Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:16

(And the two who commit it among you): These are the male fornicator and the female fornicator, by way of taghlib (predominance/generalization). This was stated by Al-Suddi, Ibn Zayd, and Ibn Jubayr. He intended by them the two virgins (unmarried) who have not been previously married (ihsan). This is supported by the fact that their punishment is lighter than eternal confinement. By this, repetition is avoided, though the ruling regarding the married (muhsan) fornicator remains not apparent.

Ibn Kathir recited (واللذان - walladhani) with a shaddah on the nun. This is a dialect and is not restricted to the alif as some have claimed; rather, it occurs with the ya as well. It is a substitute for the elided ya of alladhi, as its standard form is alladhayan. The meeting of two vowelless letters here is according to its rule, as in dabbah (beast) and shabbah (young woman).

(Then punish them both): Meaning, after four witnesses have testified against them regarding the act. Mention of this was omitted in reliance upon what was mentioned previously. There is a difference of opinion regarding the "punishment" (idha): It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that it is by reviling and beating with sandals. From Al-Suddi, Qatadah, and Mujahid, it is said that it is only by reviling and rebuking.

(Then if they repent): From the indecency they committed due to the punishment, as indicated by the fa (particle of sequence/causation).

(And reform): Meaning, their conduct.

(Then turn away from them): Meaning, overlook them and refrain from punishing them.

(Indeed, Allah is ever Relenting): Hyperbolic in accepting repentance.

(Merciful): Vast in mercy. The sentence serves as a justification for the command to turn away. The address here is to the rulers. It has been permitted that it could be to the witnesses who observe their action, where "punishment" means defaming them, berating them, threatening them with referral to the judges, dragging them to the authorities, and opening the gates of evil upon them; and "turning away" means to cease attacking them in that manner. The first view is the well-known one.

The ruling upon it is abrogated by the prescribed hadd (legal punishment) in Surah An-Nur, according to Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Al-Suddi, Ad-Dahhak, Ibn Jubayr, and others. Al-Balkhi, Al-Jubai, and At-Tabari also held this view. Al-Farra’ stated that this verse abrogated the verse preceding it, which is something that does not hold up to the view that the relative pronoun refers to the two virgins, as is not hidden.

Abu Muslim held that there is no abrogation of the ruling of the two verses. Rather, the first verse concerns female homosexuals (sihaqat), who are those women who derive pleasure from one another, and their punishment is confinement. The second verse concerns male homosexuals (li'atin), and their punishment is punishment (rebuke/injury). As for the ruling of fornicators, it will come in Surah An-Nur. This view was refuted on the basis that no one had said it, and that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) differed on the ruling of the sodomite, and none of them relied upon this verse. Their failure to rely upon it despite their intense need for a text indicating the ruling is evidence that the verse is not regarding that. Furthermore, making confinement in the house the punishment for sihaq has no meaning, because it (the act) does not depend on going out, like fornication. If it were meant for female homosexuals, the punishment would be the prevention of their intermingling, not confinement and prevention from going out. Since that was made the punishment, it indicates that those intended by "those who commit indecency" are female fornicators.

Abu Muslim responded that this is the statement of Mujahid, and he is among the greatest of the early exegetes. Many have said: "If the interpretation comes to you from Mujahid, then it suffices you." Moreover, it has been clarified in the foundations (usul) that deriving a new interpretation for a verse that the predecessors did not mention is permissible. Also, the requirement of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) was to know the hadd for the sodomite and its quantity, and the verse contains no indication of that, either by negation or affirmation; absolute "punishment" does not suffice as a hadd nor as a statement of quantity, which is why they differed. Furthermore, the meaning of "keeping them in the houses" is imprisoning them therein and making the house a prison for them; and among the customs of the prisoners is preventing whoever wishes to enter upon them and not enabling them to intermingle, so the statement is in the strength of "prevent them from intermingling with one another," provided the mentioned confinement is a hadd, and the intent is only deterrence and castigation.

He supported his position with the exclusivity of the feminine in the first verse and the masculine in the second, and taghlib (predominance) is contrary to the origin, and the word "among you" also distances it, for the straightforward meaning is "from your men," as in the Almighty’s saying: "Four from among you." Also, if both verses were revealed concerning fornication, it would necessitate mentioning the same thing in the same place twice, which is a repetition that has no face. Furthermore, according to this estimation, there is no need to commit to abrogation in either of the two verses; rather, the ruling of each would be established in its state. According to what others have said, one must commit to the claim of abrogation, which is contrary to the origin. Also, according to what they said, the Book would be devoid of stating the ruling of sihaq and liwat (sodomy), whereas according to what we said, it contains that, which is more appropriate to its condition, for the Exalted has said: "We have not neglected in the Book anything," and "an explanation for all things."

