An-Nisa: 24

"And the chaste women from among the women, except those whom your right hands possess." This is conjoined to what preceded it of the forbidden women. According to the well-known view, it refers to married women whose husbands, marriage, or guardians have protected them—meaning they have prevented them from falling into sin. The reciters, as Abu Ubaydah said, have unanimously agreed on the fathah (vowel point 'a') on the sad in this instance. The report of the fathah from Al-Kisa'i is not authentic, and the well-known report of that is from Talhah bin Musarrif and Yahya bin Wathab. Based on this, it is an active participle (ism fa'il), because they have protected their private parts from those other than their husbands, or they have protected their husbands.

It is said: The form is an active participle according to the first reading as well. Ibn al-A'rabi said: Every verb of the form af'ala has an active participle with a kasrah (vowel point 'i'), except for three words: ahsana (to protect/chasten), alfaja (when one’s wealth is lost), and as'haba (when one’s speech becomes excessive). Al-Azhari narrated something similar. Tha'lab said: Every chaste woman is muhsana and muhsana, but every married woman is muhsana (with fathah) and nothing else.

It is said: Husinat al-mar'ah (with dammah) husnan—meaning she was chaste; she is hasin and hisnan (with fathah), and also hasna', clearly manifesting chastity. A horse is hisan (with kasrah), clearly manifesting protection and fortification. It is said that it was called hisan because it guards its semen and does not copulate except with a noble female. Later, this usage became so widespread that they called every male horse a hisan.

Ihsan (chastity/fortification) in reference to women appears in the language and is used in the Quran with four meanings: Islam, freedom, marriage, and chastity. Al-Rafi'i added "sanity" because it prevents indecencies. The prepositional phrase (min al-nisa') is attached to a hidden state (hal) of al-muhsanat; that is, "Forbidden to you are the chaste women, existing among the women." Its benefit is to emphasize their generality. Some say it is to repel the misconception that it includes men, based on the word being an adjective for "souls" (anfus), which includes both males and females; but this is unfounded, as is obvious.

There is obscurity in the meaning of the verse, to the point that Mujahid said: "If I knew someone who would interpret this for me, I would travel the distance of camel-saddles to reach him." Ibn Jarir recorded this from him. Ibn Abi Shaybah recorded from Abu al-Sawda' that he said: "I asked Ikrimah about this verse ('And the chaste women'), and he said: 'I do not know.'"

The early scholars had several opinions:

First: That it refers to married women, as we have previously stated. The "possession" (mulk) refers specifically to the possession through captivity (sabi), as that is what requires the annulment of the marriage and makes her lawful for the captor and no one else. This is the opinion of Umar, Uthman, the majority of the Companions, the Successors, and the four Imams. However, there is a disagreement: does mere captivity make it permissible, or is it only when she is captured alone? According to Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), mere captivity causes the separation and makes it a site for marriage. According to Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him), it is only when she is captured alone; if she were captured with her husband, she would not be lawful for the captor.

Those who hold this view argued with what Muslim recorded from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "We captured captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands. We disliked having intercourse with them, so we asked the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the verse was revealed, so we made them lawful." This narration from him is more authentic than the other narration that it was revealed concerning the emigrant women (muhajirat). It was objected that this is a case of restricting a general text to its cause (sabab), which contradicts what is established in the principles of jurisprudence—that the specificity of the cause is not considered. It was answered that it is not a case of that restriction at all; rather, it was specified due to the opposition of another evidence, which is the famous hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): when she bought Barirah and she was married, she freed her and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) gave her the option (to keep or annul her marriage). If the sale of a slave woman constituted a divorce, he would not have given her the option. Thus, the general text was restricted to the cause upon which it was revealed, because other types of transfers, unlike a sale, are voluntary ownership based on prior ownership; whereas captivity is a new, forced ownership, so nothing else is linked to it. This is what was said.

The followers of Al-Shafi'i objected to the Imām al-A'zam (may Allah be pleased with him) using the absolute nature of the verse and the hadith, making them an argument against him regarding his position. Al-Shihab answered that the absolute nature is not granted. In Al-Ahkam, it is reported that when the day of Awtas came, the men fled to the mountains and the women were taken. The Muslims said: "What shall we do, for they have husbands?" Then Allah Almighty revealed the verse. It was the same at Hunayn, as the historians mention. Thus, it is proven that their husbands were not with them. If they argue based on the generality of the wording, it is said to them: We have agreed that it is not general, and that separation does not necessarily happen with the renewal of ownership. If that is not the case, we know that the separation is for another meaning: the difference of the two realms (darayn). Thus, it must be restricted to captives alone, and captivity is not the cause of separation, as evidenced by the fact that if she leaves as a Muslim or a dhimmi and her husband does not join her, separation occurs without disagreement. Allah Almighty has judged this for the emigrant women in His saying: "And do not hold onto the ties of disbelieving women." Therefore, what was objected to is not a valid objection.

