-
Fear Around Touching To Be Mother In Law, Hurmat-E-Musahrat
As Salam u alaikum,
My question is that there are some ahadith of I guess sahaba that tell that doing Zina with a woman outside marriage makes her mother and daughter Haram forever just like proper nikah, some sahaba say it happens only with consumption after nikah. This revolves around after the sexual act either with nikah or with Zina….
The second case is about touching but getting a lust during touch. If a man had done handshake with his going to be mother in law. Is now under thoughts that what if while doing handshake with mother in law, what if mother in law felt lust thought or not…. And he feels fearful around future mother in law due to this fear of what if during handshake some lust and arousal comes for a second. Is there any sahaba saying or Hadith which says that touching (or looking at parts) with lust will establish hurmate musahrat…?
-
28 Replies
-
Fear Around Touching To Be Mother In Law, Hurmat-E-Musahrat
updated 1 week, 5 days ago
3 Members
·
28
Replies
-
Wa alaikum assalam.This issue often creates unnecessary waswasa because classical fiqh discussions are taken out of context and then mixed with anxiety. It’s important to look at this calmly, both Islamically and psychologically.It is true that some classical scholars differed on whether zina or lustful touching creates hurmat-e-musaharat. However, many scholars — including companions and major schools — held the view that haram actions do not make halal relationships haram. According to this understanding, only a valid nikah establishes permanent marriage prohibitions. A sin cannot carry the same legal weight as a sacred contract.Regarding your specific fear: a handshake, accidental touch, or a brief involuntary feeling does not establish any prohibition. When scholars spoke about “lustful touching,” they meant intentional sexual intimacy, not normal social interactions or involuntary bodily reactions.It’s also very important to understand the human side of this. The body sometimes reacts automatically to touch or presence — that is a biological response, not a moral decision. Islam does not hold people accountable for involuntary thoughts, fleeting sensations, or momentary feelings. Accountability is based on intentional actions and deliberate choices, not on what happens without your control.If you panic, suppress these thoughts, or label yourself sinful, they will keep returning more strongly. The healthier approach is to acknowledge them calmly and move on: “This was just biology, not my intention.” Allah created human beings this way, and He does not punish people for being human.So please don’t live in fear around your future mother-in-law or anyone else. A handshake does not invalidate a marriage, and these thoughts do not make you sinful. Islam is meant to bring clarity and ease, not constant anxiety.
-
Yes sister but there’s also a legal side of issue that talks in principles. That’s why anxiety comes. Yes I may not felt lust… But what if my mother in law for a moment felt? That’s why I wanted to know that what is the correct Islamic stance about lustful touch, as it would remove the full root of fear and thinking about past events and rewinding them in mind.
-
There is no ruling on the prohibition or permanent prohibition of a woman or invalidation of nikah with a woman whose mother/ daughter is touched with lust or has sex with. Mahnoor Tariq explained the problem very well.
Do not give weight to your thoughts. It is OCD that makes an unreal scenario seem real.
-
@Irfan76 and sir there are a few sayings mentioned by hanafi scholars
Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated in al-Musannaf (3/479-480) with his isnaads that ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) undressed his slave woman, then one of his sons asked to marry her, and he said: She is not permissible for you.
It was narrated from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that he undressed one of his slave women, then one of his sons asked to marry her and he said: She is not permissible for you.
And some riwayah associated with prophet that says in meaning that if a person has seen the inside of vagina of a woman then he shouldn’t marry her daughter or mother.
Sir what is the reality of these sayings?
Lastly sir, in surah nisa 23. The words used are “ila dakhaltu.. ” Now what does it mean? Some scholars say the full act of sexual relations, some say it means act of intimacy (which can be of the low level also, such as touch), and ghamidi Sahab used the word khalwat…
So what does the word mean in this context and what does ghamidi Sahab mean by “khalwat”? Does he include touching also in it? Or just the final act of sex?
-
-
Relation with slave girl was an established relation then just like with wife. Therefore it was not allowed for son to have relation with father’s slave girl Ans vice versa. The narrations do not provide the full picture therefore they can become an independent source of an independent Hukm.
-
@Irfan76 sir what is the illat behind prohibition of marriage with one father’s wife?
If the illat is that she had physical coitus with father and it’s now immoral to sleep with someone with whom father has slept.
Then wouldn’t the same illat be seen with someone whom father committed Zina with? A woman slept with father and now is sleeping with son etc.
Sir secondly, a hanafi scholar gave an example that if for example a man commits Zina with a woman, then a daughter is born out of this contact. Then how can he marry that daughter girl when she had been born our of his own body. Then in the same sense how can he marry the mother of woman whom he had Zina, when he can’t marry this daughter of woman with whom he had Zina etc… This example made me feel like indecisive and on a two way road…
Can you help me understand sir
-
-
This is called Ijtihad. So you can decide that the daughter or mother of a woman one has committed adultery with is haram. It is acceptable.
The illat behind forbidding nikah with father’s wife is that no rivalry should arise between father and son for a woman, and no woman should look at her stepson as a possible husband.
-
@Irfan76 but sir the illat that you suggested. Would not be there in case the father dies and son marries the previous wife of father that is not his mother. But Quran prohibited it in surah nisa ayat 22, as ghamidi sahab told, that Arabs used to marry the wives of their father after their death and even in some cases the wives were distributed as heritage. So quran prohibited it etc as ghamidi sahab told
-
-
The possibility of marrying a father’s wife or daughter-in-law can create rivalry and can lead to them breaking the marriages or murdering each other. Moreover, living in such close relations, the feelings should be pure.
-
Few ignorant people would marry the wives of their fathers, while most Arabs, even before Islam, did not like this kind of nikah.
-
@Irfan76 sir so if we were to extract the illat, what would the illat be?
