Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:24

Surah An-Nisa (4): Verse 24

{وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ}

Issue 1: The Meaning of Al-Ihsan (الإحصان)

The word Al-Ihsan (حصن) linguistically means prevention or protection. A fortified city (madīnah ḥaṣīnah) or armor (dir' ḥaṣīnah) are those that prevent harm. The fortress (ḥiṣn) is a strong place that prevents an attacker.

The term Ihsan appears in the Quran in several senses:

1. Freedom (Liberty): As in the verse, {وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ} (An-Nur: 4), meaning free women. If one slanders a slave, the prescribed punishment (80 lashes) is not applied. Similarly, {فَعَلَيْهِنَّ نِصْفُ مَا عَلَى الْمُحْصَنَاتِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ} (An-Nisa: 25) refers to free women.
2. Chastity/Purity: As in {وَالَّتِي أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا} (Al-Anbiya: 91), meaning she guarded her chastity.
3. Islam: It is said that {فَإِذَا أُحْصِنَّ} means when they embrace Islam.
4. Being Married (Having a Husband): A woman is called muḥṣanah if she is married. The verse {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} refers to married women.

Evidence for the meaning of 'Being Married': Allah connects Al-Muḥṣanāt here with those forbidden in marriage. Since freedom, chastity, and Islam do not directly cause prohibition from marriage to others (in the context of this verse), the intended meaning must be being married, as having a husband is a direct cause of prohibition for others.

Connection to the Linguistic Meaning: All four meanings share the core linguistic sense of prevention:

• Freedom prevents others from exercising full authority over a person.
• Chastity prevents one from engaging in what is improper.
• Islam prevents many temptations of the soul.
• A husband prevents his wife from adultery, and the wife prevents the husband from it. (The Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever marries has protected two-thirds of his religion.")

Issue 2: The Reading of Al-Muḥṣanāt

The reciters differed on the vocalization of Al-Muḥṣanāt throughout the Quran, except in this specific verse where they unanimously agree on the Fath (opening vowel) on the Ṣād (مُحْصَنَات).

• With Kasra (مُحْصِنَات): This implies the action is from them—they embraced Islam, chose chastity, or married and improved themselves.
• With Fath (مُحْصَنَات): This implies the action is from others—their husbands protected them (i.e., they are married).

Issue 3: The Punishment for Adultery by a Married Dhimmi Woman

Al-Shafi'i holds that a married Dhimmi (non-Muslim subject of the state) woman who commits adultery is to be stoned (rajm). Abu Hanifa disagrees.

Al-Shafi'i's Argument: Adultery committed while muḥṣanah (married) is the effective cause ('illah) for the permissibility of shedding blood (death penalty).

1. Adultery occurred (undoubted).
2. Ihsan occurred: The verse {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ} indicates muḥṣanah means married, and this woman is married, thus she is muḥṣanah.
3. The Prophet's ﷺ saying regarding Muslims: "The blood of a Muslim is not lawful except for three reasons," one of which is "adultery after Ihsan." The effective cause ('illah) is the act of adultery after Ihsan, even though the ruling was stated concerning a Muslim; the specific subject does not prevent generalization via analogy (Qiyās).
4. Since the 'illah (adultery after Ihsan) is present in the Dhimmi woman, the consequence (permissibility of death) must follow. Since no one differentiates between stoning and other means of execution in this case, stoning is applied.

Counter-Argument (Khawarij): The Prophet ﷺ said: {مَنْ أَشْرَكَ بِاللَّهِ فَلَيْسَ بِمُحْصَنٍ} (Whoever associates partners with Allah is not muḥṣan). This implies the Dhimmi is not muḥṣan.

Rebuttal: We affirm the Dhimmi is muḥṣan in the sense of being married (which warrants stoning), but not muḥṣan in the sense that the slanderer of that person is not subject to the lash penalty. The Hadith about polytheism must be interpreted as meaning the slanderer is not lashed, as the lack of Ihsan here serves as a punishment (lack of protection from slander penalty), whereas lack of Ihsan does not serve as a punishment for adultery.

Issue 4: Interpretation of {إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} (Except those your right hands possess)

View 1: Al-Muḥṣanāt means Married Women.

• Interpretation A: A married woman is forbidden to others, except if she becomes the property of someone (a slave), in which case she becomes lawful for her new master.
• Interpretation B: Malakat Aymānukum here refers to the marriage contract itself. Married women are forbidden unless you marry them with a new contract after their previous bond is dissolved, or if she is a slave, through lawful ownership. The term Malak al-Yamin (ownership by the right hand) is used because it applies to both marriage and slavery.