Second: That al-muhsanat refers to what we previously mentioned, and mulk refers to absolute ownership of the right hand. Every person to whom ownership of a slave woman is transferred—by sale, gift, captivity, or otherwise—and who was married, that transfer requires her divorce and makes her lawful for the one to whom she was transferred. This is the opinion of Ibn Mas'ud and a group of the Companions, and the majority of the Imami school went to this.

Third: That al-muhsanat is more general than chaste women, free women, and married women, and mulk is more general than ownership of the right hand and the ownership of enjoyment through marriage. Thus, the meaning of the verse refers to the prohibition of zina (fornication) and the prohibition of every foreign woman except through a contract or ownership of the right hand. Ibn Jubayr, 'Ata', and Al-Suddi held this view, and it was narrated from some of the Companions and chosen by Malik in Al-Muwatta'.

Fourth: That the intended meaning of al-muhsanat is free women, and of mulk is absolute, and the intent is the prohibition of free women after four. 'Abd al-Razzaq and others narrated from 'Ubayd that he said regarding this verse: "Allah Almighty permitted for you four at the beginning of the Surah, and prohibited the marriage of every muhsana after four, except what your right hand possesses." Similar was narrated from many others.

Shaykh al-Islam said: The intended meaning of al-muhsanat is married women. The relative pronoun (ma) is either general according to the generality of its context, and the exception is not for removing all individuals from the ruling of prohibition by way of including the negation, but by way of negating the inclusion, which necessitates the exclusion of some. That is, "Forbidden to you are the married women absolutely, except for those married women whom you have come to possess, for they are not among those forbidden absolutely; rather, among them are those whose marriage is not forbidden in general." These are the captives who have no husbands, or captives in general, according to the two different schools. Or, it is specific to the captives; thus the meaning is: "Forbidden to you are the married women, except those who were captured, for their marriage is legitimate in general"—meaning to those other than their owners. As for their lawfulness to them by virtue of the ownership of the right hand, it is understood by the indication of the text (dalalat al-nass) due to the unity of the rationale, not by its literal phrasing, because the flow of the noble arrangement is to state the prohibition of enjoying the forbidden women enumerated by virtue of the ownership of marriage. The establishment of the prohibition of enjoying them by virtue of ownership of the right hand is by way of the indication of the text, and that is something in which exception certainly does not occur. As for counting them among married women while the separation between them and their husbands is certain—by the difference of the two realms or by captivity—it is built upon the belief of the people, as they were oblivious of the separation, as the report of Abu Sa'id indicates. There is nothing in the consequence of the ruling therein upon the revelation of the noble verse that indicates it was directed towards that; rather, that depends on its providing it through one of the modes of indication, not on its providing it by way of the wording or the like.

It was objected that this involves committing to the contrary of the apparent meaning without reason or necessity, upon the assumption of accepting that the flow of the noble arrangement is only to state the prohibition of enjoying the forbidden women enumerated by virtue of the ownership of marriage. It could be that the exception is in consideration of the necessity of the prohibition of marriage, which is the prohibition of intercourse; as if He said: "The marriage of married women is forbidden to you, so it is not permissible for you to have intercourse with them, except those whom your right hands possess, for it is permissible for you to have intercourse with them." So ponder this.

"Allah has ordained [this] for you"—a verbal noun emphasizing the previous verb. That is, Allah Almighty has ordained the prohibition of these for you, as an ordinance. The attachment of the idafa does not contradict this, as some imagined. The sentence is an emphasis on what preceded it, and "upon you" is attached to the implied verb. It is said: "A writing/ordinance" is accusative as an exhortation (ighra'), meaning "Adhere to the ordinance of Allah," and "upon you" is attached either to the verbal noun or to a hidden word that acts as a state (hal) from it. It is said: It is another exhortation, emphasizing the one before it, and its object has been omitted due to the indication of what preceded it. It is said: It is accusative governed by "upon you" (alaykum), and they used this to argue for the permissibility of placing the object first in the chapter of exhortation, but this is nothing.

Abu al-Sumayqa' read kutiba Allah (Books of Allah) in the plural and nominative case, meaning these are the obligations of Allah Almighty upon you. And kataba Allah as a verb form.

