An-Nisa 4:19–24

Sequence of verses

Repentance was mentioned in the previous verses in proportion to the related requirement of the text. Before this, there was a series of injunctions pertaining to women. The present verses too carry some more imperatives against the excesses suffered by women at the hands of their husbands, even heirs. Details appear in the Commentary.

The aim is to correct such social disorders. It may be noted that husbands have been particularly addressed in وَعَاشِرُ‌وهُنَّ (live with them). Verses 20 and 21 conclude the subject.

Commentary

Women before Islam: Eradication of Injustices

Given in these three verses are steps taken to eliminate injustices to which women were commonly subjected:

1. The most glaring of these was that men used to act as owners of the life and property of women, so much so, that a woman taken in marriage was passed on as a piece of property after her husband's death, on to his heirs. They were considered as the new owners and inheritors of the property, plus the wife. They could, if they wished to, marry her or give her in marriage to somebody else against payment. The son of the husband from another wife could himself marry her after the death of his father. When a living human being has been taken as an article of ownership, what would have happened to the normal property is all too obvious. This one basic social ill became the cause of hundreds of other unjust practices against women, some of which are pointed out below:

(a) If a woman received some property in inheritance or some gift from her parents, the poor thing stayed deprived of it. Everything received in her name was devoured by men at her husband's home.

(b) If, somehow the woman did come in possession of her share of the property, men would prevent her from remarrying so that she could not take her share out of the house - they wanted her to die right there where she was, leaving her property which they could possess after her.

(c) In some places there was the practice that if the husband did not like his wife because of whimsical factors and not because of any shortcoming of the wife, then, while he skipped relating to her as his wife, did not get rid of her by giving her a divorce. This was to harass her to the limit that she was forced to give him back the jewellery and dower money he had given her; or, if he had not yet given these as due, he expected that she would forgo her claim before she could hope to be released. There were situations when the husband, despite having divorced her would not let the divorced wife remarry so that she breaks up and returns to him the amount of dower he had given her, or forgoes the dower still unpaid.

(d) On occasions, following the death of her husband, his heirs would not let the widow remarry. They would do so either to satisfy their false sense of prestige, or to let her go only after they get some-thing for themselves in the deal.

As said earlier, all these injustices were perpetrated on the basis of the central assumption that man owned not only the property but also the very life of the woman. The Holy Qur'an struck at the very root of this evil which produced other injustices and openly declared:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَن تَرِ‌ثُوا النِّسَاءَ كَرْ‌هًا

O those who believe, it is not lawful for you that you should forcibly take women as inheritance.

The word "forcibly" does not appear here as a condition which would have given the impression that their becoming owners of women with the latter’ s approval was all right, but this restriction has been introduced here as a statement of fact. It means that taking over the charge of the life and property of women as self-appointed owners without any legal or rational basis whatsoever could, obviously, be only "forcibly". How could a woman, in her normal senses, ever agree to such a proposition? (a1-Bahr al-Muh, it). This is why the Shari'ah of Islam does not accept her approval in this matter as effective. If any woman, so out of her mind, approves of being owned by somebody, the Islamic law is not willing to concede this position.

The common method of preventing injustice and disorder would be to use a prohibitive order, but the Holy Qur'an has avoided this common method at this place and has expressed the element of prohibition by negating the lawfulness of this act by saying: لَا یَحِلُّ لَکُم 'it is not lawful for you'. Here, in addition to stressing upon the severe sinfulness of this matter, the purpose may also be to indicate that, should it be that someone does go on to marry an adult woman without her consent and permission, the marriage thus entered into shall not be lawful and, in fact, it is null and void. Being totally non-sequitur, no husband-wife relationship between the man and woman gets established from such a marriage, nor do the injunctions of inheritance or lineage follow from it.

Similarly, if someone forces a woman and takes back the dower he had given her, or compels her to forgo the outstanding dower, this forced return or forgiveness is not valid in the sight of the Shari'ah. Money or property taken in this manner do not make them lawful for the man, nor does it cause any due right to be forgiven. This subject has been further clarified in: وَلَا تَعْضُلُوهُنَّ لِتَذْهَبُوا بِبَعْضِ مَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ

It means: 'Do not prevent women from marrying at their choice with the intention of taking back what you, or a relative, have already given to them as dower or gift.' So, the giving and the taking back of dower is inclusive of the incidence of making the woman forgive the dower the payment of which is due, fixed and agreed upon. Whether one forces the woman to return the dower amount already paid or forces her to forgo the dower still outstanding, both are impermissible and patently Haram (forbidden). Similarly, whatever has been given to the wife as gift, or something of which she has become the 'owner', cannot be taken back by the husband, or the heirs, for it is not lawful for them to do so. However, this rule applies only to a situation where anything has been assigned to her as an owner. If something was given to her for a temporary use, like jewellery or any other article, not making her the owner of it, then, that simply does not enter into the 'ownership' of the wife and, therefore, asking for their return is not forbidden.

