This is a matter of a necessitated reality that is common between genders, especially in the current circumstances that make it difficult for many young men and women to marry or for married couples to easily divorce due to social obligations such as having children or the strict authority of civil laws in case of divorce.
As muftis, we must fulfill the role of providing fatwas (religious rulings) when considering such issues, not as legislators or judges. Fatwa is a license sought from trustworthy figure, especially when it is related to social, political, or economic realities. The necessitated reality significantly affects what the mufti permits or prohibits, especially with the possibility of evidence playing a role.
Therefore, I say the following: Firstly, this woman is married, and the primary and essential purpose of marriage is to establish a suitable living arrangement for the married couple. The young man has his own living arrangements, and the elderly man has his own. The default principle for this is mentioned in a verse from Surah Ar-Rūm: “And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who give thought.” (Qurˀān 30:21) If the primary purpose of marriage is not fulfilled and the matter lacks the personal benefits valued by the person affected, then the solution here is divorce, which is also a provision of Allāh ‘s law.
Secondly, it is not appropriate for the mufti to use admonishment in the context of issuing a fatwa. Both contexts are different. Advising a married man or woman to fast does not align with the case of marriage and its purpose, and it contradicts the text that hurdles the purpose of marriage. This is evident in the story of the woman who complained about her husband’s mistreatment and in the story of Salmān with Abu ad-Dardāˀ and his wife. It is mentioned in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāriy that the Prophet (peace be upon him) fostered a bond of brotherhood between Salmān and Abu ad-Dardāˀ, and when Salmān visited Abu ad-Dardāˀ’s home, he saw that Abu ad-Dardāˀ’s wife appeared unkempt. He asked her, “What’s the matter with you?” She replied, “Your brother, Abu ad-Dardāˀ, has no interest in the worldly life.” Abu ad-Dardāˀ then came, and Salmān prepared food for him, saying, “Eat.” Abu ad-Dardāˀ said, “I am fasting.” Salmān responded, “I will not eat until you eat.” Abu ad-Dardāˀ ate, and when it was nighttime, he intended to stay up for night prayer. Salmān told him to sleep, so he slept. Later, he intended to get up for night prayer again, but Salmān said, “Sleep.” When it was late at night, Salmān said, “Now get up.” They prayed together, and then Salmān said to Abu ad-Dardāˀ, “Your Lord, your self, and your family have rights over you, so give each one its due.” Abu ad-Dardāˀ reported this incident to the Prophet (peace be upon him), who said, “Salmān has spoken the truth.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) also said, “Treat women well.” (Narrated with the same meaning by Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim, and with the same wording by Ibn Mājah). Take into account the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to ˁUthman ibn Maẓˁūn when he gave his wife the cold shoulder: “Your family, your guest, and your self have rights over you.”
It is important to note that these texts establish rights within the framework of the marital contract, and the rights of women in marriage are confirmed, equal to those of men and even more. Men are allowed to have more than one wife, which is not permissible for women, so women’s needs are dependent on one man who should fulfill them. Therefore, it is not permissible for either party to engage in voluntary fasting when the other has a need that should be fulfilled. We do not advise married women to engage in fasting if they have a need that should be fulfilled. By doing so, we contradict human nature, oppose the need, and drift away from the purpose of marriage.
Thirdly, if divorce is not possible due to reasons that concern both parties, and the natural need is not being met due to a reason in the husband, along with other considerations such as having a child, or fear of loss with the severity of societies nowadays, then there is no burden on the woman upon enjoying herself with a method that is not forbidden by consensus of the jurists. The Ḥanbaliy jurists were aware of this social need, and they were among the least in severity in this regard, allowing a woman who has a sexual need, even if she is not married, to make something for herself to satisfy it. They allowed the use of “al-ˀikranbaj” (pronounced and spelled differently, and it is likely to be a Persian foreign word), which is something made of leather in the form of a man’s member that she can use to satisfy her need. Their generalization in issuing the ruling indicates its permissibility for all women. Among those who reported this opinion are Ibn Qudāmah, Al-Mardāwiy, Ibn Mufliḥ, and Al-Bahūtiy. They mentioned that it is the opinion of the judge (referring to Aba Yaˁlā) and Ibn al-Qayyim attributed it in “Badāˀiˁ al-Fawāˀid” to a group of Ḥanbali jurists.
