American Journal of Islam and Society Vol 42 No 3-4.indb 152 Marital and Sexual Ethics in Islamic Law: Rethinking Temporary Marriage L A N H A M : L E X I N G T O N B O O K S , 2 0 2 3 . 2 2 0 P A G E S . R O S H A N I Q B A L An excellent contribution to the field of Qur’anic Studies and to the field of Muslim feminist ethics, this book is a valuable contribution. Through the controversial, if I may say so, sensational legal route of temporary marriage, or mutʿa in Islam, Iqbal introduces the significance of tafsīr in Qur’anic interpretation in a systematic manner. Furthermore, the book has a relevant social aspect that will be of great interest to young American undergraduates, particularly young Muslims in the West. A brief, clear, and straightforward section on methodology precedes a neat division of chapters. Nineteen exegetes discuss how they interpret Q.4:24, which justifies temporary marriage or mutʿa. Even though the claim is largely addressed to Shiʿi Muslims, the exegetes surveyed in this book are diverse: Shiʿī, Sufī, Zaydī, Ashʿarī, and Ismāʿilī. The book explores Qur’anic exegetical processes: “questions about organization, presentation, and hermeneutical principles” (p. 3). The first chapter provides an introduction to the institution of temporary BOOK rEVIEWS  153 marriage (mutʿa) in Islam, accompanied by a historical overview of schol- arly discussions on the subject. The second chapter employs Q.4:24 as a lens to examine the development of Qur’anic exegesis during the for- mative period of Islam. The third chapter addresses the middle period, specifically the fourth/tenth century, highlighting how Qur’anic exegesis during this era exhibited “polyvalent readings” and “sectarian concerns” that intensified debates surrounding mutʿa. The fourth chapter examines the modern period, focusing on the impact of colonization on tafsīr. The fifth chapter strengthens the author’s argument by asserting that mutʿa cannot be fully understood through textual sources alone and necessi- tates a broader methodological framework. It highlights that most Sunni schools of law, including the Shāfiʿī, Mālikī, and Ḥanbalī Schools, deem mutʿa entirely invalid. In contrast, the Ḥanafī School considers it a valid marriage contract but deems the time-limited nature of the contract invalid. Despite these differences, none of the four Sunni schools classify participants in mutʿa as fornicators, reflecting ongoing confusion about its status (p.15). Both Sunni and Shiʿi hadiths document the Prophet Muhammad endorsing mutʿa to his companions. However, Sunni schools largely reject the practice, influenced by the sermon of ʿ Umar, the second caliph, who declared such contracts invalid (p. 20). Shiʿi Muslims inter- pret ʿUmar’s sermon as evidence of mutʿa’s permissibility during the Prophet’s lifetime, while Sunnis view it, alongside other hadiths, as sig- naling a definitive prohibition of the practice. Chapter One examines the evolution of early tafsīr tradition and its influence on legal interpretations within Muslim scholarship. The chap- ter provides an overview of the diverse legal opinions held by scholars regarding Q.4:24. Due to the scarcity of female exegetes from the early period, the author includes ʿ A’isha, the wife of the Prophet, as an exegete. Iqbal argues that ʿA’isha’s “recollections of the Prophet Muhammad’s sayings, as well as her own comments, fit the practical definition of the earliest works of tafsīr (exegesis)” (p. 3). Although she did not produce a formal exegesis, ʿA’isha bt. Abi Bakr (d. 56/678) clearly stated that mutʿa was prohibited. In turn, ʿAbbas (d. 68/687-8) initially permitted mutʿa but later prohibited it. Muqātil b. Sulaymān al-Balkhī (d. 150/767) employed Qur’anic verses to argue for the abrogation of mutʿa. Al-Tabarī 154  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 (d. 310/923) presented two opposing interpretations, one supporting and the other opposing its permissibility. Ismāʿilī readings, such as that of Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 322/934-5), provided no definitive clarity on the matter. Conversely, al-ʿAyyāshī (late third/ninth century), a Shiʿi convert exegete, permitted mutʿa. Overall, the early exegetical phase of Islam demonstrates polyvalent interpretations of mutʿa. The subsequent chapter examines the medieval period, tracing the evolution of exegesis on Q.4:24 as scholars delineated sectarian distinc- tions and incorporated philosophical and theological methodologies into their commentaries. This chapter highlights seven prominent figures in Qur’anic exegesis: al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035), al-Zamakhshirī (d. 538/1144), al-Tabrisī (d. 548/1154), al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209), Maybūdī (6th/12th century), al-Kāshānī (d. 736/1336), and Ismāʿīl Haqqī Buruṣāwi (d. 1137/1727). Al-Thaʿlabī, al-Zamakhshirī, and al-Rāzī present arguments on both sides but ultimately deem mutʿa impermissible. Al-Tabrisī explicitly affirms its permissibility. Maybudī and al-Kāshānī omit the discussion entirely. Al-Qurṭubī and Buruṣawī extensively address Q.4:24 but reject mutʿa. Overall, medieval exegesis of Q.4:24 reflects the solidification of sectarian boundaries. While pro- to-Sunni scholars in the early Islamic period exhibited division regarding the permissibility of