View 2: Al-Muḥṣanāt means Free Women.

• Evidence: The subsequent verse {وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلًا أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} (An-Nisa: 25) uses Al-Muḥṣanāt to mean free believing women. Since the context is similar, the meaning should be the same here.
• Interpretation of the Exception:
  • A: Except the number Allah permitted you to own, which is four (in polygyny).
  • B (Preferred): Free women are forbidden to you except those Allah has permitted you to own (i.e., through lawful means like marriage or ownership, adhering to all legal conditions). This is supported by {وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ * إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ} (Al-Ma'arij: 29-30), where Malak al-Yamin signifies established ownership.

Issue 5: Dissolution of Marriage Upon Captivity (Saby)

There is agreement that if one spouse is captured and brought to the land of Islam while the other remains in enemy territory, the marriage dissolves.

If both are captured simultaneously:

• Al-Shafi'i: The marriage bond dissolves. The new master may require her to undergo Istibra' (a waiting period to ascertain if she is pregnant by her former husband) via waiting for menstruation or pregnancy test.
• Abu Hanifa: The marriage bond does not dissolve.

Al-Shafi'i's Argument: The verse {وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ... إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} implies that the prohibition on married women is lifted upon the establishment of ownership (Milkiyyah).

Rebuttal to Abu Bakr Al-Razi (who argued that if ownership alone dissolves marriage, then sale or inheritance should also dissolve it): Captivity establishes new ownership, whereas sale or inheritance is merely a transfer of existing ownership. Captivity is a stronger event establishing the condition mentioned in the exception.

Issue 6: Divorce upon Sale of a Married Slave Woman

Majority Opinion (Ali, Umar, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf): Selling a married slave woman does not result in divorce. This is the current consensus among jurists.

Minority Opinion (Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Jabir, Anas): Selling her results in divorce.

Majority Evidence: When Aisha bought Barirah and freed her, the Prophet ﷺ gave her the choice (between staying married or separating). If the sale itself caused divorce, this choice would have been meaningless. (Some narrations mention the Prophet ﷺ said: "The sale of a slave woman is her divorce.")

Minority Evidence: The generality of the exception {إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ} implies that any act of ownership transfer (like sale) lifts the prohibition.

Response: The general rule of the Quran is specified by the singular Hadith (the story of Barirah).

{كِتَابَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ} (The decree of Allah upon you)

1. Emphasis: It is an emphatic verbal noun (maṣdar) confirming the preceding prohibitions, meaning: Allah has decreed these prohibitions upon you as a written law.
2. Command (Al-Zajjaj): It can be read as an imperative command: "Adhere to the Book of Allah."

{وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ} (And lawful to you are all [other women] beyond these)

Issue 1: Reading of {وَأُحِلَّ}

• Hamza, Al-Kisa'i, Hafs (from Asim): Read it passively ({وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ}), as a continuation of {حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ}.
• Others: Read it actively ({وَأَحَلَّ لَكُمْ}), as a continuation of {كِتَابَ اللَّهِ}, meaning Allah decreed the prohibition of the former and permitted what is beyond them.

Issue 2: Specific Prohibitions Not Explicitly Mentioned

The apparent meaning suggests everything else is lawful, but specific evidence dictates other prohibitions:

1. Combining a Woman with her Paternal or Maternal Aunt: The Prophet ﷺ said: "A woman shall not be married alongside her paternal aunt, nor alongside her maternal aunt." (This Hadith is widely reported, possibly reaching the level of Tawātur).
   • Khawarij Objection: This Hadith is Ahad (singular report), and a singular report cannot override the apparent generality of the Quranic verse {وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ}.
   • Rebuttals to the Khawarij Objection (Summary):
     • The Quranic generality is stronger than the Ahad Hadith.
     • The Hadith of Mu'adh prioritizes the Book of Allah over the Sunnah, suggesting the Sunnah cannot override the Book's apparent meaning.
     • The principle of presenting Hadith to the Book of Allah suggests rejecting this Hadith if it contradicts the apparent meaning of the verse.
     • If the Hadith preceded the verse, the verse would abrogate it (which is permissible if the general follows the specific). If the verse preceded the Hadith, it implies abrogating the Quran by a singular Hadith (impermissible). If they occurred together, the verse would be ambiguous, requiring the Prophet ﷺ to clarify it, leading to the Hadith being as famous as the verse, which it is not.
     • The verse {وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ} is an explicit text of permission, whereas the Hadith is merely an expression of prohibition (which is metaphorical when interpreted as forbidding marriage).
     • The verse implies exhaustive enumeration of prohibitions; if other prohibitions existed without explicit mention, this exhaustive enumeration would be futile.