The text, after that, by saying: إِلَّا أَن يَأْتِينَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُّبَيِّنَةٍ exempts some such situations under which it becomes permissible for the husband to take back what he has given, including the dower. It means that should the woman commit an act which is clearly shameful and which naturally compels the man to divorce her, then, this will be a situation in which it does not matter if the husband holds back the word of divorce until such time that the woman returns the dower he had given her or forgoes the outstanding dower, if that is the case.

According to Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas ؓ ، Sayyidah A’ shah ؓ and Hadrat Dahhak (رح) and others, the word, فاحشا "fahisha" (translated as 'a shameful act' ) here means disobedience to the husband and indecent abuses against him; while, Abu Qilabah and Hasan al-Bari رحمۃ اللہ علیہما take it to mean immodesty and adultery in this particular place. Thus, the sense would come to be: If these women happen to commit some shameful act or they behave disobediently and vituperatively which forces the husband to think of a divorce, then, this being a fault of the woman, the husband has the right to hold her in the bond of marriage, until he receives back what he had given her, or has the outstanding dower forgiven by her.

The next two verses (20, 21) also enlarge upon this subject. Here it has been said that, should it be that the woman has just not shown any contumacy or immodesty, but the husband, following his own physical desire and pleasure, intends to marry another woman in her place, then again it will not be permissible for him to claim anything from her in exchange of divorce, even though he had given her a lot of wealth. Similarly, it will not be allowed for him to force her to forgo the dower due against him. This is because there is no fault of the woman and the cause which makes the dower due and payable has been vacated, that is, they have been married and have had their privacy with each other. Now, the husband has no right to take back what he has given her or make her forgo the dower.

That the taking back of this amount is an injustice and sin has been later on described in three stages.

First, it was said: أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُّبِينًا that is, 'do you want to take it through imputation and an open sin?"

This sentence refers back to the previous verse (19) where it was laid down that the husband has no right to take back the dower from his wife except when she has committed a shameful act. On the basis of this principle the present verse (20) says that if you take back the dower from your wife, it will mean that you are imputing her for a shameful act, because it is the only situation where your claim may be rightful. Since your wife has not committed a shameful act, your claim to the dower is a false imputation which is an open sin.

Secondly, in the following sentence in verse 21, it was said: وَكَيْفَ تَأْخُذُونَهُ وَقَدْ أَفْضَىٰ بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ that is, how can you now take back what you had given her when not only the marriage has been solemnized, but you have also had access to each other in privacy? For, in this situa-tion, whatever has been given, if against dower, the woman certainly deserved it. She now owns it because she surrendered herself to her husband. The idea that it could be returned is senseless. Even if this money or property given by the husband was presented or gifted, even then, it is not possible that it could be returned because what a husband and wife give to each other as gift cannot be taken back. Such claim of its return is neither permissible in Shari` ah, nor is it legally enforced. So, marital bond prevents the taking back of what has been given as gift.

The same subject has been stated in the last sentence of verse 21: وَأَخَذْنَ مِنكُم مِّيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا (and they have taken a firm covenant from you). This 'covenant' is the bond of marriage which is solemnly attested to with the name of Allah before a gathering of people following a khutbah.

To sum up, once this marital covenant has been made and mutual privacy has brought the couple close together, to force the woman to return what was given to' her is open injustice and tyranny. All Muslims must abstain from it.

The present verses are an extension of the description of evil practices common in Jahiliyyah which have been taken up earlier. A detailed discussion appears in the Commentary.

Commentary:

These verses give details of محرَّمات muharramat, that is, women with whom marriage is prohibited. Some of them are prohibited forever, never becoming lawful under any condition. Some are not permanently prohibited. They become lawful under some particular circumstances.

There are three kinds of permanently-prohibited women referred to in the first category. They are those by kinship, by fosterage and by relationship through marriage, and are permanently prohibited. The kind mentioned at the end remains prohibited until they are bound in marriage with someone else.

An explanation of the verses follows with relevant part of the verse appearing in the lead: وَلَا تَنكِحُوا مَا نَكَحَ آبَاؤُكُم (And do not marry those of women whom your fathers had married) (verse 22): During the days of Jahiliyyah, people had no qualms when they went ahead and married the wife of their father after his death. In this verse, Allah Almighty has prohibited this shameful practice; an evil which invites His wrath. How can someone keep calling a woman his mother for a long time and yet stoop so low as to make her his wife after the death of the father?

Ruling:

Marrying the legally wedded wife of the father has been declared unlawful in this noble verse. There is no restriction here to indicate marital consummation by the father. So, the fact that the father has married a woman is enough to forbid the son from entering into marriage with that woman. It will never be lawful. Similarly, it is not correct for the father to marry the wife of his son, even if the marriage of the son is limited to formal 'nikah' and his wife have not yet come to live with him. (Ibn ` Abidin)

If the father has fallen into illicit relations with some woman, even then it will not be permissible for the son to marry that woman. حُرِّ‌مَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ أُمَّهَاتُكُمْ (Prohibited for you are your mothers): It means that it is unlawful to marry one's own mother and the word, أُمَّهَاتُكُمُ "ummahatukum" (your mothers), includes all grandmothers, paternal or maternal وَبَنَاتُكُمْ and your daughters) means that it is unlawful to marry one's own real daughter, and the daughter of the daughter, and the daughter of the son.

In short, marrying a daughter, grand-daughter, great-granddaughter; maternal grand-daughter, great-grand-daughter is all unlawful. As for marrying a step-daughter, from a different husband, whom the wife has brought with her, there are details which will appear later. As regards the son or daughter who are not real but have been adopted, it is permissible to marry them or their offspring, subject to the provision that such marriage is not unlawful due to some other consideration. Similarly, if a person fathers a daughter by indulging in zina with a woman, the girl thus born will be governed by the rule which applies to a daughter and marriage with her too will not be correct.

وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ (and your sisters): Marrying one's own real sister is unlawful, as well as marrying an ` allati sister (half-sister from the same father but different mother), and also marrying an akhya-fi sister (half-sister from the same mother but different father).

وَعَمَّاتُكُمْ (and your paternal aunts): Marriage with the real sister of one's father, his half-sister from their father's side and his half-sister from their mother's side is unlawful. It means that one cannot marry any paternal aunt from the three kinds described above.

وَخَالَاتُكُمْ (and your maternal aunts): Marriage with a sister of one s mother, whether real (haqiqi) or half-sister from their father's side (allati) or half-sister from their mother's side (akhyafi), is unlawful.

وَبَنَاتُ الْأَخِ (and daughters of brother): It means that marriage with one's nieces is also unlawful, whether they be haqiqi, allati or akhyafi. Marriage with the daughters of all three types of brothers, real or half, as given above, is not lawful.

وَبَنَاتُ الْأُخْتِ (and daughters of sister): It means that marriage with one's maternal nieces is also unlawful, whether the sisters be haqiqi or ` allata or akhyafi The daughters of such sisters cannot be taken in marriage.

وَأُمَّهَاتُكُمُ اللَّاتِي أَرْ‌ضَعْنَكُمْ (and your mothers who suckled you): This refers to women who, even though they are not the real mothers, are treated in Shari'ah like mothers in the sense that marriage with them is as prohibited as with one's real mother. The quantity or the frequency of feed makes no difference; the said unlawfulness stands established under all eventualities. Muslim jurists refer to this as the unlawfulness through fosterage.

However, it is necessary to remember that this unlawfulness through fosterage gets established when suckling takes place at a time which is the usual time for it during childhood. The Holy Prophet ﷺ has said: اِنَّما الرَّضاعَۃُ من امَجَاعَۃِ Fosterage is only from hunger" which means that the unlawfulness that becomes established through suckling shall come into effect only when suckling has taken place at a time when the child has no other option but to suckle and grow through it. (al-Bukhri and Muslim)

According to Imam Abu Hanifah (رح) ، this period ranges between the birth of the child and when he or she is two and a half years old. According to other Muslim jurists which includes his special disciples, Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad رحمۃ اللہ علیہما the period of suckling is two years only, therefore, if a boy or girl suckles at the breast of a woman after the age of two years, the prohibition of marriage due to fosterage will not come into effect.

وَأَخَوَاتُكُم مِّنَ الرَّ‌ضَاعَةِ (and your sisters through suckling): It means that marriage with sisters related through the bond of fosterage is also unlawful. Going in details, it works out that a woman who suckles a boy or girl during the days of suckling becomes their foster-mother, and her husband becomes their foster-father, and the offspring of that woman become his brothers and sisters, and the sisters of that woman become their maternal aunts, and the elder and younger brothers of her husband become the foster-uncles of these children, and the sisters of the husband of that woman become the paternal aunts of these children; and thus, in between all of them, the relationship of fosterage resulting in prohibition of marriage is established. The marriage which is mutually unlawful as based on the relation of kinship becomes equally unlawful as based on the relation of suckling. The Holy Prophet ﷺ has said: یحرم من الرضاعۃ ما یحرم من الولادۃ (Bukhari) (That which becomes unlawful by kinship becomes unlawful by fosterage). Another narration from the Sahih of Muslim as in Mishkat, page 273, says: ان اللہ حرم من الرضاعۃ ما حرم من النسب (Surely, Allah has prohibited through fosterage what He has prohibited through kinship.)

Rulings:

1. If a boy and a girl were suckled by a certain woman, the two of them cannot be married to each other. Similarly, marriage with the daughter of a foster-brother and foster-sister is also not possible.

2. Marriage with the lineal mother of foster-brother and foster-sister is permissible. It is also lawful to marry the foster-mother of the lineal sister of foster-sister; and the foster-sister of the lineal sister.

3. The unlawfulness of marriage becomes established if the feed is received by the child during the days of suckling either through the mouth, or the nose. Should it be that the feed is given to the child by any other inlet, or it is injected in, then, the unlawfulness of fosterage will not come to be established.

4. No feed other than the feed from the woman suckling the child (for example, milk from animals or male humans), establishes fosterage.

5. If the feed is mixed in medicine or in milk from a goat, cow or buffalo, the unlawfulness of marriage as based on suckling shall be established only when the quantity of the woman's feed measures more, or when it is at least equal. But, if the woman's feed-is less than that, this unlawfulness shall not come to be established

6. If male mammalian glands happen to lactate, it does not go on to prove the unlawfulness of marriage from suckling.

7. If a woman lets a child mouth her nipple, but there is no certainty that the child has sucked the feed in, then this will not establish the unlawfulness through suckling and it will not affect the lawfulness of marriage, because the prohibition of marriage is not established where actual suckling is doubtful.

8. If a man marries a certain woman while some other woman claims that she has suckled both of them, then, should both of them confirm it, it will be decided that the marriage was incorrect. However, should both of them reject the claim it will not be mandatory on the spouses to vacate the marriage, however, if the woman appears to be God-fearing and a practicing Muslim, it is preferable for the spouses to opt for separation through divorce.

9. The witness of two practicing Muslims is necessary in order to prove unlawfulness through suckling. This will not be proved by the witness of one man or one woman. But, since this is a very serious matter involving the whole life being halal or Haram a precautionary attitude will always be advisable. Therefore, some Muslim jurists have ruled that if one intends to marry a woman, and only one practicing Muslim testifies that they are foster brother and sister, it will not be permissible for them to contract marriage. And if the evidence of one witness, male or female, comes forth after they have married each other, even then, it will be safe and prudent for them to opt for voluntary separation.

10. According to the recognized rules of evidence, the testimony of one man and two women is equal to that of two male witnesses. Therefore, even if one man and two women testify the fact of suckling, the foster-relationship will stand proved.

وَأُمَّهَاتُ نِسَائِكُمْ (and the mothers of your wives): Also unlawful to husbands are the mothers of their wives. Here too, the word, "ummahat" includes all grandmothers of wives, maternal, paternal, lineal or foster.

Ruling:

1. Just as the mother of a legally wedded wife is unlawful, very similarly, equally unlawful is the mother of a woman with whom one has slept assuming her to be his wife, (while, in fact, she was not his wife) or with whom zina (adultery) has been committed, or who has been touched lustfully.

2. The initial bond or marriage, in itself, renders the mother of one's wife unlawful for him. It means that even if the husband has never slept with his wife, her mother is still unlawful for him to marry.

وَرَ‌بَائِبُكُمُ اللَّاتِي فِي حُجُورِ‌كُم مِّن نِّسَائِكُمُ اللَّاتِي دَخَلْتُم بِهِنَّ (and your step-daughters under your care who are born of your women with whom you have had intercourse): When one marries a woman and sleeps with her after the marriage, the daughter of that woman from another husband becomes unlawful for him, and so do her granddaughters, both paternal and maternal. Marriage with them is not permissible. But, if the husband has not yet slept with his wife and has divorced her after the contract of marriage, then her daughter or grand-daughter will not be unlawful for him. But, following nikah, if one touches his wife lustfully, or looks at her private part with sexual desire, then this too, will be taken as having sex with her, therefore, it will make the daughter of that woman unlawful.

The words "your women" used in this context are general. There-fore, it is not the legally wedded wife only whose daughters are unlawful for the husband, but the same rule applies to a woman who is not really wedded to the person, but he has had sexual intercourse with her either under the wrong impression that she is his wife, or in adultery. The daughter and grand-daughter of such women will also become unlawful for him.

وَحَلَائِلُ أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ (and the wives of your sons from your [ own ] loins): The wife of one's own son is unlawful, and the universality of °son° includes grandsons, paternal or maternal. So, marriage with their wives shall not be permissible.

مِنْ أَصْلَابِكُمْ (from your loins): This particular restriction is used here to exclude the adopted son. Marriage with his wife is lawful. As far as a foster son is concerned, he is governed by the rule which governs the lineal son, therefore, marriage with his wife too is unlawful.