It was answered that we do not concede that this is the statement of Mujahid; in Majma' al-Bayan, it is mentioned that he carried "the two who commit it" to mean two male fornicators. Abd bin Humayd, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from him that they are "the doers," which is not a text that they are the sodomites. Furthermore, we have not found a sound narration from him carrying "the women who commit indecency" in the first verse to refer to female homosexuals. Rather, they have narrated from him what is apparent in its contradiction; Adam and Al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan narrated from him regarding that verse that he was commanded to imprison, then "The woman and the man who commit fornication—flog each one of them" abrogated it.

What was mentioned as supplementary is conceded, but this interpretation is distanced by the fact that there is no meaning for the dual form in the second verse, for promises and threats are typically expressed in the plural to encompass individuals, or in the singular to indicate the genus, and there is no point in deviating from that here based on the view of Abu Muslim. Instead, the appropriate thing for him would have been the plural, so that the verse of sodomy would be like the verse of sihaq. This does not apply to what the majority established, because the first verse, in their view, is for married women if they fornicate, and the second is for the male virgin and female virgin if they fornicate, so the two expressions were differentiated due to the strength of the difference between the two subjects.

It is also possible that the difference, in their opinion, is to signal the rarity of the occurrence of virgin fornication compared to the occurrence of non-virgin fornication, because a female virgin fears scandal more than others due to the appearance of the effect of fornication, which is the loss of virginity, unlike the non-virgin. It is not possible to consider such a nuance in the difference according to the view of Abu Muslim, for we do not concede that the occurrence of sodomy by men is less than the occurrence of sihaq by women; perhaps the matter is the opposite. And that the requirement of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) was to know the hadd of the sodomite and its quantity, and that "punishment" does not suffice as a hadd nor a statement of quantity, is of no substance, as indicated by the fact that some of them did not impose anything upon him and said: "His punishment is delayed until the Hereafter," and the Imams (may Allah be pleased with them) adopted this. Moreover, what is the hindrance to considering "punishment" as a hadd after it was mentioned in the context of a hadd, and its manner is delegated to the opinion of the Imam, so he does to the sodomite that by which he is deterred, provided it does not reach the level of killing? And the claim that the speech is in the strength of "prevent them from intermingling" is at the height of obscurity, as is not hidden.

Yes, what is in the supplementary part is acceptable. And what was mentioned—that taghlib is contrary to the origin—is conceded, but it is in the Magnificent Qur'an more than can be counted. Considering it in "among you" follows considering it in "the two who commit it." Mentioning the like before it without taghlib therein perhaps supports considering taghlib here so that it differs from the first, so its mention thereafter has the most complete benefit. Do you not see how he omitted from the second verse the testifying (of witnesses), despite the consensus that it is required, in sufficiency for what was mentioned in the first verse because the two testimonies are identical in the two issues? The claim of the necessity of repetition in the same place according to the majority view is not in its proper place, according to what we indicated in the exegesis of the verse. The claim of the need to commit to the statement of abrogation is not harmful, because abrogation is a familiar matter in many rulings, and a group of the Companions and the Successors have stated it here. Moreover, there is a discussion regarding the imposition of the hadd being an abrogation of the first verse, which is known from what we provided in Al-Baqarah. If "or Allah makes [for them a way]" etc. is considered in the second verse, it was omitted in sufficiency for what is in the first, as indicated by the report of Ubadah bin al-Samit. The discussion regarding the two verses has taken place.

The necessity of the Book being devoid of stating the ruling of sihaq and liwat according to the majority view, unlike his view, is in the realm of prevention. As for the assumption that sihaq and liwat are termed fornication, it is apparent. As for the assumption of no naming, it is because mentioning that which can be analogized to them is within the ruling of stating their ruling; how many rulings have been left without explicit mention in the Book in reliance upon analogy, such as the ruling on nabidh (fermented drinks) and the ruling on the grandfather, etc., relying on the statement of what can be analogized to them? That does not contradict that it is "an explanation for all things" and that "We have not neglected in the Book anything." Whoever claims that all religious rulings are mentioned in the Qur'an explicitly without considering analogy has committed an excess and spoken a mistake. In sum, the reliance is upon what the majority has gone to, and the hand of Allah is with the group. While the school of Abu Muslim is not at a place of corruption, it has not been relied upon, and the baggage of acceptance has not settled upon it. This is what I have regarding the realization of this station, and with Allah, the Exalted, is the seeking of refuge.

When He, the Exalted, described Himself as the Relenting, the Merciful, He followed that with an explanation of the condition for accepting repentance, with His saying, the Exalted: