In the Context of Surah Al-Baqarah 2:187
In light of Surah Al-Baqarah (2), verse 187, it has been understood that earlier in the Shariah there was a ruling that during Ramadan, after breaking the fast—or after sleeping or offering the ‘Isha prayer—eating, drinking, and conjugal relations with wives were prohibited. When some Companions were unable to maintain the restriction of abstaining from conjugal relations at night, this restriction was abrogated through Surah Al-Baqarah (2):187. The verse is:
َاُحِلَّ لَکُمۡ لَيۡلَۃَ الصِِّيَامِ الرَّفَثُ اِلٰی نِسَآْئِکُمۡ ؕ ہُنَّ لِبَاسٌ لَّکُمۡ وَ اَنۡتُمۡ لِبَاسٌ لَّہُنَّ ؕ عَلِم ۡاللّٰہُ اَنَّکُمۡ کُنۡتُمۡ تَخۡتَانُوۡنَ اَنۡفُسَکُمۡ فَتَابَ عَلَيۡکُم ۡوَ عَفَا عَنۡکُمۡ ۚ فَالۡـنَ بَاشِرُوۡہُنَّ وَ ابۡتَغُو ۡا مَا کَتَبَ اللّٰہُ لَکُم.
(If you wish to ask, then listen:) Going to your wives during the nights of fasting has been made lawful for you. They are a garment for you, and you are a garment for them. Allah knew that you were betraying yourselves, so He turned to you in mercy and pardoned you. So now, go to them (without hesitation) and seek what Allah has decreed for you.
The wording of the verse indicates that this issue existed at a collective level during the nights of Ramadan. The narrations also support this.
Bara ibn Azib (RA) narrates:
ُّٰلَمَّا نزل صومُ رمضان كانوا َلَ يقرَبُون النِِّسَاءَ، رَمَضَان كُلِّه، وَكَانَ رجَال يَخُونُونَ أَنْفُسَھُمْ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللّٰہ : ’’ ْعَلِمَ اللّٰہُ أَنَّكُم ْكُنْتُمْ تَخْتَانُونَ أَنْفُسَكُمْ فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَعَفَا عَنْكُم‘‘.
“When the fasting of Ramadan was prescribed, Muslims did not approach their wives throughout the entire month of Ramadan. Men began to betray themselves. Upon this, Allah revealed: ‘Allah knew that you were betraying yourselves, so He turned to you in mercy and pardoned you.’” (Bukhari, No. 4508)
Ibn Kathir writes:
َّھَذِهِ رُخْصة مِنَ اللّٰہِ تَعَالَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ، ورَفْع لِمَا كَانَ عَلَيْهِ األَْمْرُ فِي ابْتِدَاءِ اإلِْسَْلَمِ، فَإِن ُهُ كَانَ إِذَا أَفْطَرَ أَحَدُھُمْ إِنَّمَا يَحِلُّ لَهُاألَْكْلُ وَالشُّرْبُ وَالْجِمَاعُ إِلَى صََلَۃِ الْعِشَاءِ أَوْ يَنَام ُقَبْلَ ذَلِكَ، فَمَتَى نَامَ أَوْ صَلَّى الْعِشَاءَ حَرُمَ عَلَيْهِ الطَّعَامُ وَالشَّرَاب ًوَالْجِمَاعُ إِلَى اللَّيْلَةِ الْقَابِلَةِ. فَوَجَدُوا مِنْ ذَلِكَ مَشَقة كَبِيرَۃ.
This was a concession granted by Allah Almighty to the Muslims, and a lifting of the restriction that existed at the beginning of Islam. The situation was that when one of them broke his fast, eating, drinking, and intercourse were permitted only until the ‘Isha prayer or until he slept. Once he slept or prayed ‘Isha, eating, drinking, and intercourse became forbidden for him until the next night. They experienced great hardship because of this. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1/510)
In contrast to this, Imam Razi reports the view of Abu Muslim Isfahani that these prohibitions were not established in the Muhammadan Shariah. Rather, they existed in the Christian law. Muslims misunderstood from the Quranic statement that fasting was prescribed in the same way as it had been prescribed for previous nations, assuming that it must have been imposed with all its associated restrictions. Thus, they adopted for themselves the nighttime prohibitions that were prevalent among Christians. He writes:
ِوَقَالَ أَبُو مُسْلِمٍ األَْصْفَھَانِيُّ ھَذِهِ الْحُرْمَةُ مَا كَانَتْ ثَابِتَةً فِي شَرْعِنَا الْبَتَّةَ، بَلْ كَانَتْ ثَاب تَةً فِي شَرْعِ النَّصَارَى، وَاللّٰہُ تَعَالَى ْنَسَخَ بِھَذِهِ اْلْيَةِ مَا كَانَ ثَابِتًا فِي شَرْعِھِم.