وَأَن تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ (and that you combine two sisters in wedlock): Also unlawful is the combining of two sisters in the bond of marriage. They may be real sisters or half sisters from the father's side or sisters from the mother's side (haqiqi, 'allati, akhyafi). They may be sisters by lineage or sisters by fosterage. This rule covers all of them. However, when one sister has been divorced it is permissible to marry another sister, but this permissibility becomes effective only after the period of ` iddah has expired. Marriage during ` iddah is not permissible.

Rulings:

1. Just as one cannot combine two sisters in his marriage, it is also unlawful for him to combine a paternal aunt and her niece, and a maternal aunt and her niece. They too cannot be combined in marriage with any one person. As reported in al-Bukhari and Muslim, the Holy Prophet ﷺ has said:

لا یُجمَعُ بین المرأَۃِ و عَمَّتِھا ولا بین المرأَۃِ و خالَتِھا (بخاری و مسلم)

Do not combine a woman with her paternal aunt, nor a woman with her maternal aunt

2. Muslim jurists have mentioned the general principle that any two women, out of whom, if one was supposed to be a male, then, their marriage with each other would turn out to be incorrect according to Islamic law, thus two women of this kind cannot be combined in marriage with one man.

اِلَّا ما قد سلف (except what has passed): It means that whatever has been the practice during Jahiliyyah will not be called to account. These words have also appeared in verse 22. There too, the meaning is the same, that is, that which came to pass during Jahiliyyah has passed. Now that Islam has been embraced, past deeds will not be taken into account, but it is necessary to abstain from them in future.

In the same way, it is necessary at this time of the revelation of what was unlawful that separation be made if one holds the wife of his father, or two sisters, in marriage. In the case of two sisters, it is compulsory that one sister be separated.

As narrated by the blessed Companion, Sayyidna Bard Ibn ` Azib ؓ ، the Holy Prophet ﷺ had sent Sayyidna Abu Burdah ibn Niyar ؓ to execute a man because he had married the wife of his father. (Mishkat, p. 274)

Ibn Firoz Dailami narrates from his father: 'When I embraced Islam, I had two sisters married to me. I went to the Holy Prophet ﷺ with the problem.' He said: "Separate by divorcing one and keeping the other." (Mishkat, p. 274)

These narrations tell us that just as it is not lawful, after embracing Islam; to contract marriage with father's wife or to combine two sisters in marriage, similarly it is also unlawful to maintain such marriages, if they have been contracted by someone before he embraced Islam.

إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورً‌ا رَّ‌حِيمًا (Surely, Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful) means that anything people did erroneously before the advent of Islam will be overlooked by Allah Almighty once they have embraced Islam and they can be sure that He will turn to them with the great reach of His mercy.

وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ (the women already bound in marriage): It means that women having husbands have also been made unlawful. So far as a woman is married to a person, no other person can marry her. From here, it becomes very clear that a woman cannot live with more than one husband simultaneously. There are some ignorant and loudmouthed people in our time who have started saying - when men are allowed to take more than one wife, women too should have the permission to enjoy more than one husband. This tasteless bravado is totally contrary to this noble verse. People who indulge in such flippant display of ignorance do not see that plurality of wives is a blessing which has been historically endorsed in all religions and societies. But, for a woman, having more than one husband at the same time is not only a headache for her in person, but it is also disgraceful for those two men who become husbands to one woman. This weird arrangement is not only shameless, but also leaves no possibility of any offspring being born lineally sound. When many men benefit from one woman, there will remain no method of attributing the fatherhood of the child so born to any one of the participating husbands. Such an obnoxious demand can only be made by those who are totally hostile to the graces of humanity, those who have buried their sense of shame once and for all and those who are supporting the movement to deprive human beings of blessings that issue forth from the recognized channel of parents and children bound in a charter of mutual rights. When lineage goes unproved, who is going to be charged with the responsibility of taking care of mutual rights and duties?

Even if this is looked at purely in terms of nature and reason, there seems to be no justification for the provision of several husbands for one woman:

1. The basic purpose of marriage is procreation. Seen from this angle, several women can certainly become pregnant from one man, but one woman cannot become pregnant from several men. She will become pregnant from none but one. What has thus happened is that, given the presence of several husbands, the procreating ability of all husbands, except one, was totally wasted on that count. They ended up with nothing beneficial except the lone satisfaction of their sexual drive.

2. Experience shows that woman is a genre more delicate than man. For a major portion of the year, she does not remain physically amenable to intimacy. There are conditions and circumstances in married life when it is not possible for her to fulfill the rights of even one husband, let alone more than one husband seeking her physical attention.

3. Since man is healthier and stronger in terms of physical power as compared to woman, man should, if his sexual strength is above average and he cannot find satisfaction by limiting himself to one woman, have the opportunity, of course by permissible means, to marry twice and thrice. If this is not allowed, he will take to impermissible ways of satisfying his desires, and in that process, he will ruin the whole society. But, the likelihood that woman could bring about such ruination is very remote.

