This is an important question and I will elaborate on it:
Firstly, the scholars have differed in the ruling on what is known as masturbation. The Shafi’is and Malikis concluded that it is prohibited, while the Hanafis concluded that it is makruh (disliked), which is also a narration from the Hanbalis. A group of scholars concluded that it is permissible, among them are Ibn Hazm, Al-Shawkani who wrote a specialized treatise discussing the evidence of prohibition, but did not find any evidence for prohibition in the wording or meaning.
Secondly, the issue of permitting masturbation only in case of the fear of falling into zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) or to calm down sexual desire and claiming that no one has explicitly stated that it is permissible require further review. However, the scholars have transmitted that some have stated its absolute permissibility without any restriction or description. This has been transmitted by more than one scholar:
– Among them is Imam Ibn Hazm in “Muhalla bi’l Athar”; he said: ‘The absolute permissibility of masturbation is correct according to Al-Hasan, Amr ibn Dinar, Ziyad Abu Al-Alaa, and Mujahid. This was transmitted by those who narrated from the senior Tabi’in who only narrated from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them.’
– And among them is Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, in “Al-Fath”, where he said: ‘A group of scholars have permitted masturbation, while the Hanbalis and some Hanafis permitted it for the purpose of calming sexual desire.’ This means that it is permitted absolutely, unlike those who restricted it to calming sexual desire or avoiding falling into zina.
– Mohammed bin Abdullah bin Abi Bakr Al-Hathiti Al-Sardafi Al-Rimi, a scholar of the Shafi’i school and the judge of judges in Zabid during the reign of Al-Ashraf, says in his book “Al-Ma’ani Al-Badee’a”: ‘According to Ibn Abbas, having intercourse with a slave girl is better than masturbation and masturbation is better than zina. According to Ahmad and Amr bin Dinar, it is permissible. According to Ahmad, it is permitted due to fear of fornication.’ His narration from Ahmad and Amr bin Dinar is that it is permissible absolutely, in contrast to the second narration that limits it to fear of fornication.
– Among those who transmitted the view of absolute permissibility is Imam Al-Shawkani in his letter ‘Buloogh Al-Maram.’as he said: ‘This view, which permits it without any condition or restriction, was held by Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Amr bin Dinar, Ibn Jurayj, Ahmad bin Hanbal and his companions, some Hanafis, and some Shafi’is as narrated by the esteemed scholar Hashim bin Yahya Al-Shami.’ “He (Imam Al-Shawkani) also says: ‘This is supported by the fact that the author of “Al-Bahr” narrated the disagreement in opinions without any restriction or condition. He said: ‘The majority prohibit the act of masturbating with the hand, then he (the author of Al-Bahr) reported from Ahmad bin Hanbal and Amr bin Dinar that it is permissible.’ This indicates that the majority prohibited it absolutely, while the minority permitted it absolutely.’
Thus, it becomes clear that the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in his major fatwas on this matter are subject to scrutiny. He stated, “As for unnecessity, I do not know anyone who has allowed it.” Absolute permissibility, however, has been reported by a group of scholars and has been transmitted by a significant number of scholars.
Although I have not read the text of Imam Ahmad -in the books of the Hanbalis that I have read- in which he stated: ‘masturbation is the expulsion of a part of the body’s excess fluid, and it is permissible to expel it’, it is quoted from him by al-Shawkani and others, and perhaps they accessed it in their comprehensive references that are not available to us. Therefore, the view of absolute permissibility is narrated from a group of scholars and attributed to Ibn Abbas among the Companions, and denying this can only be done with evidence.
Thirdly, prohibition can either be based on a rational reason or be purely religious in nature, and this is a well-established principle. For example, Allah’s statement in the Quran, “Forbidden to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine…” (Al-Ma’idah 5:3), all of which are religiously prohibited, even if some of them have certain practical reasons for their prohibition, this practical reason does not affect their prohibition, as they are all prohibited regardless of whether the practical reason is apparent or not. Allah has prohibited these things as an act of worship, and therefore, it is dangerous to try to find practical reasons for these prohibitions. This is because the ruling is connected to the reason, and we may end up permitting them or some of them if the reason no longer exists. As for the prohibition of intoxicants, it is based on a rational reason. If the reason no longer exists, then there is no prohibition, and this is well-known and agreed upon.