• Response to Objections (Preferred View): * View 1 (Al-Hasan & Abu Bakr Al-Asamm): {وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ} does not imply perpetual confirmation of permissibility. It only states that what is beyond the mentioned prohibitions is lawful at that time. Subsequent prohibitions (like the aunt rule) are not abrogations but specifications of this general permission. This applies similarly to the prohibition of mothers {حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ أُمَّهَاتُكُمْ}, whose perpetuity is known through transmitted religious knowledge (Tawātur), not just the wording itself. * View 2 (Implied Prohibition): The prohibition of combining sisters {وَأَنْ تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ} implies that close kinship is a barrier to marriage due to the inherent aversion between co-wives who are related. This principle applies even more strongly to aunts (who resemble mothers to the niece/nephew). Furthermore, the term "mothers" {وَأُمَّهَاتُ نِسَائِكُمْ} can linguistically extend to aunts (as seen in the usage regarding Prophet Ya'qub's uncle being called father, and Prophet Yusuf's maternal uncle being called father). Thus, the aunt/uncle prohibition is already covered by implication. * View 3 (Juridical Precedence): The specific ruling (Hadith) takes precedence over the general ruling (Verse). The Hadith is either Mutawātir (which allows specification) or Ahad (which is permissible to specify the general Quran, according to our school).

2. The Triple Divorced Woman: She is not lawful to her first husband until she marries another man and that marriage is consummated and then dissolved ({فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا فَلَا تَحِلُّ لَهُ مِن بَعْدُ حَتَّىٰ تَنكِحَ زَوْجًا غَيْرَهُ}). (This is a specification via another verse).
3. The Woman in Her Waiting Period (Iddah): Marriage to her is forbidden (based on {وَالْمُطَلَّقَاتُ يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ ثَلَاثَةَ قُرُوءٍ}).
4. Marrying a Slave Woman While Able to Marry a Free Woman: This is forbidden by agreement, based on the verse cited later (An-Nisa: 25).
5. Marrying a Fifth Wife: Forbidden, based on {مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ}.
6. The Woman in Li'an (Mutual Cursing): The Prophet ﷺ stated that the two parties in Li'an will never reunite.

Issue 1: Grammatical Position of {أَن تَبْتَغُوا}

1. Rafa' (Nominative): If {وَأُحِلَّ} is read passively, then {أَن تَبْتَغُوا} is an apposition (badal) to mā (what is lawful), meaning: "And lawful to you is what is beyond that, and lawful for you is seeking them..."
2. Nasb (Accusative): If {وَأُحِلَّ} is read actively, then {أَن تَبْتَغُوا} is accusative by the omission of a preposition (naza' al-khafid), as if saying: "And lawful to you is what is beyond that for the purpose of seeking them by your wealth..."

Meaning of {مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ}: In the state of being chaste, not engaging in illicit sex. Musāfiḥūn (illicit fornicators) is derived from safḥ (pouring/spilling), referring to the fornicator whose only goal is the spilling of semen without regard for lineage or other marital benefits.

Missing Object: The object of tabtaghū (seeking) is implied: "seeking them (the women) by your wealth."

Issue 2: Minimum Dowry (Mahr)

Abu Hanifa: The minimum dowry is ten Dirhams, as one or two Dirhams are not considered "wealth" (amwāl), which is the condition for permissibility mentioned in the verse.

Al-Shafi'i: There is no minimum limit; it can be small or large.

Rebuttal to Abu Hanifa:

1. The verse states seeking by wealth is permissible, not that seeking without wealth is forbidden (which relies on the concept of Mafhūm—implied meaning—which Shafi'i rejects here).
2. If one has only ten Dirhams, they are not typically called wealthy, yet Abu Hanifa permits marriage for them. We accept the consensus that a small amount is valid, overriding the apparent meaning of the verse in this specific case, but we use the verse to argue against a minimum lower than ten.

