| An-Nisā’ (The Women): (15) And those who commit lewdness from among your women...

Issue 1: The word Allātī (اللاتى)

Allātī is the plural form of allatī (the one [feminine]). Arabs have several pronunciations for the plural of allatī: Allātī, Allāt, Allawātī, and Allāt.

• Abu Bakr al-Anbārī stated that Arabs use allatī for the plural of inanimate objects, and allātī for the plural of living beings, citing the verse: {Your wealth which God has made a means of sustenance} (An-Nisā’ 5). He noted that for living beings, they use allātī or allā’ī. The difference, he suggested, is that the plural of inanimate objects is treated like the singular, whereas the plural of living beings is not, as each individual is not distinctly characterized by specific qualities or attributes. This is the distinction.
• However, some Arabs equate both categories, saying, "What did those women [inanimate objects/people] do whose matter is such-and-such?" The former view is preferred.

Issue 2: The phrase {commit lewdness} (ya’tīna al-fāḥishah)

This means they perform it. It is said, "He committed an ugly deed" (atā amran qabīḥan), meaning he did it. God Almighty says: {You have certainly brought forth a terrible thing} (Maryam 19:89) and {You have certainly brought forth an evil thing} (Maryam 19:89).

• There is subtlety in using this expression for committing shameful acts: Since God forbade the accountable person from committing these sins, He does not attribute the action directly to Him. Rather, the accountable person seems to have gone to that act on their own, choosing it purely by their nature. For this reason, it is said that they came to that lewdness and went to it. However, this nuance is fully realized only according to the Mu'tazilite view.
• In the recitation of Ibn Mas'ūd, it is: ya’tīna bi-l-fāḥishah (commit with lewdness).
• Al-Fāḥishah (lewdness) is the ugly act itself, and it is a verbal noun (masdar) in Arabic lexicography, like al-'āqibah (the consequence). It is said: faḥusha ar-rajulu yafḥushu fuḥshan wa fāḥishatan, meaning he uttered or performed something ugly.
• There is consensus that al-fāḥishah here refers to adultery/fornication (zinā), because it is characterized by an excess of ugliness compared to many other ugly deeds.

Objection: Is not disbelief (kufr) uglier than it? Is not the killing of a soul uglier? Yet, these are not called fāḥishah.

Response: The reason is that the governing faculties of the human body are three: the rational faculty, the irascible (anger) faculty, and the concupiscent (desire) faculty.

1. The corruption of the rational faculty is disbelief, heresy, and similar matters.
2. The corruption of the irascible faculty is killing, wrath, and similar matters.
3. The corruption of the concupiscent faculty is adultery, sodomy, lesbianism, and similar acts.

The most base of these three faculties is the concupiscent faculty. Consequently, its corruption is the basest type of corruption. For this reason, this specific act is singled out as al-fāḥishah. And God knows best His intent.

Issue 3: The meaning of {And those who commit lewdness from among your women}

There are two opinions regarding the intended meaning:

The First Opinion: It refers to adultery/fornication (zinā). This is because if a woman is accused of zinā, no one can act against her unless four Muslim men testify that she committed the act. If they testify, she is confined to her house until she dies or God appoints a way for them. This is the view of the majority of commentators (mufassirūn).

The Second Opinion (Preferred by Abu Muslim al-Isfahānī): That {those who commit lewdness from among your women} refers specifically to lesbianism (sahaq), and their prescribed punishment is confinement until death. And {And the two who commit it from among you} (An-Nisā’ 16) refers to sodomy (liwāṭ), and their prescribed punishment is verbal and physical abuse. The verse mentioned in Sūrat An-Nūr (24:2) refers to zinā between a man and a woman, where the punishment for the unmarried (bikr) is lashing, and for the married (muḥṣan) is stoning.