When it comes to the issue of masturbation, the question arises whether the prohibition -for those who hold this view- is based on a religious reason or a rational one. If it is based on a rational reason, as some suggest, then the question is whether the prohibition is lifted when these reasons no longer exist or become uncertain.
Let us discuss both perspectives while trying to be concise:
The first perspective is that the prohibition of masturbation is based on religious worship, similar to the prohibition of consuming dead animals, blood, and other things:
The truth is that there is no dispute in this perspective, as it is the prevailing one in this matter. However, it is argued against it that if the prohibition is based on religious worship, its evidence must be absolute and established through a clear and definitive religious text in the matter, rather than being inferred. Inference requires the existence of a reason or wisdom behind the prohibition, which brings us back to the second type of prohibition, which is rational.
Let us give an example: the prohibition of smoking, for those who hold this view, did not come with a definitive religious text that explicitly prohibits it. Instead, it was prohibited through analogy (qiyas) with other drugs and intoxicant, and its prohibition is based on a valid reason established through qiyas. Therefore, the prohibition of smoking cannot be considered a religious prohibition. Thus, the condition for a religious prohibition is that there must be a clear text free from defects, not subject to interpretation. Here comes the question that arises: Where is the text of prohibition from the Quran and Sunnah? Allah has prohibited zina with a clear text, which is a religious prohibition. So, where is the clear text prohibiting masturbation in the texts of the Shari’ah?
The prohibitor may argue that the use of the term “transgression” in the verses of Surah Al-Mu’minun and Al-Ma’arij indicates the prohibition of masturbation, as the use of the term “transgression” is one of many means of prohibition, and it is not limited to the terms of prohibition or forbiddance. We say: Yes, the term “transgression” may indicate prohibition because Allah has linked it to sin in the verses, and He has also linked it to the violation of Allah’s commands, whether it is permissible or prohibited, and He said: “Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” [Al-Baqarah, 2:190]. However, the term “transgression” has been used in contexts that do not indicate prohibition, but rather indicate undesirability, as in the hadith about adding more than three washes in Wudu, which states: “Whoever adds or subtracts (from the prescribed number of washes), he has committed a wrong, transgressed and acted unjustly.” [Reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawood, Al-Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah]. The majority of scholars do not consider adding more than three washes to be prohibited, but rather the most it can be is disliked (makruh), and it does not invalidate the Wudu, as stated by Imam Al-Nawawi: “If someone adds to the three (washes), he has committed the disliked act, but his ablution is still valid. This is our opinion and the opinion of all scholars. Al-Darimi reported in ‘’Al-Istidhkar’’ from some people that it invalidates the Wudu, as if he had added (something) to the prayer, but this is clearly a mistake.”
Secondly, did the Quran mention masturbation as a prohibition? The answer is definitive: no.
So what is meant by the words “guarding their private parts” and “except from their wives or those their right hands possess”? Here we can only say that the verse intended generality, or that it is referring to an implied specification. Generality cannot be the intended meaning because it includes actions that are permitted by the text, such as looking at the private parts or touching them, as stated by the Prophet, peace be upon him: “It is only a part of you.” [Reported by Ahmad, Abu Dawood, Al-Tirmidhi, and Al-Nasa’i]. Therefore, generality is not intended by the text.
Therefore, only the specific meaning remains, and the specification here is determined by the context of the verse and other texts that can specify this generality. Let us examine what the interpreters have mentioned in this regard. Mujahid and Al-Samarqandi said: (referring to indecent acts), while Yahya ibn Salam, Al-Hawari, and Ibn Abi Zimnin said: (referring to zina). Al-San’ani, Imam Al-Huda, and Ibn Abd Al-Barr said: (referring to pleasure marriage). Al-Wahidi said: (referring to sins), and Al-Baghawi and Al-Khazin said: (referring to refraining from prohibited acts). Ibn Kathir said: (referring to zina and homosexuality). Thus, we see that most of the interpreters have said that the prohibition is specific and have not expanded on it. This is due to the mention of wives and those their right hands possess. If this exception was not mentioned, the wording would indicate generality.
