Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: << . . . . . . . .

Now, Allah Mighty and Majestic says: And they have gone out with their disbelieving wives, so it is not permissible for them to display [their adornment] to him. And it includes those whom their right hands possess, namely the slaves. The phrase "they have gone out" and "it includes" regarding "they have gone out with their disbelieving wives" is based on the view that the genitive is one of description, not of species, and that the intended meaning of "their wives" is Muslim women. As for the second view, which holds that the intended meaning of "women" is the genitive of species to its own species, meaning those of your kind, who are women, then the disbelieving women are not excluded; rather, it includes both disbelieving and Muslim women. They have mentioned that when the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) conquered the cities, there were midwives among the disbelievers who delivered women, and the Companions left them in that position. This indicates that the intended meaning of "their wives" is women in general, not restricted to Muslim women. Yes, if harm is feared from them, that is a separate matter, and the fear of harm applies even to Muslim women. "And it includes those whom their right hands possess, namely the slaves" How does it include the slaves, and is the intended meaning anyone other than the slaves? The answer is yes; according to the view that "their wives" means Muslim women, it is like those whom their right hands possess, even if they are disbelieving. It is permissible to display adornment to them, meaning it is not restricted to female slaves but includes even male slaves. Do you understand now, or not? That is, if someone asks: How does the author say it included the slaves, and is there anyone other than the slaves? What is the answer? The answer is yes. According to the view that the intended meaning of "their wives" is Muslim women, then "those whom their right hands possess" includes the disbelieving female slave. It is permissible to display adornment to her, even if she is not among their wives, because she is a slave. However, if we say that "their wives" means all women, then his statement "those whom their right hands possess" is restricted to males only, because the women are already known from his statement "or their wives." But the author (may Allah have mercy on him) was compelled to say this for this reason. Some scholars have restricted his statement "or those whom their right hands possess" to disbelieving women only, saying that it is not permissible for a woman to display her adornment to her male slave, and that the intended meaning of "those whom their right hands possess" is to include the female slave if she is disbelieving, because she was excluded by "their wives" and included in "those whom their right hands possess." But the correct view, as we mentioned previously, is that "their wives" refers to the species, and that it is permissible to display adornment to all women, whether Muslim or disbelieving, except if the prohibited thing is feared. This is like the Muslim woman, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade meaning, for example, she describes a woman to her husband in such a way that it is as if he is seeing her, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade a woman to describe a woman to her husband in this manner. This is a separate matter. But these things are without the prohibited thing. He said: "Or the followers in the surplus of food, other than those with a desire, and the noun is an exception. 'Other than' and 'those with a desire' are those who have a need for women. The interpreters say that 'those with a desire' are those who have a need for women among men, such that his penis does not become erect." So... Now, "or the followers": the author says "in the surplus of food," and they are the servants and the like of them who follow the people of the house. This is the intended meaning of "followers." Or "followers" also refers to those who come to people to eat from the surplus of their food, even if they are not their servants. It includes both these and those. So the follower is one who follows the people of the house, either because he is a servant with them or because he receives the surplus of their food from them. But it is permissible to display adornment to the followers on the condition that they do not have a desire, meaning a need, for women. And the author's statement that "his penis does not become erect" is not the sign; the sign is not that his penis does not become erect, but rather that it is known that he has no inclination toward women. For some people have an inclination toward women even if their penis does not become erect; it is not necessary. The sign is that there is no inclination toward women at all, whether his penis becomes erect or not. The discussion is that he does not desire women and does not incline toward them. This is like a woman; due to the difficulty of guarding against him, Allah the Exalted and Exalted permitted women to display their adornment to him. So what is the meaning of the follower? One who follows the people of the house to receive the surplus of their food, either as a servant among them or not. But Allah the Exalted and Exalted conditioned for the follower what? That he does not have a desire for women, meaning a need. And is the sign what the author mentioned? No, what the author mentioned is not the sign. The sign is that it is known that he does not incline toward women and does not desire them. The common case is that his penis does not become erect, but it is not necessary. A person may be one who inclines toward women and loves them and is accustomed to them, but his penis does not become erect. Therefore, the correct view in this issue is that we know the absence of his need by the absence of his inclination toward women.
For this reason, there was in the houses of the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) a male eunuch, meaning one who is not among those with a desire. They did not know about him until one day he said to a man who was a mahram of one of the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "When you conquer Tayyibah, beware of the daughter of Ghaylan, for she enters with four and exits with eight." The first thing was that they did not sense anything from him, but this description of the woman indicates what? It indicates that he inclines toward women. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prevented him from entering the houses of his family because it became clear that he inclined toward women. So if it is found that this follower describes women and mentions their beauty and the like of that, it is known that he is one who has a need. As for the erection of the penis, what is the sign in your view? "The erection of the penis" Look at the footnote and what it says. "The erection of the penis" — you do not have the footnote of al-Jalalayn.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : I did not meet it
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is not in the book, meaning
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Men, and what comes after it
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Strange, because "his penis does not become erect" — if he had said "his penis," there would be no problem, but "his penis entirely" implies the number. Is "entirely" present in all the copies you have? It does not say "his penis entirely."