Secondly sir, According to surah nisa 4:22 and nisa 23 where the words “allaati dakhaltum” are used, what does these words mean? Ghamidi sahab in his lecture said it as “khalwat”. Which means seclusion, some scholars say intercourse and some say mere foreplay also would be included in this words, that’s why I guess the hanafi madhab includes looking at private part and touch of lust also in it. So what is the concept and illat told by the words “allaati dakhaltum”?
-
It is penetration.
Seclusion is not penetration but in old times there was no way to resolve a dispute whether in seclusion man did intercourse or not and therefore seclusion was equated with intercourse or penetration.
Now we can tell through medical report of penetration actually took place or not.
-
@Irfan76 sir does the meaning of word “allaati dakhaltum” Or as it’s hidden corollaries and hidden meaning. Does it give basis to the hanafi thought, that hurmat e musahrat establishes with a lustful look into vagina of a woman?
-
-
It gives no basis for Hanfid’s opinion.
-
@Irfan76 sir I wanted to share something…
I was going through musannaf Ibn abi shaybah, in the chapter of nikah, there are many sayings of sahaba, Tabieen. I don’t know about their authenticity… Some talked about its not allowed for a man to be with a slave which his father undressed (it gives idea that even seeing undressed causes hurmat), some sayings that say that touching cause hurmat, some sayings that say looking at private part cause hurmat. There were numerous reports,
Also there was a Hadith of prophet through Abu Hani…
Another report where a man was having relations with his slave and her daughter, then hazrat ali says that one ayat allows it but the another prohibits it. And the prohibiting one is more probable…
also there was a report which told that in Torah that was revealed to Musa AS said that a man who exposes the private part of a woman and her daughter is cursed… ( here is the URL… https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16504)
After which I checked on chatgpt, which said that yes such verses condemning incest are there… Further chatgpt said that uncover nakedness means having sexual relations not just merely seeing undressed.. I don’t know what is reality.
Sir regarding the numerous number of reports, does it make the claim of hanafis true? For example if we consider the case of an unmarried man and unmarried woman, touching the woman lustfully or looking at private part would make daughter and mother Haram? Does the numerous number of reports make difference in weightage?
Reports about touching…
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16495
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16491
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16490
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16489 (this one talks about seeing private part)
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16486
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16485
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16484
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16483
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16481 (this one talks about undressing and looking)
https://al-hadees.com/musannaf-ibn-abi-shaybah/16475 (this also talked about merely seeing her undressed)
And many more…
Sir can you please guide me
al-hadees.com
Quran o Hadith is a complete comprehensive Quran & Hadith Search Engine Recite Al-Quran with 27 Translations, 11 Tafaseer & Words by Words Translation, 21 Books on Hadith of Nabi ﷺ with complete authentic data.
-
@Irfan76 just a gentle reminder sir
-
As told before. This is a matter of ijtihad. If You choose to extend it, you will apply it to minor details, if not then it will stay with intercourse only.
-
@Irfan76 sir I only want to know the truth as our religion tells.
Does this thing extend and apply to viewing image as well sir?
-
-
Our religion has given room for Ijtihad, which implies differences of opinion. If you adopt the opinion that looking at private parts causes the prohibition, the same goes for the images.
-
@irfan76 Sir the athar and Hadith that are said in this matter which says that touching and looking private parts. You told me once that in quran surah nisa ayat 23 includes the words “allaati dakhaltum bihinna” means intercourse. But seclusion is also included in it as at that time seclusion was mostly linked with intercourse. so the words “allaati dakhaltum bihinna” would also mean going into private seclusion (where intercourse can be done easily). All the athar, that talk about touching lustfully or looking at private parts, would happen mostly after seclusion. So is it possible that the athar and Hadith did not mean touching with lust or looking at private part in itself is the problem, it is the seclusion (which gives chance for sex), thta occurs before touching and lustful private part looks. and if these 2 things happened then it mean seclusion also did happen and this fulfilling the condition of “allaati dakhaltum bihinna”? is this possible?
-
Even if possible there is no definite answer. So it all depends how you take it.
The world dakhaltum only means intercourse. The rest is human reasoning and speculations.
-
@Irfan76 sir can you please guide me that if these Athaar are authentic then what was the reason and evidence behind their such saying?
And what is the evidence on the other side? And which side has stronger evidence?
Can you teach me about this lesson sir
-
-
Reasoning is something like yours, inclination to stretch the things to farthest possible applications.
I have gavin my opinion.
-
@Irfan76 sir can you tell me the argument and base of evidence of both sides so I can have a general view and decide that which seems stronger?
As being a medical student, during years of experience, I have seen a lot of pictures of intimate parts of female, both online and offline. Some showing simple anatomy and some showing pathologies different different. As these photos were taken by clinicians when such patient visited them. I have developed a fear that what if any one of the picture was taken of a lady which could be either mother or grandmother of my going to be fiance? This thought has started to make me resltess
-
-
The argument is simple: those who think that all the stages that lead to intercourse are effective.
On the other hand, others think that the word intercourse explicitly indicates that it is only the intercourse that is effective. If God has to include all the stages, He should have told the least stages, like in the case of saying Uff to parents, which prohibits the higher forms of mistreatment. But in this case, God mentioned only the final stage, which excludes the lower stages.
-
@Irfan76 thank you sir ❤ lots of love
-
@Irfan76 so Sir logically it does feel that the second point of view seems more strong. Because there is nothing in the text that suggests that earlier stages would also cause hurmat.
And because secondly, if earlier stages are also included then even looking at face of a woman with lust is an earlier stage for intercourse. Or even look at her back even with clothes on with lustb would fall into it subsequently.
Am I right sir?
-
-
Right.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