Fourthly, the issue of masturbation is an issue of disagreement, and there is no authentic hadith that prohibits it. The verse of Surah Al-Muˀminūn has possible views of understanding, and the Companions and the Followers did not understand it in the way that it prohibits masturbation. It is not even suitable as evidence for prohibiting masturbation, especially considering the necessitated reality. For this woman, she can ask for divorce as she is harmed. If the divorce is difficult for some reason, she can fulfill her need in masturbation. It makes no difference whether her husband does it for her or she does it herself. Not to mention that there is no need to overemphasize the health shortcomings of masturbation. Like other acts, the harm comes from the way it is done, not the act itself. This applies to everything, even the halal things such as food and drink, etc. In addition, people have been masturbating since early times, and no diseases are proven for doing it although diseases may come from the halal way like the legal sexual intercourse between the spouses if one of them has disease.
As an addition to the discussion on masturbation, I will mention some comments that may be helpful:
Firstly, the issue of allowing masturbation as a precaution against falling into adultery or for relieving sexual desire, and the claim that no one has ever stated its absolute permissibility, is a matter that requires examination and review. In fact, what the scholars have reported is that some have stated its absolute permissibility without any conditions or qualifications. Multiple scholars have reported this view: •
Imām Ibn Ḥazm, in his book (Al-Muḥallā bi al-ˀAāthār), said, “And absolute permissibility is valid according to Al-Ḥasan, ˁAmr ibn Dīnār, Ziyad Abū Al-ˁAlāˀ, and Mujāhid. It has been narrated by those who have reported it from the people they have met, and these are the great Followers who rarely narrate except from the Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them.” •
Ibn Ḥajar, may Allāh have mercy on him, in his book (Al-Fatḥ), said, “A group of scholars has allowed masturbation, and it is for the purpose of relieving sexual desire according to the Ḥanbalis and some Ḥanafis.” This means it is permitted without any restrictions, on the contrary to those who allowed it on the condition of relieving sexual desire or the fear of adultery.
Muḥammad ibn ˁAbdullāh ibn Abi Bakr Al-Huthaythiy aṣ-Ṣardafiy ar-Raymi, a scholar of the Shāfiˁiy school and the chief judge of Zubayd during the reign of Al-ˀAshraf, said in his book (Al-Maˁāniy al-Badīˁah): “According to Ibn ˁAbbās, sexual intercourse with a slave woman is better than masturbation, and the latter is better than adultery. According to ˀAḥmad and ˁAmr ibn Dīnār, it is permissible. According to ˀAḥmad, it is permitted due to the fear of disgrace.” He narrated from ˀAḥmad and ˁAmr ibn Dīnār that it is permitted absolutely, while the second narration restricts it to the fear of disgrace.
Imām Ash-Shawkāniy also reported the view of absolute permissibility in his treatise (Bulūgh al-Munā). He said, “This view, which supports permissibility, regardless of dislike or absence of it, was reported from Ibn ˁAbbās, Mujāhid, ˁAmr ibn Dīnār, Ibn Jurayj,ˀAḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, his companions, and some Ḥanafis and some Shāfiˁis, as narrated by the respected scholar Hāshim ibn Yaḥyā ash-Shāmiy.” He also said, “This is supported by the fact that the author of (Al-Baḥr) mentioned the disagreement without any restriction. He said: Question: The majority forbids ejaculating with the hand, but then he narrated from ˀAḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and ˁAmr ibn Dīnār that it is permissible. This indicates that the majority absolutely forbids it, while a minority absolutely permits it.” Therefore, it becomes evident that Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement in his fatwas in this matter is debatable when he said, “As for [masturbation] without necessity, I do not know anyone who allowed it.” The absolute permissibility of masturbation has been reported from a group of scholars. Although I have not personally read the text of Imām ˀAḥmad that states “semen is a discharge of excess matter from the body, and its release is permissible,” in what I have read from Ḥanbaliy books, it has been reported from him by Ash-Shawkāniy and others. Perhaps they had access to a comprehensive encyclopedia that we lack. Therefore, absolute permissibility of masturbation has been reported from a group of scholars and is attributed to Ibn ˁAbbās from the Companions, and denying this requires evidence.