"And lawful to you [to seek]..." Hamzah, Al-Kisa'i, and Hafs from 'Asim read it in the passive voice. The others read it in the active. Al-Zamakhshari made it, according to the first reading, conjoined to "forbidden," and according to the second, conjoined to the implied "ordained." Abu Hayyan countered that the distinction he chose is not preferred, because the sentence "ordained" is to emphasize what preceded it, and this one is not an emphasis; so it should not be conjoined to the emphasized one, but to the original sentence, especially with their correlation in permissibility and prohibition. Al-Halabi examined this; perhaps the point of view is that the permission of what is beyond that is an emphasis of its prohibition in meaning, and what was mentioned is a matter of preference in observing an apparent correlation.

"Beyond that"—a reference to what preceded of the forbidden women. That is: It is lawful for you to marry those other than them, individually or collectively. In preferring the demonstrative pronoun over the personal pronoun, there is an indication that those who are in the meaning of the mentioned ones share in the ruling of prohibition. Thus, the prohibition of combining a woman and her paternal aunt is not rejected, nor the combining of any two women—whoever of them is assumed to be male, the other would not be lawful for him, as explained in the branches of jurisprudence—because the prohibition of those mentioned is included in what preceded by way of indication, as was indicated by some researchers. The hadith of restricting this generality by the Book and the Sunnah is famous.

"That you seek"—an object of reason (maf'ul lahu) for what the speech indicated. That is: He has clarified to you the prohibition of the mentioned forbidden women and the permissibility of what is other than them, desiring and seeking that you seek women... And the object is omitted, meaning: you seek women, or it is left out, meaning: you perform the seeking with your wealth by spending it on their dowries; or it is a substitution of inclusion (badal ishtimal) from "beyond that," with the assumption of the object as a pronoun. Some allowed for "what" to be an expression of the act, like marriage and wedlock, and made this a total-for-total substitution. What is narrated from Ibn Abbas is the generalization of the speech such that it includes spending wealth on dowries and prices.

"Chaste"—a state (hal) from the subject of "you seek." The meaning of ihsan here is chastity and protecting the soul from falling into what does not please Allah Almighty.

"Not committing fornication"—a state from the apparent pronoun or the hidden pronoun, and in reality, it is an emphasizing state. Sifah (fornication) is from safh, which is pouring water. Fornication is named this because the fornicator has no purpose other than pouring the semen, not reproduction. From Al-Zajjaj: Musafahah and musafih are the two fornicators who do not refrain from anyone. It is said of a woman if she fornicates with one man: she is a "woman with a lover." The object of the two descriptions is omitted, meaning: protecting your private parts or your souls, not committing fornication with prostitutes.

The apparent meaning of the verse is an argument for those who hold that the dowry must be wealth, like the Imām al-A'zam (may Allah be pleased with him). Some of the Shafi'is said: There is no argument in that, because the specification of wealth is because it is the most common and customary; so marriage is permissible on what is not wealth. This is supported by what Al-Bukhari and Muslim and others narrated from Sahl bin Sa'd that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) asked a man who had offered herself to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "What do you have of the Quran?" He said: "I have such and such Surahs," and he counted them. He said: "Do you recite them by heart?" He said: "Yes." He said: "Go, I have married her to you for what you have of the Quran." The direction of support is that if there were an argument in the verse, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) would not have contradicted it.

It was answered that the fact that he had the Quran with him does not necessitate it being a substitute, and teaching is not mentioned in the report. It is possible that the intent of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was: "I have married you to her in honor of the Quran, and because of what you have of it." Some researchers said this, and perhaps there is an indication of it in the report.

"So those of them you have enjoyed"—"What" (ma) is either an expression for women, or for what pertains to them of acts. Based on both, it is either conditional or relative. Whichever it is, it is the subject (mubtada') and its predicate, based on the conditional assumption, is the condition verb or its response, or both. Based on the relative assumption, it is His saying: "So give them their dowries." The fa is because the relative pronoun contains the meaning of a condition. Then, based on it being in the meaning of women, by assuming the pronoun returning to the subject—the accusative pronoun in "so give them"—"min" (minhunna) is explanatory or partitive, in the position of the accusative as a state from the pronoun "in it." The use of "what" for rational beings is because it was intended for the attribute, as mentioned more than once. The pronoun has been observed first in terms of the wording, and finally in terms of the meaning. The sin is for emphasis, not for seeking. The meaning is: "Whatever individual—or the individual—that you have enjoyed while being of the gender of women, or some of them, then give them their dowries." Based on it being an expression for what pertains to them, min is initial, related to enjoyment, also in the sense of enjoyment, and "what" is for the irrational. The return to the subject is omitted, meaning: "Whichever act you have enjoyed from them of the aforementioned acts, give them their dowries" for it or in exchange for it. The intent of "dowries" is the bride-price, and it is called ajr (wage/reward) because it is a substitute for the benefit, not for the physical object.