Evidence for No Minimum (Al-Shafi'i's Arguments):

1. Verse Analysis: {بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ} (by your wealth) is a plural-to-plural correspondence, implying that any amount considered "wealth" suffices, whether small or large.
2. Verse on Divorce: {فَإِن طَلَّقَهَا مِن قَبْلِ أَن تَمَسُّوهَا وَقَدْ فَرَضْتُمْ لَهَا فَرِيضَةً فَنِصْفُ مَا فَرَضْتُمْ} (Al-Baqarah: 237). If the contract was for one Dirham, half a Dirham is due, which Abu Hanifa does not accept.
3. Hadith:
   • The Prophet ﷺ approved a marriage where the dowry was two sandals, asking the woman if she was content with them. Given the poverty of the couple, the value was likely less than ten Dirhams.
   • The Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever gives a woman a kaff (handful) of flour or barley as Mahr, he has made lawful [for himself]."
   • The Prophet ﷺ told the man who wanted to marry the woman who offered herself: "Seek even a ring of iron," which is worth less than ten Dirhams.

Issue 3: Dowry of Service or Knowledge

Abu Hanifa: Teaching a chapter of the Quran or a year of service cannot be a Mahr; she is entitled to her Mahr al-Mithl (equivalent dowry). This is because the verse requires seeking by wealth (māl), which refers to tangible assets, not usufructs/benefits.

Al-Shafi'i: It is permissible to make these benefits the Mahr.

Al-Shafi'i's Rebuttal:

1. The verse only proves that seeking by wealth is permissible, not that seeking by non-wealth is forbidden.
2. The term Ītā’ (giving) covers both assets and committed usufructs.
3. The address was based on the most common scenario (wealth).

Al-Shafi'i's Evidence for Usufruct as Mahr:

1. Story of Shu'ayb: Prophet Shu'ayb made the service of eight years the dowry for marrying one of his daughters ({أَنْ تَأْجُرَنِي ثَمَانِيَ حِجَجٍ}). The laws of previous prophets remain until abrogated.
2. The Woman Who Gifted Herself: The Prophet ﷺ asked the man who wanted to marry the woman who offered herself if he had anything. When he said no, the Prophet ﷺ asked if he knew any Quran, and upon affirmation, married them based on that knowledge.

Issue 4: Manumission as Mahr

Abu Bakr Al-Razi: The verse implies that freeing a slave woman cannot be her Mahr, as the verse requires the private part to be sought by wealth. The Prophet ﷺ freeing Safiyyah and making her manumission her Mahr was a specific prerogative of the Prophet ﷺ.

Issue 5: Meaning of {مُحْصِنِينَ} (Desiring Chastity)

1. Interpretation A (Preferred): They become muḥṣan (chaste/married) because of the marriage contract. This keeps the verse general and meaningful.
2. Interpretation B: Ihsan is a condition for the permissibility mentioned in {وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ}. This makes the verse ambiguous, as the Ihsan mentioned here is undefined.

Issue 1: Meaning of Istimtā' (Enjoyment) and Ujūr (Compensation)

Istimtā' linguistically means benefiting from something. Ujūr (plural of Ajr) means their due compensation, which is the Mahr (dowry), as confirmed by other verses linking Ītā’ al-Ujūr with Ṣudūq (dowries). The Mahr is called Ajr because it is compensation for benefits/usufructs, not for the physical asset itself.

Meaning of {فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُم بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ}:

1. Whatever enjoyment you derive from the women you marry (intercourse or the contract itself), give them their due compensation.
2. Mā in {مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ} refers to women (plural in meaning), and minhunna is for specification. The pronoun bihi refers back to the singular word mā (referring to the act of enjoyment).

Issue 2: Does Seclusion (Khulwah) Establish the Full Mahr?

Al-Shafi'i: Valid seclusion (khulwah ṣaḥīḥah) does not establish the full Mahr.

Abu Hanifa: Valid seclusion establishes the full Mahr.

Al-Shafi'i's Argument: The verse implies that the obligation to pay the Ajr (Mahr) is due to the Istimtā' (enjoyment/intercourse). If valid seclusion established the Mahr, this would happen before enjoyment. Since the verse links the payment obligation directly to enjoyment, seclusion alone cannot establish the full amount.

Issue 3: The Ruling on Mut'ah Marriage (Temporary Marriage)

View 1 (Majority): This verse refers to the standard, permanent marriage contract. If consummated, the full Mahr is due; if only contracted, half the Mahr is due (as per the preceding verse).

View 2 (Minority): This verse specifically addresses the ruling of Mut'ah (temporary marriage: hiring a woman for a fixed period for intercourse).