Abu Muslim Isfahani says that these prohibitions were not established at all in our Shariah; rather, they existed in the law of the Christians. Allah Almighty abrogated, through this verse, those rulings that were established in their law. (Al-Tafsir al-Kabir 5/267)
Allamah Rashid Rida, while critiquing the above narrations in Tafsir al-Manar, writes:
فأنتَ تَرَى فِي هَذِهِ الرَّوَايَاتِ اضْطِرَابًا، فَفِي بَعْضِهَا أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يَرَوْنَ مُقَارَبَةَ النِّسَاءِ مُحَرَّمَةً فِي لَيَالِي رَمَضَانَ كَأَنْهُرِهِ على الإطلاق، وفِي الْأُخْرَى أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يَعُدُّونَها كَالْأَكْلِ وَالشَّرْبِ لَا تَحْرُمُ إِلَّا بَعْدَ النَّوْمِ فِي اللَّيْلِ، وَأَقْرَبُ مَا يُمْكِنُ أَنْ يَخْرُجَ عَلَيْهِ الْجَمْعُ بَيْنَ الرَّوَايَتَيْنِ اخْتِلَافُ اجْتِهَادِ الصَّحَابَةِ فِي ذلِكَ بِحَمْلِ كُلِّ رواية على طائِفَةٍ، وَإِلَّا تَعَارَضْنَا وَسَقَطَ الاحْتِجَاجُ بِهِمَا وَهَذَا الْجَمْعُ يُوَافِقُ مَا قَالَهُ الأستاذ الإمامُ، فَتَعَيَّنَ أَنَّ اجْتِهَادَهُمْ لَمْ يَكُنْ حُكْمًا قُرْآنِيًّا فَيُقَالُ إِنَّهُ نُسِحَ بِالْآيَةِ وَإِنَّمَا هُوَ اجْتِهَادٌ أَوْقَعَهُمْ فِيهِ الْإِجْمَالُ فَجَاءَتْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ بِالْبَيَانِ (قَالَ): وَقَوْلُهُ : (أُحِلَّ لَكُمْ) لَا يَقْتَضِي أَنَّهُ كَانَ مُحَرَّمًا، بَلْ يَكْفِي فِيهِ أَنْ يُتَوَهُم أَنَّ مِنْ كَمَالِ الصِيَامِ أَوْ مِنْ شُرُوطِهِ عَدَمُ الْأَكْلِ بَعْدَ النَّوْمِ وَعَدَمُ مُقَارَبَةِ النِّسَاءِ بَعْدَهُ أَوْ مُطْلَقًا. وَهُوَ كَقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: (أُحِلَّ لَكُمْ صَيْدُ الْبَحْر ) (5) (96) وَلَمْ يَكُنْ قَدْ سَبَقَ نَصُّ فِي تَحْرِيمِهِ.
You will notice inconsistency in these narrations. Some of them state that the Companions considered conjugal relations during the nights of Ramadan absolutely forbidden, just like during the daytime, while others state that they considered it forbidden only after sleeping at night, similar to eating and drinking. The only way to reconcile these narrations is to understand them as reflecting differences in the Companions’ ijtihad, with each narration relating to a different group. Otherwise, they contradict one another and cannot be used as proof. This reconciliation accords with what Ustadh Imam Muhammad ‘Abduh stated. He concluded that the Companions’ view was not a Quranic ruling that could be said to have been abrogated by this verse; rather, it was an ijtihad caused by ambiguity, which this verse clarified. He further states that the words ‘ ْأُحِلَّ لَكُم’ do not necessarily imply that it was previously forbidden; rather, it suffices that people imagined that refraining from eating after sleeping or refraining from conjugal relations—after sleep or absolutely—was part of the perfection or conditions of fasting. This is similar to Allah’s statement: ‘ ِأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ صَيْدُ الْبَحْر’ (Surah Al- Maidah 5:96), even though no prior text existed declaring it forbidden. (Tafsir al-Manar 2/141)
Maulana Maududi comments:
In this matter too, people were initially under a misunderstanding. Some thought that after offering the ‘Isha prayer, eating and drinking became forbidden, while others thought that one could eat and drink as long as one remained awake, but once one slept, one could not eat again. These were notions people had formed in their own minds. (Tafhim al-Quran 1/145)
Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi expresses the same view:
Many Muslims, out of caution and piety, thought that just as sexual relations are not permitted during the daytime while fasting, similarly they would not be permitted at night either. This notion may also have been reinforced by the fact that among the Jews, fasting resumes immediately after breaking the fast, which requires them to observe the same restrictions at night as during the day. Since the practical example before the Muslims was that of the People of the Book, and the Quran also referred to them, Muslims imposed this
restriction upon themselves, abstaining from marital relations at night just as they did during the day. (Tadabbur-e-Quran 1/456)
If this had been an explicit prohibition, continuous collective violations of it would not have occurred among the Companions. It was an uncertain or doubtful restriction, and for this reason the Companions were not highly sensitive about strictly adhering to it.