Secondly, prohibition can either be based on rational reasons or it can be an act of worship, and this is agreed upon. For example, Allāh says in the Qurˀān, “Forbidden to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine…” [Surah Al-Māˀidah: 3] All of these are prohibited as acts of worship, and even if the wisdom of this prohibition is apparent for some of them, it does not affect their prohibition. They are prohibited without even revealing the wisdom behind this prohibition. Allāh placed the prohibition of these kinds as an act of worship. Inventing a wisdom (cause) behind the prohibition of these kinds is dangerous in a point, the ruling sticks to its cause. Then, it does not take long before we permit these things or some of these if the cause is absent. For the prohibition of intoxicating substances, it is stuck to its cause, and once the cause is absent, the matter lacks prohibition. This is known and agreed upon.
When it comes to the issue of masturbation, the question is whether the prohibition, for those who hold it, is based on an act of worship or some an underlying cause. If it is based on an underlying cause, as seems to be the case from what some have reported, does the prohibition go away if the underlying cause disappears or is proven to be invalid? Let us discuss both perspectives, while attempting to be concise:
The first perspective is that the prohibition of masturbation is based on an act of worship, like the prohibition of consuming carrion or blood. There is no problem with this perspective, and it is the prevailing view on this issue. However, it can be argued that if the prohibition is based on an act of worship, then a definite proof established by a clear text concerning the issue, rather than through inference alone. Inference requires the presence of an underlaying cause or wisdom, which brings us to the second type of prohibition, which is based on an underlaying cause.
As an example, the prohibition of smoking, for those who hold this view, is not based on a definite text that explicitly prohibits it. Rather, it is prohibited through analogy to other drugs and harmful substances. Therefore, the prohibition of something should have a common underlying cause in both issues to apply analogy. Therefore, the prohibition of smoking cannot be based on an act of worship. For this reason, the requirement for prohibition that is based on an act of worship is that it must be based on a text that is free from any underlying cause and not open to interpretation.
Dr. Maˁn and other scholars have raised the following question: where is the prohibition of masturbation found in the Qurˀān and Sunnah?! Allāh has clearly prohibited fornication with a definite text, and this prohibition is based on an act of worship. So where is the definite prohibition of masturbation in the Qurˀānic texts?! The proponent of the prohibition may argue that the use of the term “aggression” in the verses of Surah Al-Muˀminūn and Al-Maˁārij indicates the prohibition of masturbation because the term “aggression” is one of the means of clarifying prohibition and there are many such means, not limited to the term of prohibition.
We reply to this point as follows: Yes, the term “aggression” may indicate prohibition because Allāh has linked it to sin in the verses, and linked it to the violation of Allāh ‘s commands, whether it involves making something permissible or prohibited. Allāh says: “Surely, Allāh does not like aggressors” [2:190]. Nevertheless, the term “aggression” has been used in other contexts without indicating prohibition, but rather indicating dislike, as in the Ḥadīth which states: “whoever does more or less than this (three washes during ablution), has done evil, transgressed the limits and wronged himself.” (Narrated by ˀAḥmad and An-Nasāˀiy). The majority of scholars do not consider doing more than three washes to be prohibited, but rather the most that can be said is that it is disliked. Exceeding the three washes does not invalidate the ablution, as An-Nawawiy said: “If one exceeds the three washes, he has committed something disliked, but his ablution is not invalidated. This is our view and the view of all scholars. Ad-Dāramiy narrated from some people that exceeding the three washes invalidates the ablution, similar to exceeding the number of Rakˁahs in prayer, but this is an apparent mistake.”
