Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:15

(And those who commit immorality from among your women): This is a commencement of clarifying some of the rulings pertaining to men and women, following the clarification of the laws of inheritance. (And those [Al-lati]) is a plural of allati, formed irregularly. It is said that it is a noun form established for the plural, and its position is in the nominative case as an ibtida’ (starting subject).

"Al-fahishah" (immorality): That which is intensely ugly. It has been used frequently for adultery (zina) because it is among the ugliest of ugly things, and this is the intended meaning here, according to the correct view. "Ityan" (committing/coming): Originally means arrival. In the Sahih (Lexicon), it is said: "I came to him (ataytuhu) - atyan." A poet said: "Choose for yourself before the army atā (arrives)." And "I came to him (atawtuhu) - atwah" is a dialectal variation of it, from which is the saying of the Hudhali: "I was when atawtuhu (I came to him) from absence..."

In the Qamus: "I came to him (atawtuhu) - atwah, and I came to him (ataytuhu) - atyan, ityanan, ityanatan (with the kasrah on the latter two), ma'tatan, and itya like itya." It sometimes expresses the same as al-maji' (arrival), al-rahaq (encroachment), and al-ghashyan (sexual intercourse) regarding the act. This became so widespread that it became a conventional reality, and that is what is intended here. Thus, the meaning is: "They commit adultery," i.e., they are adulteresses. This expression is used for the sake of increased vilification. Ibn Mas'ud recited "ya'tina bil-fahishah" (perform the immoral act), so the ityan is kept to its well-known original meaning.

"Min" (from) is attached to an implied word functioning as a hal (state) for the subject of "ya'tina." The meaning—as As-Suddi stated, and Ibn Jarir narrated from him—is "from among the women who have been married and have been chaste." A similar statement is attributed to Ibn Jubayr.

(Then call to witness): i.e., request that they testify (against them concerning their committing the immorality, four of you): i.e., four of the believing, free men. Az-Zuhri said: "The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the two Caliphs after him has passed that the testimony of women is not accepted in cases of hudud (prescribed punishments)." The condition of four [witnesses] in adultery is to make it difficult for the accuser and to veil the servants [of Allah]. It is said: [it is so] that the quota of testimony may be established fully against each of the two adulterers, just like other rights—though the weakness of this view is not hidden.

The sentence is the predicate (khabar) of the subject (mubtada’), and the fa is added to it because it contains the meaning of a conditional clause. It is permissible to predicate in this way because the speech became, in essence, a conditional sentence, since al-lati was connected to the verb. This was stated by Abu al-Baqa’, who mentioned that if this is the case, it is not appropriate to use the accusative case based on ishtighal (preoccupation), because estimating the verb before the conditional particle is not permissible, and estimating it after the silah (relative clause) requires implying a verb other than "fastashhidu," for it is not correct for it to exercise the accusative case upon al-lati. There is no need for such [a construction] given the validity of the ibtida’. A group permitted the accusative case via an implied verb, meaning: "Intend [those who]..." or "Deliberate [on]...". It is also said that the predicate is implied, meaning: "Among what is recited to you is the ruling of those who..." Thus, the prepositional phrase is the predicate, and "ruling" is the subject, both omitted due to the indication of "fastashhidu," as it is the ruling recited to them. Regarding the address, some say it is directed to the rulers, others say to the husbands.

(If they testify): against them regarding the committing [of the act], (then confine them): i.e., imprison them as a punishment in the houses, and make them a prison for them (until death takes them). The meaning intended by tawaffi is its original meaning, which is istifa’ (full receipt/taking), i.e., seizing. You say: "I received in full (tawaffaytu) what I was owed by so-and-so" when you have taken it. Attributing it to death is by way of likening it to a person who does that, so it is a metaphor by metonymy (isti'arah bil-kinayah). The speech [contains] an omitted possessive, and the meaning is: "until death takes their souls." It is not permissible for the tawaffi to mean its well-known meaning here, as the speech would become equivalent to "until death causes them to die," which has no meaning unless one implies a possessive to which the verb is attributed, i.e., "the angels of death," or if the attribution is considered metaphorical—an attribution of an effect to its true cause.

(Or Allah ordains for them a way): i.e., an exit from confinement through what He legislates for them of the hadd (prescribed punishment). This was said by Ibn Jubayr. The two Imams—Ash-Shafi'i and Ahmad—and others narrated from 'Ubadah ibn al-Samit that he said: "When the revelation descended upon the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), he would be distressed by it and his face would darken." In a wording by Ibn Jarir: "He would be overcome by a state like fainting due to the weight of what he felt. One day, it descended upon him, and when it lifted from him, he said: 'Take from me: Allah has ordained for them a way. The thayyib (previously married) [is to receive] one hundred lashes and stoning with stones, and the virgin [is to receive] one hundred lashes and banishment for a year.'"

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ibn Jubayr that he said: "In the early days of Islam, if four just Muslim men testified against a woman for adultery, she was imprisoned in the jail. If she had a husband, he would take the dowry from her, but he would provide for her without divorcing her, and she would have no hadd [physical] punishment, and he would not have intercourse with her." Ibn Jarir narrated from As-Suddi: "In the beginning of Islam, if a woman committed adultery, she was imprisoned in the house and her husband took her dowry, until the hudud came and abrogated it." The narrative of abrogation has been reported in more than one way from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Qatadah, and it was reported from Abu Ja'far and Abu 'Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with them both). The abrogator, according to some, is the verse of lashing in Surat an-Nur; according to others, the verse of imprisonment was abrogated by the Hadith, and the Hadith was abrogated by the verse of lashing, and the verse of lashing [is subject to] the evidence for stoning.

Al-Zamakhshari said: "It is possible that the verse is not abrogated, in that the mention of the hadd was omitted because it was known via the Book and the Sunnah, and that [the instruction] to confine them in the houses remains after they are lashed, as a protection for them from what happened to them as a result of leaving the houses and being exposed to men. The 'way' in this context would be marriage, which makes [illicit] fornication unnecessary."

Sheikh Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said in Ma'alim al-Sunan: "There is no abrogation in the verse nor in the Hadith. The verse indicates that their confinement in the houses extends until Allah ordains for them a way. That 'way' was [initially] general, and when the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Take from me...' until the end of the Hadith, it became an explanation for what was in the verse, not an abrogator of it, and it became a specification for the generality of the verse of lashing." You have already seen in Surat al-Baqarah that which will benefit you in verifying this station, so remember it.