However, objections arise to this view on the basis that the words ’ ْأُحِلَّ لَكُم’ appear to indicate that something previously forbidden was made lawful. The word ’ َفَاْلْن’ also seems to support the idea that what was previously unlawful has now become lawful. The phrase ’ َتَخْتَانُون’ further suggests that what the Muslims were doing was wrong.
The response is that in the Quran, ’ َّأُحِل’ is not used solely for transforming prohibition into permissibility, but also for removing a mistaken notion of prohibition regarding something that is actually lawful. For example:
ُيَسۡـَٔلُوۡنَکَ مَاذَاۤ اُحِلَّ لَہُمۡ ؕ قُلۡ اُحِلَّ لَکُمُ الطَّيِِّبٰت.
They ask you what has been made lawful for them. Say: All pure things have been made lawful for you. (Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:4)
Pure things were always lawful, but when rulings regarding prohibited foods began to be revealed, some items were declared unlawful that people might have assumed to be lawful. As a result, people asked what was lawful for them, and it was clarified that pure things are lawful.
Another verse is:
َيٰۤاَيُّہَا النَّبِیُّ اِنَّاۤ اَحۡلَلۡنَا لَکَ اَزۡوَاجَکَ الّٰتِیۡۤ اٰتَيۡتَ اُجُوۡرَہُنَّ وَ مَا مَلَکَتۡ يَمِيۡنُک.
“O Prophet, We have made lawful for you your wives whose dowries you have paid, and those whom your right hand possesses from among those whom Allah has granted you as spoils.” (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:50)
The wives of the Prophet (PBUH) and his bondwomen were already lawful for him before this verse. The reiteration of permissibility became necessary due to the propaganda of the hypocrites, who objected to his marriages beyond the general legal limit.
In the verse under discussion from Surah Al-Baqarah, the meaning of ’ َّأُحِل’ is that the mistaken belief that conjugal relations with wives during the nights of Ramadan were forbidden has been clarified, and that this is not prohibited. ’ َفَاْلْن’ means that now that the matter has been clarified, people may approach their wives without any sense of guilt.
The sense of guilt existed because, despite their assumption that conjugal relations were not allowed during the nights of Ramadan, the Companions were still engaging in them and thus, according to their own belief, were betraying themselves. In the sight of Allah, integrity is important. An individual is obliged to act according to his ijtihad, even if that ijtihad is mistaken. Because they acted against their own assumed standard, they were reproached.
Maulana Islahi writes:
In this matter, since there had been no clear guidance until then, its nature was that of a doubtful issue. Because of this doubt, some people, due to the incitement of their desires, would occasionally commit an act that was doubtful even in their own conscience. In doubtful matters, the Shariah’s guidance—as stated in the hadith—is: ‘دع ما يريبك الى ما لا يريبك ’ (Leave that which causes doubt for that which does not cause doubt).
If one instead chooses the doubtful option, it is a kind of betrayal of one’s own self. For this reason, the Quran described it as betraying oneself. However, since this caution was contrary to the intent of the Shariah and was self-imposed by cautious Muslims, Allah forgave this betrayal and explicitly permitted marital relations with wives at night. (Tadabbur-e-Quran 1/456)
In summary, during the time of the Messenger, the Companions practiced maintaining fasting restrictions even after breaking the fast during the nights of Ramadan. However, this practice was not based on any explicit revealed ruling, as the exegetical narrations might suggest. Rather, it most likely entered from Christian practice, since previous nations were referenced in the command to fast. When this self-imposed and doubtful restriction regarding conjugal relations at night could not be maintained, questions began to arise within the Muslim community. Consequently, Allah Almighty clarified in Surah Al-Baqarah (2):187 that such a restriction was not imposed upon them.