Secondly, does the verse mention masturbation explicitly? The answer is definitely no. So, what is the intended meaning of the words “Ḥafiẓūn” (preserve) and “Warāˀ Dhālik” (beyond that)? Here, we can only say that the verse intends generalization, or it refers to a deleted specific matter. Generalization in this context cannot be intended because it encompasses actions that the Islamic law permits, such as looking at the private parts and touching them, as stated by the Prophet, peace be upon him, ‘It is just a part of you’ [Narrated by Abu Dāwūd, An-Nasāˀiy, and Ibn Mājah]. Therefore, generalization is not intended by that text of the verse. Only the specific meaning remains, and the specification here is determined by the context of the verse or other texts that can specify this generalization. Let us see what the commentators mentioned about this interpretation of the verse “and those who preserve their private parts.” Muqātil and As-Samarqandiy said, ‘regarding obscenities.’ Yaḥyaā ibn Salām, Ibn Abi Zamanīn said, ‘Regarding adultery.’ Aṣ-Ṣanaˁāniy, Imām al-Hudā, and Ibn ˁAbd al-Barr said, ‘Regarding women’s sexual pleasure.’ Al-Wāḥidiy said, ‘Regarding sins.’ Al-Baghawiy and Al-Khāzin said, ‘Regarding refraining from the forbidden.’ Ibn Kathīr said, ‘Regarding fornication and homosexuality.’ Thus, we see that most commentators agreed on specifying the prohibited act without elaborating on it. This is because the verse mentions spouses and “mā malakat ˀaymānukum” (those whom your right hands possess), and if this exception did not exist, the wording would indicate generalization. The truth is that all these verses cannot be taken in a general sense because even the permissibility that is given for those who are excluded does not apply at all times and does not apply to everyone included in the exception. Instead, the excluded itself lacks generalization. For example, a wife is excluded from the ruling, but it is not permissible to have sexual intercourse with her during menstruation. This specification is known through another evidence. Likewise, those whom your right hands possess are excluded from the ruling, but males and animals are not included in this exception. So, the master cannot have sexual intercourse with his slave or his animal, even if they are referred to as “mā malakat ˀaymānukum.” Therefore, this verse, which is the basis for prohibition, does not intend generalization, and the intended meaning is debatable. The mention of spouses and “mā malakat ˀaymānukum” can be explained by what usually occurs with spouses and those whom your right hands possess, which is commonly understood as direct sexual intercourse and lawful pleasure. Whoever seeks them in ways other than these two types is exceeding the limits and wronging himself.
The second perspective is the prohibition of masturbation, according to those who hold this view, has an underlaying cause. Our response to this point is that the division of prohibitions must either be based on an act of worship or an underlaying cause. Since we have refuted the claim of worship-based prohibition because it lacks clear evidence, the prohibition must be based on an underlaying cause which establishes its prohibition. Here, I will mention what some scholars have stated as justification within their arguments.
The first justification that some may rely on is that masturbation is a discharge of fluid without benefit. This is a defective underlaying cause because the body does not need this fluid; rather, it serves as a means for procreation and a lawful source of pleasure. Allāh, the Almighty, says, ‘[man is] created from water gushing forth, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.’ [Qurˀān 86:6-7] It is opposite to blood, on which a person’s life depend, nor like regular water, which maintains body temperature and has other benefits that contribute to a person’s survival. Rather, a person can live without producing semen, especially in the later stages of life, and therefore disposing of this liquid in any way does not harm the body. Thus, we find that Islamic law has turned a blind eye to this issue, and it is not considered sinful. This includes the permissibility of enjoying one’s wife during menstruation without penetration. The honored Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) would have joy with his wives during their menstruations, and this involves ejaculation for sure, as mentioned in the narration of ˁAāˀishah, who said: “When one of us was menstruating, the Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) would order her to wear a waist wrapper, and he would fondle her.” [Narrated by Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim]. Similarly, the Prophet directed his Companions to coitus interruptus when they asked him about it, as narrated by Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim, and coitus interruptus involves ejaculation of semen for sure. Likewise, the Islamic law permits the extraction of a substance that is even more intense and necessary for human life, which is blood in cupping therapy and venesection. Therefore, the extraction of something that is not essential for life is even more permissible. Hence, it is evident that this justification is defective.
The second justification is that the act of masturbation involves using the hand, which is why it is called “nikāḥ al-yad” (marriage of the hand). Our response to this point is that this justification is also defective. Those who hold it have permitted the wife to do masturbation to her husband, even if she uses her hand, and the same applies to a slave woman if she uses her hand. Furthermore, they have stated the permissibility of masturbation using means other than the hand, such as “tafkhīdh” (rubbing the thighs). The majority of Maliki, Shāfiˁiy, and Ḥanbaliy scholars have even permitted a man to enjoy his wife in the area between the thighs without penetration. Just as masturbation is permissible for him by using her hand, it is also permissible for her by using his hand, as the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “Do everything except for sexual intercourse.” [Narrated by Muslim]. This is a general address to the two spouses. If masturbation is permissible using the hand, then what is the difference between his hand and her hand, or between her hand and his hand? Sound reason and innate nature, on which the rulings of Sharia are based, extend the ruling of something to its counterparts and limit it to its opposites. No distinction should be made between counterparts. Not only that, but what is permissible for oneself is permissible for others. The correct opinion is that this justification does not hold as a valid argument.