• It was initially permissible upon the Prophet's ﷺ arrival in Mecca during his Umrah, when his companions complained of prolonged celibacy.
• Abrogation Debate:
  • Majority: It was abrogated.
  • Minority (Ibn Abbas, Imran ibn al-Hussain): It remains permissible.
    • Ibn Abbas's Narrations: He gave three accounts: 1) Absolute permissibility (with a waiting period of one menstruation, no inheritance). 2) It is only permissible for the desperate, like carrion meat. 3) It was abrogated.
    • Imran ibn al-Hussain: The verse was revealed, and no abrogating verse followed. The Prophet ﷺ commanded it, and he died without forbidding it.

Arguments for Abrogation (Majority):

1. Exclusivity of Sexual Relations: Intercourse is only lawful with a wife or a slave woman ({إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ}). A Mut'ah woman is neither. Evidence: No inheritance, no established lineage, and no required Iddah (waiting period) as required for wives.
2. Umar's Statement: Umar stood up and said: "Two Mut'ahs existed in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and I forbid both and punish for them: Mut'at al-Hajj (temporary Hajj) and Mut'at al-Nisa (temporary marriage)." No companion objected.
   • If they knew it was permissible, their silence implies either they knew it was abrogated (our view) or they were hypocrites (which is impossible given the status of the Companions).
3. Hadith Evidence: Narrations state the Prophet ﷺ forbade Mut'at al-Nisa and the meat of domestic donkeys, often linking the prohibition to the Battle of Khaybar. However, other narrations place the permission during the Conquest of Mecca or the Farewell Pilgrimage (which are later than Khaybar), suggesting the prohibition was later established.

Arguments for Permissibility (Minority):

1. Verse Interpretation (Path 1): The verse {أَن تَبْتَغُوا بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ} covers both permanent seeking (marriage) and temporary seeking (Mut'ah). Thus, the permission covers both.
2. Verse Interpretation (Path 2 - Specific to Mut'ah):
   • The reading by Ubayy and Ibn Abbas included the phrase "for a specified term" (ilā ajalin musammā), implying this verse is only about Mut'ah.
   • The verse requires payment upon enjoyment, which fits Mut'ah perfectly, as permanent marriage requires payment upon contract, regardless of immediate enjoyment.
   • The verse requires payment upon mere enjoyment (taladhdhudh), whereas permanent marriage requires payment upon the contract itself.
   • If this verse referred to permanent marriage, it would be redundant, as the ruling was already established in the beginning of the Surah ({فَانكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ... وَآتُوا النِّسَاءَ صَدُقَاتِهِنَّ}).

Rebuttal to Permissibility Arguments:

• We do not deny Mut'ah was once permissible; we assert it was abrogated. The verse, even if proven to permit it, does not negate subsequent abrogation.
• Regarding Umar's statement, if he claimed to forbid something the Prophet ﷺ permitted without abrogation, he would be an apostate, and so would those who remained silent. Therefore, his statement must mean he forbade it because he knew the Prophet ﷺ had abrogated it.

Issue 1: Meaning of Mutual Agreement After the Obligation

If the verse refers to Permanent Marriage: It means there is no sin if the wife voluntarily reduces the fixed dowry or completely forgives it, similar to {فَإِن طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَن شَيْءٍ مِّنْهُ نَفْسًا فَكُلُوهُ هَنِيئًا مَّرِيئًا}.

If the verse refers to Mut'ah: It means after the agreed-upon term and wage are set, if they mutually agree to extend the term and increase the wage, there is no sin, provided the woman agrees.

Issue 2: Increasing the Dowry (Ziyādah)

Abu Hanifa: Increasing the dowry after the contract is permissible and established, whether consummation occurs or not. If divorced before consummation, the increase is void, and she gets half the originally named amount.

Al-Shafi'i: The increase is like a gift (hibah). It is established only if taken possession of (i.e., if the husband pays it).

Abu Bakr Al-Razi's Argument for Abu Hanifa: The verse covers both reduction and increase through mutual agreement. It is more specific to increase because reduction (forgiveness) does not require the husband's consent, whereas increase requires his acceptance.

Rebuttal: The increase could refer to the husband voluntarily giving the wife the other half of the Mahr if he divorces her before consummation (as per Al-Zajjaj's view above). Furthermore, if the increase were attached to the original contract, it would imply either:

1. Re-establishing the contract after it was established (impossible).
2. Establishing a new contract after the first one dissolved (which consensus rejects). Therefore, the increase must be treated as a separate gift.

{وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلًا أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ...}

(And whoever among you cannot afford the means to marry free believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing young women...)