This question is so important in the Shari` ah of Islam that it has not only ruled the second marriage of a woman unlawful when she is already married to someone else, but it also goes farther when it rules that, should the husband of a woman divorce her, or die, she still cannot marry another person until after the expiry of her ` iddah or waiting period.

إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ (except the bondwomen you come to own): This sentence is an exception from the rule set in وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ ; (the women already bound in marriage).

It means that it is not permissible that a woman who already has a husband be taken in marriage by another person, unless she comes in the ownership of a person as a bondwoman. This happened when Muslims had to carry out jihad against the infidels of Dar-al-harb (a non-Muslim state without a treaty of peace with the Muslims). As a result of a valid war with them women prisoners might have been brought to the Islamic state. If their non-Muslim husbands remained behind in their original non-Muslim State, their bond of marriage with them used to be terminated by their entry into the Islamic state, and it was lawful for a Muslim to marry her, if she was a Christian, a Jew or had embraced Islam. Similarly, if the head of the Islamic state opted to make her a bondwoman and had given her to a participant in the war as his share in the spoils, he could also enjoy her company. However, this marriage or enjoyment was permissible only after she goes through at least one menstruation period after her entry into the Islamic state. If it appeared that she was pregnant from her previous husband, it was necessary to wait until she delivers the child.

Rulings:

1. If a disbelieving woman embraces Islam in Dar al-Harb while her husband is a disbeliever, she will be released from the bond of marriage with him after the expiry of three menstrual periods.

2. If a disbelieving woman embraces Islam in Dar al-Islam and her husband is a disbeliever, then, the local legal authority should induce the husband to think about accepting Islam. If he refuses to become a Muslim, the Muslim judge should bring about a separation between the two. This separation will be taken as the divorce after which, the woman completes her period of ` iddah and becomes free to marry any Muslim of her choice.

كِتَابَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ (It has been written by Allah for you): It means that the unlawfulness of marriage with women identified by Allah is something determined by Him.

وَأُحِلَّ لَكُم مَّا وَرَ‌اءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ (All except them have been permitted for you): It means that women other than those whose unlawfulness has been mentioned upto this point are lawful for you; for example, the daughter of an uncle, the daughter of a maternal aunt, the sister born of a maternal uncle, and the wife of a maternal or paternal uncle - after their death or after they have divorced her - subject to the condition that any other reason of prohibition does not exist. In addition to that, there is the wife of an adopted son who can be lawfully married after he divorces, or dies; so also, if one's wife dies, he can marry her sister - these being some of the many lawful options available. All these have been covered under the generality of مَّا وَرَ‌اءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ (All except them).

Ruling:

It is not permissible to have more than four wives simultaneously. Detailed comments on this subject have already appeared in the beginning of Surah Al-Nis-a'. Not finding any reference to this in the immediate context of the present verses should not lead anyone to misunderstand that, may be, the generality of the Qur'anic words, '' مَّا وَرَ‌اءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ (All except them) allows unrestricted marriage with women. Besides the women, marriage with whom is unlawful as declared in the Holy Qur'an, there are several others in this category as mentioned in the noble Ahadith, indications of which appear in the Qur'anic verses also and to which we have been pointing out in our comments.

أَن تَبْتَغُوا بِأَمْوَالِكُم (that you may seek { to marry} through your wealth):

It means that the description of women unlawful for marriage is there to induce you to look for lawful women with the help of your wealth and enter into marriage with them. In الاحکام القرآن Ahkam al-Qur'an, Abu Bakr al-Jassas (رح) writes that this part of the verse tells us two things. Firstly, marriage cannot materialize devoid of dower (even if the parties to marriage decide between themselves that the marriage will take place without dower, still, dower will be necessary, details of which are available in books of Fiqh). Secondly, it tells us that dower (mahr) should be something which can be termed as مال "mal' (inclusive of wealth, property, assets etc.) According to the Hanafiyyah, mahr (dower) should not be less than ten dirhams. One dirham is equivalent to 3 1/2x17 grains Troy of silver.

مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ‌ مُسَافِحِينَ (binding yourself in marriage, and not only for lust): It means that one should seek lawful women with the help of one's assets and it should be clearly understood that the seeking of women is to safeguard modesty and chastity, which is the crucial purpose of a marriage. And it is through marriage alone that the desired objective has to be achieved and certainly not through spendings to find women for zina (fornication). This tells us that, no doubt the fornicators too spend out of their assets, but that spending is patently unlawful, and benefiting from a woman who has been procured by such spending is never lawful. The addition of غَيْرَ‌ مُسَافِحِينَ 1 (not for lust) here serves two purposes. As obvious, it forbids zina (fornication) while it also points out that the purpose of zina is nothing but to run after lust and to waste one's semen for unlawful enjoyment - because it is not aimed at the seeking of children and the preservation of the human race. Muslims must stay chaste investing their strength where it is due in the best interest of human procreation, the method of which is to have a wife in marriage, or a bondwoman - in case one comes to have one.