mutʿa, the medieval era witnessed a unified Sunni consensus against it. In contrast, the Shiʿi position remained consistent across both early and medieval periods, continuing to permit mutʿa. Chapter Four provides an in-depth analysis of seven exegetes from the modern period, examining their interpretations of mutʿa in the context of European notions of marriage and sexual pleasure. Most of these scholars either avoid endorsing or explicitly prohibit the practice. Muhammad ʿAbduh (d. 1323/1905) and Rashīd Ridā (d. 1354/1935), co-authors of the Tafsīr al-Manār, categorically deemed mutʿa impermissible. Ibn ʿAshūr (d. 1394/1973), a Sunni exegete, permitted mutʿa but on grounds dis- tinct from Shiʿi interpretations, arguing that it was never historically banned. Mawdudī (d. 1399/1979), a South Asian Muslim scholar, showed limited interest in mutʿa, focusing instead on broader issues related to family and marriage. Shiʿi scholars, such as Faḍl Allāh (d. 1330/2010) and Ṭabātabā’ī (d. 1400/1981), predictably upheld the permissibility of BOOK rEVIEWS  155 mutʿa. The chapter also features two female exegetes: Farhat Hāshmī (b. 1471/1957), who bypasses detailed exegetical analysis of mutʿa in Q.4:24, interpreting the reference to marriage in general terms, and Nusrat Amīn (d. 1403/1983), who explicitly supports the permissibility of mutʿa, con- tending that ʿUmar’s sermon cannot override the Prophet’s ruling. Chapter Five presents the most substantial contributions, advocating for a constructivist approach and proposing “a new interpretive path to Islamic law” (p. 117). Drawing on insights from Kecia Ali and Hina Azam, the author underscores the importance of critically examining the historical context of medieval jurists. She grounds her framework in “the maqasid (purposive) tools of juristic process” as articulated by the Shiʿi scholar Muhammad Taqī al-Mudarrisī (b. 1945), outlining four essential methodological interventions for advancing research in Muslim sexual ethics: i) Muslim feminist methodological interventions, ii) legal ethno- graphic studies, iii) moral philosophy, and iv) the science of sexuality. A minor critique arises regarding her reliance on the authority of a male scholar, which seems inconsistent with the originality and incisiveness of her four-part model. This choice may reflect an effort to maintain rel- evance with both traditional and modern feminist scholarly audiences. Nonetheless, the author highlights the importance of intertextuality, that is, examining the Qur’an’s holistic worldview as well as intratextu- ality, notably analyzing the Qur’an in relation to hadith literature, when interpreting Q.4:24. These approaches empower feminists to pose critical questions that are often overlooked in male-dominated scholarship. The next method advocates for future ethnographic research to examine the impact of mutʿa on men, women, and children. Shahla Haeri’s 1989 study is highlighted as a significant ethnographic work, in which she observed that some women derive financial and/or sexual ben- efits from mutʿa, ultimately framing it as having “liberatory potential.” However, the author outlines critical questions for ethnographers to con- sider, including whether mutʿa blurs the distinction between marriage and adultery, if it reduces adultery or fosters a lack of self-restraint, and whether it promotes promiscuity, potentially undermining permanent marriages. Additional inquiries address how mutʿa expands personal freedom, how young individuals can defend mutʿa in light of Qur’anic 156  AMErICAN JOUrNAL OF ISLAM ANd SOCIEt Y 42:3-4 injunctions such as “lowering one’s gaze,” and the implications for chil- dren, particularly whether men can ensure justice for children born from mutʿa relationships. The third method introduces moral questions, some of which over- lap with ethnographic concerns but delve deeper. For instance, how does mutʿa redefine the concept of consent in sexual relationships? Does mutʿa consistently ensure free consent for women, or are there instances where consent may be compromised? The author distinguishes between the legal and moral dimensions of consent (p. 134). Furthermore, while mutʿa may legitimize sexual pleasure, the author argues that pleasure alone cannot justify multiple partners. This raises additional questions: can multiple mutʿa partnerships genuinely enhance pleasure and satis- faction, and how does mutʿa influence the ideal conception of marriage, particularly within American society (p. 137)? The fourth method represents a groundbreaking yet essential inter- vention, posing the question: how can recent advancements in the science of sexuality contribute to a reevaluation of gendered sexuality within Muslim legal scholarship? This inquiry is particularly pertinent given that progress in research on female sexuality may challenge tradi- tional Muslim legal perspectives on mutʿa and marital ethics. The section introduces critical and bold questions (pp. 140-147), ensuring the study’s enduring relevance. For American Muslims, the book raises thought-pro- voking issues that are likely to gain significance in the coming years. It is a must-read for courses on gender and religion, particularly those focusing on religious ethics. Beena Butool Visiting Assistant Professor Nazareth University Rochester, NY doi: 10.35632/ajis.v42i3-4.3378