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Leave the footnote as the original
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It appears that you have a missing "Muhammad," because the copies agreed. He said: "Or the child, meaning the children who have not yet reached the age of knowing the private parts of women through intercourse. It is permissible to display to them everything except what is between the navel and the knee." "Or the child": the author says "meaning the children," so it is a generic name meaning children. The evidence that it means children is his statement "who," where he described them with the plural, and the singular is not described with the plural. But there is evidence that a generic name, if it is accompanied by "who," is for generality, even if it is singular. And his statement meaning they know the private parts of women for intercourse, and the meaning is that they do not know what concerns the private parts. So his statement "have not yet reached" means they have not reached the point where they do not know what to do with the private parts. This is the intended meaning. What is the intended meaning of "knowing" by the eye? Because knowing by the eye occurs in children and others. But the intended meaning of "knowing" is that they do not know what to do with the private parts, and it does not come to their minds. These children: it is permissible to display adornment to them. And the author's statement "between the navel and the knee" is based on the view that the intended meaning of "adornment" here is what Allah adorned the woman with, not that it is clothing. And they do not strike. How many do we have now? Twelve. [An-Nur:31]^Twelve types. These are the ones to whom the hidden adornment is displayed, and to others it is not displayed. This is the apparent meaning of the verse, because Allah the Exalted and Exalted says, "And they do not display their adornment except to..." and this exception is a vacating exception, which implies that it is not permissible to display adornment to anyone other than these.
However, some scholars included the remaining mahram relatives, whether through marriage, blood, or breastfeeding, because there are relatives by blood who are mahram but not mentioned, such as uncles and maternal uncles. There are also relatives by marriage who are not mentioned, because when it says "the fathers of their husbands," it means the wife of their son or sons; that is, the wife of the father displays her adornment to her husband's sons, and the wife of the son displays her adornment to her husband's fathers. Now, is the husband of the daughter permissible or not? The husband of the daughter is not mentioned among the relatives by marriage, so some scholars said that he should be included. Also, breastfeeding in all its forms is not mentioned, but some scholars included it, claiming that mentioning some implies the rest, and that Arabs in their speech sometimes restrict themselves to mentioning some to indicate the rest. But this is not good. The reason is that when mentioning some to include the rest, it is sufficient to mention one, and that one is by way of example. But to mention a number of a type and omit the rest by way of restriction is not accepted. However, we must consider the issue of displaying the adornment with which Allah adorned her, if it is the face, hands, and the like. This has evidence other than this verse. So we say this verse is about the adornment of clothing and the like, and it must be kept as Allah the Exalted mentioned it. As for the issue of displaying the face, hands, legs, neck, and the like, this is taken from other evidence.
Now, regarding this verse, are these twelve categories equal in what is displayed of the adornment, or are they not equal? They are not equal, without a doubt. For this reason, Allah began with the husband, because he is the highest to whom the adornment is displayed in its entirety. As for the others, it can be said that they are in order, or it can be said that they are not in order, but rather one looks at what is customary. Because the reality of the matter is that, for example, if a brother is always with his sister in the house, it is not like if he does not come to her except rarely. Which situation is more modest for her? If he does not come except rarely, she is more shy of him and more modest than if he is always with her. Such things should take into account their order. As for the husband, he is in the top position in any case. As for the rest, it is according to what custom and habit call for regarding displaying the adornment in full, in part, or to the minimum that is considered adornment.
The second issue: Is it obligatory for a woman to cover herself from a man, meaning is it forbidden for her to look at a man, or is it not forbidden? That is, if we say that the adornment here means what Allah adorned the woman with, or what He adorned the man with, is it obligatory for her to lower her gaze from the man, or is it not obligatory? This is an issue on which there is disagreement among the scholars. Some said that it is not permissible for a woman to look at a man, just as it is not permissible for a man to look at a woman, because the verse is one: "Say to the believing men that they lower their gazes, and say to the believing women that they lower their gazes." They supported their statement with the hadith of Umm Salama and the other woman when Ibn Umm Maktum entered. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: When they told him that he was blind, he said, "Are you both blind?" and ordered them to cover themselves. But this hadith is not authentic according to the scholars, because it is narrated by Nabhan, the freed slave of Abu Salama, and he is unknown. Therefore, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) weakened it. Also, this hadith is not possible. So the correct view is that it is permissible for a woman to look at a man if there is no fitnah or desire. This is indicated by authentic and explicit hadiths, including the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) when she was looking at the Abyssinians playing in the mosque, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was covering her while she was looking at them, until she was the one who left this thing. This is clear evidence for the permissibility of a woman looking at a man. Also, the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to Fatima bint Qays: This is also explicit and clear that it is permissible for a woman to look at a man.