The third justification is that masturbation is prohibited because it is considered a lowly act and not a noble moral behavior. Here, an important comment can be made: 1.
Describing masturbation as lowly is a consequence of imagining the act to issue the ruling. It is a subsequent step, not a preceding one. If it were inherently lowly, the attribute of being lowly would apply to everything related to it and to anyone who engages in it. However, we have established that this is not the case when it occurs between spouses and a master with his woman slave. 2.
Describing it as lowly is a social description, not a legal one, and it is not suitable to be a basis for determining permissibility or prohibition. They also considered cupping therapy (ḥijāma) to be part of this category, as well as sewage work and waste disposal. Some have even stated that these activities are not suitable for the free person. Nevertheless, they are not prohibited simply based on this description. Ibn Ḥajar al-ˁAsqalāniy said in (Fatḥ al-Bāriy) regarding cupping therapy: “Just because it is considered a lowly occupation does not mean it is not permissible. Cleaning sewage is worse than cupping therapy, and if people agreed to abandon it, it would harm them.” 3.
Social customs vary with time, place, and circumstances. For example, regarding time, the turban used to be a symbol of respect, dignity, freedom, and intellect. In the past, people would only consider someone who didn’t wear a turban as a slave or a madman. However, nowadays, in most Islamic countries, not wearing a turban is the norm, and wearing one is the exception. Both situations are acceptable. As for place, an example is what Omar (may Allāh be pleased with him) mentioned about the authority of the women of Al-ˀAnṣār (people of Medina) over their husbands, in contrast to the women of the Muhajirīn (people of Mecca). Despite this difference, Omar did not negatively label them. Regarding circumstances, an example is a man dancing at his son’s wedding, even if he is a respected figure or a scholar. The circumstance itself serves as a justification, although some consider it contrary to moral norms. Evidence for this is the narration of Imām ˀAḥmad, during the Ḥajl (performing a dance while standing on one foot) of Zayd ibn Hārithah and Jaˁfar ibn Abī Ṭālib when the Prophet (peace be upon him) addressed the former by saying, “You are my freed slave,” and addressed the latter by saying, “As for you, you resemble me in appearance and character.” This Ḥadīth is deemed Ḥasan (good) based on its various chains of narration, as it was narrated by ˀAḥmad, Al-Bazzār, Al-Bayhaqiy, Aṭ-Ṭabarāniy, Abū Nuˁaym, Ibn ˁAsākir, Ibn Saˁd, and others. Therefore, what is considered acceptable or unacceptable, in terms of ethical behaviors, varies with the variation of time, place, or circumstance, and it does not maintain its same ruling. Masturbation is an issue in a point. In the past times, marriage was easy and the of having women slaves was available, which only the extremely poor or those who had personal problems would abstain from. In our time, thanks be to Allāh, the ruling of slavery is inactive due to the agreement of the global community, and marriage may have some difficulties. Thus, it is not possible to consider an attitude with a certain label in past times as acceptable nowadays due to a shortage of alternatives. 4.
The final justification is that masturbation leads to sexual arousal, which is a defective justification because provoking sexual arousal in general is not prohibited. In fact, it is recommended, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Jābir, “Why not a virgin, so you could play with her, and she could play with you?” (Narrated by Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim). This sexual playing is a form of provoking sexual arousal. It was also reported from Ibn ˁAbbās that he used to adorn himself for his wife (narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Muṣannaf and Al-Bayhaqiy in his Sunan). This act involves provoking sexual arousal as well. Therefore, provoking sexual arousal in itself is not prohibited. What comes after it determines whether the action is forbidden or not. We say that if what comes afterwards is prohibited, then the prohibited action that took place afterwards is what should be avoided, not simply masturbation. Masturbation is merely a means of relieving sexual arousal, which can be difficult to alleviate through other means. After this exploration of the issue, there are still further discussions that can be had, but I will suffice with what has been presented for now. Allāh knows best.
The summary of the opinions of the scholars on this matter is as follows:
1. Prohibition and impermissibility except for the necessity of fearing falling into fornication.
2. Dislike except in cases of fear of disease, disgrace, or fear of falling into what is prohibited, in which it is permissible, and according to the Ḥanafiy school, it is even obligatory.
3. Absolute permissibility for the absence of prohibitive evidence.
We lean towards the third opinion based on what we have presented and for the sake of public interest in these times. And Allāh knows best.”
Fatwa by Dr. Khālid Naṣr