Abu Muslim presented several arguments for his view:

1. The phrase {those who commit lewdness from among your women} is specific to women, while {And the two who commit it from among you} is specific to men, as alladhān is the dual form for males.
   • Objection: Why can't alladhān refer to both male and female, with the masculine form prevailing?
   • Response: If that were the case, the women would not have been singled out separately beforehand. Since women were singled out, and then the dual masculine form followed, this possibility is negated.
2. Under this interpretation, there is no need to assume abrogation (naskh) for any of the verses; rather, the ruling of each remains established. Under your interpretation (that both verses refer to zinā), abrogation must be assumed, making this view preferable.
3. Under your interpretation, {those who commit lewdness from among your women} refers to zinā, and {And the two who commit it from among you} also refers to zinā. This leads to repeating the same ruling twice in the same context, which is undesirable. Our view avoids this repetition, making it preferable.
4. Those who hold this verse applies to zinā interpret {or God appoints a way for them} as stoning, lashing, or exile. This is incorrect because these punishments are against them, not for them. God says: {To her is what she has earned, and against her is what she has incurred} (Al-Baqarah 2:286). We interpret it as God facilitating the fulfillment of desire through marriage.

Abu Muslim further argued that the Prophet's saying supports his view: "If a man approaches a man, they are both adulterers, and if a woman approaches a woman, they are both adulteresses."

Arguments against Abu Muslim's view:

1. This view was not held by any of the early commentators, so it must be false.
   • Rebuttal: This consensus is disputed, as Mujāhid, one of the greatest commentators, held this view. Furthermore, we have established in Uṣūl al-Fiqh that deriving a new interpretation not mentioned by predecessors is permissible.
2. It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "God has appointed a way for them: the previously married (thayyib) is stoned, and the unmarried (bikr) is lashed." This indicates the verse concerns adulterers/fornicators.
   • Rebuttal: This implies that the Qur'an is abrogated by a solitary narration (khabar wāḥid), which is impermissible.
3. The Companions disagreed on the rulings for sodomy, and none of them relied on this verse. Their failure to rely on it, despite their strong need for a clear text establishing the ruling, is strong evidence that this verse does not concern sodomy.
   • Rebuttal: The Companions were seeking whether a ḥadd punishment should be established for the sodomite. This verse neither affirms nor denies that, which is why they did not refer to it.

Issue 4: Abrogation (Naskh)

The majority of commentators assert that this verse is abrogated. Abu Muslim asserts it is not abrogated.

The Commentators' View (Abrogation): They base this on their premise that the verse concerns the ruling of zinā, and it is known that this ruling was later changed. Those who hold this view differ into two groups:

1. This verse was abrogated by the Ḥadīth narrated by ‘Ubadah ibn aṣ-Ṣāmit: The Prophet (PBUH) said: "Take from me, take from me. God has appointed a way for them: the previously married woman is stoned, and the unmarried woman is lashed and exiled." This Ḥadīth itself was then abrogated by the verse: {The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them one hundred lashes} (An-Nūr 24:2). This path establishes that the Qur'an can be abrogated by the Sunnah, and the Sunnah can be abrogated by the Qur'an, contrary to the view of Shāfi‘ī.
2. This verse was abrogated directly by the verse of lashing (An-Nūr 24:2).

Abū Bakr al-Rāzī's Critique (in favor of the first view): Al-Rāzī, keen to refute Shāfi‘ī, argued that the first view is stronger. If the lashing verse preceded the saying, "Take from me," then the saying "Take from me" must have preceded the lashing verse. In that case, the confinement verse is abrogated by the Ḥadīth, and the Ḥadīth is abrogated by the lashing verse. Thus, it is established that the Qur'an and Sunnah can each abrogate the other.

