even though he is already married, for the first wife may not in fact spare him the hardship of sexual need, and he may be unable to afford another free woman who would do so. In such a case he may marry a slave-girl, because his situation with that free wife, as far as fearing hardship is concerned, is the same as it was before he married her—especially if he dreads falling into hardship with the very slave-girl he wishes to wed.

This, in turn, is precisely why they disagreed over whether he may take a second slave-girl in addition to the first. Those who restrict the consideration of hardship to the bachelor—on the grounds that a bachelor is more susceptible to it—say that he may not marry more than one slave-girl. Those who view the matter in absolute terms say that he may marry more than one, and that he may likewise marry a slave-girl while already married to a free woman. Treating the matter absolutely, however, is open to objection.

If we say that he is allowed to add a slave-girl to his free wife, and he does so without her consent, does the free wife then have the option either to remain with him or to dissolve the marriage? Mālik expressed two different opinions on the point.

They further disagreed—should he later find the means to marry a free woman—whether he must separate from the slave-girl. They are unanimous, however—meaning Mālik’s companions—that if the fear of hardship has subsided he does not have to divorce her.

They also agree within this chapter that a woman may not marry a man whom she owns, and that if she comes to own her husband the marriage is automatically annulled.

Section Eight: The Impediment of Disbelief

The jurists unanimously hold that a Muslim may not marry an idolatress, in view of the Almighty’s words,
“Do not hold fast to the bonds of marriage with disbelieving women” (al-Mumtaḥinah 60:10).
They differed, however, about acquiring such a woman as a concubine. They likewise agree that a Muslim may marry a free woman of the People of the Book, save for what is related from Ibn ʿUmar. They disagreed about the permissibility of marrying a slave-woman of the People of the Book, while agreeing that relations with her are lawful by right of ownership.

The reason for their disagreement over concubinage with idolatrous women is the apparent tension between the general purport of His words,
“Do not hold fast to the bonds of marriage with disbelieving women” (al-Mumtaḥinah 60:10)
and,
“Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe” (al-Baqarah 2:221),
and the general purport of His words,
“And married women are forbidden to you, except those whom your right hands possess” (al-Nisāʾ 4:24),
which refers to female captives. The literal sense of the last verse is all-inclusive, whether the captive be a polytheist or a woman of the Book. The majority nevertheless prohibit such relations.

Tāwūs and Mujāhid allowed them, citing as evidence the marriages to female captives taken at the battle of Autās, when the Companions asked the Prophet ﷺ for permission to practise withdrawal and he permitted them.

The majority’s approval of marrying free Jewish or Christian women by contract rests on the principle that a specific text qualifies a general one: His words,
“and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture before you” (al-Māʾidah 5:5),
are specific, whereas His words,
“Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe” (al-Baqarah 2:221),
are general; the specific is therefore taken out of the general. Those who deem such marriages unlawful treat the general text as abrogating the specific; this is the view of some jurists.

Their disagreement about marrying a Christian or Jewish slave-girl arises from the clash between the general evidence and analogy: analogy with the free woman would allow the marriage, whereas the remaining general wording—once the free woman has been excepted—points to its prohibition, according to those who hold that whatever remains after a general text has been qualified retains its original generality. Hence, whoever