1. Literally, it means 'flowing of water' and indicates to seeking ejaculation out of lust. (Editor)

فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُم بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَ‌هُنَّ فَرِ‌يضَةً (So, whoever of them you have benefited from, give them their due as obligated): 'Benefiting' in this verse refers to coition and it means that the payment of full dower is due on the husband only when he had benefited from her company by having sex with her. If, after the initial marriage contract the wife has not come to live with the husband who thus does not get the opportunity to 'benefit' from her company, and he divorces her before having that opportunity, the payment of mahr (dower) due against him becomes half. Special attention has been drawn in this verse to the situation when, once this 'benefit' has been received from some woman, the payment of her mahr becomes obligatory on all counts. Any shortcoming in doing so is against the letter and spirit of Muslim law. Moreover, the universal human sense of honour dictates that consequent to the purpose of marriage having been achieved, there should be no failing or delaying in giving the wife her due - however, the Shari'ah gives the woman the additional right that she can, if the mahr (dower) is prompt مُعَجَّل (mu'ajjal), refuse to go to her husband until the payment of the mahr has been made to her.

The unlawfulness of Mut'ah

The root of the Arabic word, إستمتاع : istimta' is ع ۔ ت - م (mim - ta - 'ain) which means to derive benefit.. Any benefit derived from a person or from wealth, property, assets etc. is called istimta'. According to Arabic grammar, the addition of the letters س : sin and ت : ta to the root of any word gives the meaning of seeking. Based on this lexical explanation, the simple and straight sense of the Qur'anic expression, اسْتَمْتَعْتُم (you have benefited), as understood by the entire Muslim ummah from the revered early elders to their successors and followers, is just what we have stated a little earlier. But, a sect1 says that it means the conventional mut'ah and, according to its adherents, this verse proves that mut'ah is halal (lawful). Therefore, it is pertinent here to give a brief account of mut'ah and its unlawfulness.

1. [ i.e. the Shiites ] (editor).

Mut'ah which was in vogue before the advent of Islam was a temporary contract between a man and a woman for having sexual relationship between them for a specified period in exchange of money or a specified kind offered by the man to the woman. This type of contract, which was never meant to create permanent rights and obligations of marriage, was clearly prohibited by the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, however, this particular sect claims that it is still halal (permissible). They sometimes seek support to this claim from the present verse just on the ground that the word 'mut'ah' has been derived from the same root wherefrom the word اسْتَمْتَعْتُم used in this verse has been derived. Obviously, this argument is too far-fetched, and the present verse itself is sufficient to refute it, because before the word اسْتَمْتَعْتُم ، the Holy Qur'an has used the words مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ‌ مُسَافِحِينَ (binding yourself in marriage and not only for lust) which clearly prove that the sexual relationship approved by the Holy Qur'an is the only one which aims at chastity through the permanent bond of marriage, and not a relationship based on satisfying lust for a temporary period which has been termed by the Holy Qur'an as 'flowing water'.

Now, it is obvious that the contract of mut'ah has nothing to do with this concept. It neither creates permanent rights and obligations, nor does it bring about a family set-up, nor does it aim at having children and maintain chastity: It is nothing but to satisfy the sexual desire for a short period of time.

As a result, the woman with whom mut'ah is done is not given even the status of a wife who could inherit from her very pragmatic counter-part - who, for that matter, does not even have the grace to count her among his recognized wives. The reason is very simple as the purpose here is nothing but sexual gratification, an attitude which drives men and women to keep hunting for ever-new sex-partners in a temporary setting. If this be the state of affairs, mut'ah (referred to as temporary marriage) can never be taken as the guarantor of modesty and chastity; it is, on the contrary, its very enemy.

Therefore, the Qur'anic words مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ‌ مُسَافِحِينَ are more than enough to rule out the possibility of mut'ah being meant by the present verse.

The author of Hidayah has attributed to Imam Malik (رح) that, according to him, mut'ah is permissible. But, this attribution is totally incorrect as clarified by the commentator of Hidayah and other respected scholars who say that the author of Hidayah has attributed this view to Imam Malik inadvertently.

However, there are some of those who claim that Sayyidna Ibn 'Abbas ؓ believed in the lawfulness of mut'ah right upto his later years, although this is not so. Imam al-Tirmidhi (رح) ، devoting a chapter to "mut'ah", has reported two ahadith. The first one is as follows:

عن علی ابن طالب أن النبی ﷺ نھیٰ عن متعۃ النساء و عن لحوم الحمرا لأھلیۃ زمن خیبر

Ali ibn Abi Talib ؓ reports that the Holy Prophet ﷺ on the occasion of the battle of Khyber, prohibited mut'ah with women and from (eating) the meat of domestic donkeys.