"An obligation"—a state from the dowries, meaning "obligated," or an adjective of an omitted verbal noun, meaning: "a mandatory giving," or an emphasizing verbal noun, meaning: "He ordained that as an obligation." It is like qati'ah in the sense of cutting.

"And there is no blame"—meaning no sin—"on you in what you mutually agree upon"—of reducing the dowry, or absolving it, or increasing it beyond what was named. And there is no blame in the increase of the increase, due to the lack of assistance from "no blame" if the address is made to husbands by way of dominance, for taking the increase is a place where the negated ruling is established for the wife.

"After the obligation"—meaning the estimated thing. It is said: "in what you mutually agree upon" regarding sustenance and the like. It is said: regarding staying or parting. Shaykh al-Islam countered this by saying that the mention of the "obligation" does not support it, as they have no relation to it unless the parting is by way of khul' (divorce at wife's request). It is said: The verse is about mut'ah (temporary marriage), which is marriage to a known time, a day or more. The meaning of "there is no blame on you in what you mutually agree upon" is the resumption of another contract after the expiration of the time set in the mut'ah contract, by the man increasing the wage and the woman increasing the time. The Imamis went to this, and the verse is one of their proofs for the permissibility of mut'ah. They supported their reasoning with it by saying that in the copy of Ubayy it is: "So those of them you have enjoyed... to a named term." And likewise, Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with them) recited. The talk about this is famous, and there is no dispute among us that it was permitted, then prohibited.

Al-Qadi 'Iyad mentioned long speech about this. The correct and chosen view is that the prohibition and permission happened twice. It was lawful before the day of Khaybar, then prohibited on the day of Khaybar, then permitted on the day of the Conquest of Mecca—which is the day of Awtas due to their proximity—then prohibited on that day after three days, a permanent prohibition until the Day of Resurrection. The prohibition continued. It is not permissible to say: the permission was restricted to before Khaybar, and the prohibition on the day of Khaybar was for eternity, and that which was on the day of the Conquest was merely an emphasis of the prohibition without prior permission on the day of the Conquest, as the authentic hadiths reject that. In Sahih Muslim, there is that which is sufficient.

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that he used to say it was lawful, then he retracted that when Ali (may Allah's face be honored) said to him: "You are a confused man; the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the mut'ah." So it is said. In Sahih Muslim, there is that which indicates he did not retract when Ali said that to him. It is recorded from 'Urwah bin al-Zubayr that Abdullah bin al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with them) stood in Mecca and said: "People whose hearts Allah has blinded, just as He blinded their sight, give legal opinions permitting mut'ah." He was alluding to a man—meaning Ibn Abbas, as Al-Nawawi said. He called out to him and said: "You are a coarse, dry person! By my life, mut'ah used to be done in the time of the Imam of the pious"—meaning the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). Ibn al-Zubayr said to him: "Try it yourself, and by Allah, if you do it, I will pelt you with your stones." This was during the caliphate of Abdullah bin al-Zubayr, and that was after the death of Ali (may Allah's face be honored). Thus, it is proven that he persisted in saying it was permissible and did not retract to the saying of the Prince (may Allah's face be honored). Based on this, the scholar Ibn Hajar said in the Sharh al-Minhaj. It is better to judge that he retracted after that, based on what Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Bayhaqi, and Al-Tabarani recorded from him: "The mut'ah was only in the beginning of Islam; a man would come to a town, not knowing anyone in it, so he would marry a woman for as long as he thought he would stay, so she would protect his belongings and set his affairs in order, until the verse was revealed: 'Except on their wives or what their right hands possess,' so every private part other than these is forbidden." This is interpreted as him learning that the matter was only in this way, so he retracted to it and narrated it.

