusive of every food by its wording, and has no connection to customs; it is the ruler over customs, so customs are not rulers over it. Yes, if the custom regarding the food customarily eaten had specified the name "food" to that specific food—just as the term dabbah (animal) was specified to four-legged creatures—then the word "food" would be applied to it and not to others, due to the necessity of applying the Lawgiver’s address to the Arabs based on what is understood from their language.

The difference is that custom, in the first case, is only uniform in the habit of eating that specific food, so it is not a judge over what the generality of the word "food" necessitates. In the second case, it is uniform in specifying the name "food" to that specific food, so it is a judge over the original usage. From this, it is known that if it was the custom of the Arabs to apply "beyond that" to masturbation by hand, then it is included in the view of the majority, even if their custom was not to perform it. And if their custom was not to apply it to that, and it was to apply it to other things like zina and the like, then that act is not included in the generality according to the majority. Some people argued for its prohibition with something else, like what the shaykhs mentioned of his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The one who marries his hand is cursed." From Sa'id ibn Jubayr: "Allah will punish a nation who used to toy with their private parts." From ‘Ata’: "I heard of a people who will be resurrected with their hands pregnant, and I think they are those who masturbate with their hands." Allah knows best. The completion of the discussion on this topic is sought from its place. It is not hidden that everything included in the generality is prohibited by the verse in the most eloquent manner. Similar to this is the Almighty’s saying: "And do not approach zina," which conveys the prohibition of committing zina. So understand.