Critique of Al-Rāzī's Argument (by the author/scholar): Al-Rāzī's statement is weak on two grounds:

1. Al-Khaṭṭābī's View: He stated that no abrogation occurred for this verse or this Ḥadīth. God's saying {confine them in houses until death takes them or God appoints for them a way} implies confinement lasts until a way is appointed. This "way" was mujmal (general/unspecified). When the Prophet (PBUH) said, "Take from me: the previously married is stoned, and the unmarried is lashed and exiled," this Ḥadīth became a clarification (bayān) of that verse, not an abrogation of it. It also became a specification (taḵṣīṣ) of the general statement in the lashing verse {The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them one hundred lashes} (An-Nūr 24:2). Making this Ḥadīth a clarification for one verse and a specification for another is preferable to assuming multiple instances of abrogation. How can the confinement verse be mujmal? It contains no indication of what that "way" is, so it requires clarification. The lashing verse is general and requires a specifier. We made this Ḥadīth the clarifier for the confinement verse and the specifier for the lashing verse. If we follow the view of Abū Ḥanīfah's companions, abrogation occurred in three ways! What we stated is the undeniable truth.
2. Refuting Al-Rāzī's Chronology: You assert that the lashing verse cannot precede the saying, "Take from me." Why must you then assert that this saying must precede the lashing verse? Why can't we say that the Prophet (PBUH) said that concurrently with the revelation of {The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them one hundred lashes}? If the lashing verse is generally understood to apply only to the unmarried Muslim woman, then delaying the specification (the Ḥadīth) after the general ruling (the verse) is impermissible according to you and most Mu'tazilites, as it suggests deception. If this is true, then the Prophet (PBUH) must have said it at the time the lashing verse was revealed. This invalidates your claim that the Ḥadīth preceded the lashing verse.

This entire discussion is based on the premise that the confinement verse applies to zinā. If this premise holds, the evidence for its abrogation is not established. However, according to Abu Muslim al-Isfahānī's view, it is clearly not abrogated. And God knows best.

Issue 5: Questions directed at those who hold the verse concerns zinā

Question 1: What is meant by {from among your women} (min nisā’ikum)?

• Answer (Several views):
  1. It means your wives, as in {those who forsake their wives} (Al-Mujādilah 58:2) and {from among your wives whom you have consummated marriage with} (An-Nisā’ 4:23).
  2. It means free women (ḥarā’ir), as in {and call to witness two witnesses from among your men} (Al-Baqarah 2:282). The purpose is to clarify that there is no ḥadd punishment for female slaves (imā’).
  3. It means believing women.
  4. It means previously married women (thayyibāt), excluding the unmarried (abkār).

Question 2: What is the meaning of {confine them in houses} (fa-amsikūhunna fī l-buyūt)?

• Answer: Keep them perpetually confined in your houses. The wisdom behind this is that a woman typically commits zinā when she goes out and appears in public. If she is confined to the house, she cannot commit the act. If she persists in this state, she will become accustomed to chastity and avoidance of zinā.

Question 3: What is the meaning of {until death takes them} (ḥattā yatawaffāhunna al-mawt)? Death (mawt) and taking (tawaffī) mean the same thing, so the meaning becomes: "or until death kills them"?

• Answer: It could mean until the angels of death take them (yatawaffāhum al-malā’ikah), as in {those whom the angels take in death} (An-Naḥl 16:32), or {Say, 'The angel of death who has been put in charge of you will take you in death'} (As-Sajdah 32:11). Or, it means until death seizes them and fully extracts their souls.

Question 4: You interpret {or God appoints for them a way} as referring to the Ḥadīth: "God has appointed a way for them: the previously married is stoned, and the unmarried is lashed." This seems distant, as stoning is a harsher penalty than confinement, so it is a way against her, not for her.

• Answer: The Prophet (PBUH) interpreted the "way" by saying: "Take from me: God has appointed a way for them. The previously married woman is lashed one hundred times and stoned with rocks, and the unmarried woman is lashed one hundred times and exiled for a year." Since the Messenger (PBUH) interpreted the "way" this way, its correctness must be affirmed. Furthermore, there is a linguistic basis for this: the means of release (mukhliṣ) from something is called a "way" (sabīl), whether the resulting condition is lighter or heavier.

(16)