It is also narrated from him that he only permitted it in a state of necessity and hardship during travels. It is narrated from Ibn Jubayr that he said: "I said to Ibn Abbas: 'Your opinion has traveled with the riders, and poets have spoken about it.' He said: 'What did they say?' I said: 'They said: You have said to the shaykh, when his sitting was long: O companion, do you have in the fatwa of Ibn Abbas, do you have a license...?'" He said: "Subhan Allah! I did not issue fatwa with that, and it is only like carrion, blood, and swine flesh; it is not lawful except for the one forced." Hence, Al-Hazimi said: The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not permit it for them while they were in their homes and homelands; he only permitted it for them at times according to necessities, until he forbade it for them at the end of the matter with a permanent prohibition. As for what is narrated that they used to practice mut'ah in the time of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), Abu Bakr, and Umar, until Umar forbade it, this is interpreted as: whoever practiced it had not reached the abrogation. Umar's prohibition was to show that, as mut'ah had become widespread among those whom the prohibition had not reached. The meaning of "I am forbidding it" in his speech, if authentic, is to manifest its prohibition, not to originate it, as the Shia claim.

This verse does not indicate lawfulness, and the saying of some that it was revealed about mut'ah is a mistake, and the interpretation of some of it with that is unacceptable because the arrangement of the noble Quran rejects it. Allah Almighty first clarified the prohibitions, then said: "And lawful to you [to seek] what is beyond that, with your wealth." There is a condition in terms of meaning, so the legalization of the private part and lending it becomes void—and the Shia have said both. Then He said: "Chaste, not committing fornication." There is an indication of the prohibition of the intention being merely the gratification of desire and the pouring of water and the emptying of the vessels of semen. Thus, mut'ah is voided by this constraint, because the intent of the mut'i (one enjoying mut'ah) is nothing but that, not marital life, procreation, or the protection of honor and progeny. Therefore, you find the one enjoyed in mut'ah every month under an owner, and every year in the lap of someone playing. So chastity is not obtained in a woman of mut'ah at all. For this reason, the Shia said: "The mut'i who is not a husband, if he fornicates, there is no stoning for him." Then He Almighty concluded upon the state of marriage: "So when you have enjoyed..." This indicates that the intent of enjoyment is intercourse and entering, not the enjoyment in the sense of mut'ah that the Shia say. The reading they report from the aforementioned Companions is anomalous.

What indicates the prohibition, such as the verse: "Except on their wives or what their right hands possess," is definitive, so it is not contradicted. Furthermore, if two evidences are equal in strength and contradict each other regarding lawfulness and prohibition, the evidence of prohibition is preferred. It is not for the Shia to say: "The woman enjoyed in mut'ah is owned," for its invalidity is obvious; "or she is a wife," for all the requirements of marriage are absent in it, such as inheritance, waiting period ('iddah), divorce, and sustenance. Their scholars have explicitly stated this. Abu Nasir of them narrated in his Sahih from Al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that he was asked about a woman of mut'ah: "Is she from the four?" He said: "No, nor from the seventy." This is explicit that she is not a wife; otherwise, she would be counted among the four.

In short, arguing with this verse for the lawfulness of mut'ah is nothing, as is obvious. There is no disagreement now among the Imams and the scholars of the cities, except the Shia, in its impermissibility. Narrating the lawfulness from Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) is a mistake with no basis; rather, there are two narrations from him regarding the penalty for the one practicing mut'ah. The doctrine of the majority is that he is not punished due to the doubt of the contract and the doubt of the disagreement. The origin of the disagreement, as Al-Nawawi said, is the difference of the principles of jurisprudence: does consensus after disagreement lift the disagreement and the matter becomes unanimously agreed upon? Some said: It does not lift it; rather, the disagreement continues and the matter never becomes unanimously agreed upon after that. Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani said this. Others said: The subsequent consensus lifts the previous disagreement. Its completion is in the principles. Some narrated from Zufar that he said: "Whoever marries a mut'ah marriage, his marriage becomes permanent, and the mention of the time limit is of the category of corrupt conditions in marriage, which are void in it." The well-known view in the books of our scholars is that he said this regarding temporary marriage. Whether it is identical to mut'ah marriage is a subject of discussion, for some have said that witnesses are required in temporary marriage and not in mut'ah, and the wording of marriage or wedlock in the first and "I enjoy" or "I am enjoying" in the second. Others said: Temporary marriage is a type of mut'ah. Ibn al-Humam mentioned that marriage is not concluded with the word mut'ah, even if the intent is a correct permanent marriage and witnesses are present, because it is not suitable as a metaphor for the meaning of marriage, as he explained in Al-Mabsut.

It remains: if he marries absolutely, and his intention is not to stay with her except for a period he intended, is that a correct lawful marriage or not? The majority are for the first; rather, the Qadi narrated consensus on it. Al-Awza'i was alone in saying: "It is a mut'ah marriage, and there is no good in it." So one should avoid intending that.

"Indeed, Allah is Knowing"—of what preserves the affairs of creation—"Wise" in what He has legislated for them, and from that is the marriage contract that preserves wealth and lineages.