This hadith appears in al-Bukhari and Muslim as well. The second hadith reported by Imam al-Tirmidhi is given below:

عن ابن عباس قال : إنما کانت المتعۃ فی أول الإسلام حتی إذا نزلت الایۃ الاعلی ازواجھم او ما ملکت ایمانھم ط قال ابن عباس : فکل فرج سواھما فھو حرام

Ibn ` Abbas ؓ says: Mut'ah was there only in the early period of Islam until the verse إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ ) - was revealed. Then, he said: All private parts other than these are unlawful (that is other than those of the legally wedded wife and the bondwoman one may come to have).

Nevertheless, this much has to be said that Sayyidna Ibn ` Abbas ؓ took mut'ah to be permissible upto a certain time. Then, it was on the good counsel of Sayyidna ` Ali ؓ عنہ (as in Sahih Muslim, v.l, p.452) and under the chastening impact of the noble verse: إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ he revoked his earlier position, as indicated in the narration from Tirmidhi.

It is very strange that the sect which believes in the lawfulness of mut'ah - despite its claim to love and obey Sayyidna ` Ali ؓ - elects to oppose no less a person than him on this particular issue.

The author of Ruh al-Ma'ani reports from Qadi 'Ay-ad that mut'ah was lawful before the battle of Khyber, but it was made unlawful during it. After that, it was declared lawful on the day of the Conquest of Makkah, but it was after three days that it was proclaimed as unlawful forever.

There is yet another point worthy of our attention. The Qur'anic statement:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُ‌وجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ ﴿5﴾ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ‌ مَلُومِينَ ﴿6﴾

(And those who guard their private parts, save from their wives or from their bondwomen, then, they are not blame-worthy).

is so explicit that it admits of no other interpretation. It shows the unlawfulness of mut'ah very clearly. Seeking flimsy support from some rare and unauthentic readings is absolutely incorrect.

To sum up our earlier submissions, there is no absolute proof to support the view that the Qur'anic word, اسْتَمْتَعْتُم (you have benefited) refers to conventional mut'ah. This is just a remote possibility which can never override the absolute proof contained inإِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ cited above. Specially, keeping in view the well-settled principle of Islamic jurisprudence, that where two arguments or two interpretations are equally possible, the one supporting prohibition is always preferred.

Ruling:

Like mut'ah, a time bound marriage is also unlawful. A time-bound marriage (termed in Islamic jurisprudence as النکاح المُوَقَّت al-nikah al-muwaqqat) is a marriage entered into for a fixed time. The difference between the two is that mut'ah is done by using the words of mut'ah. A time-bound marriage is done by saying the word, nikah which is normally used for regular marriage.

وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَ‌اضَيْتُم بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ الْفَرِ‌يضَةِ (And there is no sin on you in what you mutually consent to after the { initial) settlement): This sentence in the verse means that mahr or dower which has been fixed mutually is not, in the real sense, absolute and definitive, and something to which nothing could be added or deleted. On the contrary, a husband can add something on his own accord on the fixed mahr, and the wife too, if she so desires, willingly and happily, can forgo a part of her mahr, or the whole of it. The generality of the words also allows a situation where a woman willingly agrees to defer the payment of a dower which was originally settled to be prompt.

إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا (Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise): The addition of this sentence towards the end of the verse tells us two things. Firstly, that All knows. He is aware of everything. His injunctions are there to be complied with. If somebody acts against these and even if a judge, a ruler, or any other human being ever gets to find out about it, Allah, in His most exalted state of being, knows all about this and everything else. One must keep fearing Him under all circumstances. Secondly, that the injunctions He has revealed are all based on حِکمہ hikmah or wisdom. In essence, hikmah (Allah's wisdom) is too deep to be understood by everyone. The injunctions concerning what is unlawful and lawful as given in these verses, whether or not one understands their cause, reason or justification, must be believed in, accepted and obeyed. This is because, even though we may not know the raison d'etre, the cause, reason or justification, it hardly matters, for the Creator and the Master of the Command, Allah Almighty certainly knows it all, being the All-Knowing, the Wise.

There are many people, educated but ignorant, visibly spread out in our contemporary Muslim and non-Muslim societies, who go about gopher-like, searching for the causes of Divine injunctions. When they fail to find any, they side-track the need to comply with the injunction by saying that the Word of God was, God-forbid, contrary to the requirements of the modern age, or worse still, unsuitable. The words of the verse have silenced such people for ever by telling them: 'You are ignorant. Your Creator is All-Knowing. You lack understanding. Allah is All-Wise. Do not make your reason the touchstone of the Truth.'