The truth is that these verses cannot be interpreted as general in anything because even the permissibility of the act that is exempted from the prohibition does not apply at all times and does not apply to everyone who falls under the exemption. Rather, the exemption itself is subject to specification. The wife is exempted, but it is not permissible to have sexual intercourse with her during menstruation, as is known from another evidence. And the one who is owned by the right hand is exempted, but males and animals are not included in this exemption, so a man cannot have sexual intercourse with his slave or his animal, even if they are considered owned by his right hand.
Therefore, this verse, which is the foundation of the prohibition, does not have generality, and the intended meaning is likely to be avoidance of the prohibited act. The mention of wives and those possessed by the right hand is explained by what typically happens with wives and those possessed by the right hand, which is sexual intercourse and intimate relations. Thus, whoever seeks them in a manner other than these two types of relationships is an unjust wrongdoer.
The second perspective: The prohibition of masturbation for those who prohibited it due to rational and reasonable justifications:
We have said that the categorization of prohibitions requires them to be either based on worship or have rational and reasonable justifications. Since we have already refuted the claim of the prohibition being based on worship due to the lack of evidence supporting it, the prohibition must be based on a ruling that establishes its prohibition. Here, I will mention what some have said as a justification for this prohibition.
The first reason that some may hold onto to justify the prohibition of masturbation is that it is a waste of fluid without any benefit. However, this is an insufficient reason because this fluid is not produced for the body’s need, but rather to be a means of reproduction and a permissible source of pleasure. Allah Almighty says: “He (man) is created from a fluid poured forth, proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.” [At-Tariq, 86: 6-7]. This fluid is not like blood, which is essential for human life, nor is it like ordinary water, which helps regulate body temperature and has other benefits that are necessary for human survival. In fact, a person can live without producing semen, which occurs in the later stages of life. Therefore, there is no harm to the body in releasing it through any means.
Therefore, we find that the Shariah has overlooked the release of this fluid and has not made it a sin. This includes allowing a man to enjoy his wife’s company during menstruation without penetration, as it was reported that the Prophet used to enjoy the company of his wives during menstruation – and this cannot be done without the release of this fluid – as in the hadith of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). Similarly, the Prophet allowed the isolation for the companions when they asked him about it, and isolation involves the release of this fluid.
Likewise, the Shariah has allowed the release of what is more intense and necessary for human life, which is blood during cupping and phlebotomy. Therefore, the release of what is not essential for life is even more permissible.
Accordingly, it becomes clear that this reason for prohibition is insufficient.
The second reason is that the act was done with the hand, hence it is called “marriage of the hand”. We say that this is also an insufficient reason, because they allowed masturbation through the wife’s act, even if she used her hand, and the same applies to the slave girl if she used her hand. They even said that it is permissible to masturbate without using the hand, as in thighing. The majority of the Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali schools of law allow a man to enjoy his wife between her buttocks without anal penetration. Just as it is permissible for him to do so with his own hand, it is permissible for her to do so with her hand, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Do everything except intercourse.” This is addressed to both of them. If it is permissible with the hand, then what is the difference between his hand and her hand?
The sound mind and the sound nature on which the rulings of the Shariah are based give a thing the ruling of its counterpart and negate the ruling of its opposite as there is no distinction between counterparts. Not only that, but what is permitted in this case for oneself is also permitted for others. The correct opinion is that this reasoning is also not valid as evidence.
The third reason is that masturbation is prohibited because it is a despicable act, and not one of the noble traits of character. Here is an important comment:
1- The description of despicability is a consequence of the judgment of the act; it follows the judgment rather than preceding it. If the act was despicable in itself, the description would be applied to everything related to it and everyone who engages in it. However, we have proven that this is not the case when it comes to the act of the spouses and the master with his slave.
2- Describing something as despicable is a social description, not a legal one, and it is not suitable as a basis for ruling something as permissible or prohibited. They used to consider the work of a cupper (hajjam) as despicable, as well as that of a cleaner of public toilets, trash collectors, and other similar jobs. Some even stated that these jobs are not honorable for free people, yet they are not prohibited simply because of their description. Ibn Hajar said regarding cupping: “Just because it is a lowly profession does not mean it is not permissible. In fact, cleaning public toilets is worse than cupping, and if people agreed to stop doing it, it would harm them.”
3- The social customs and norms vary depending on time, location, and circumstances. For example, the turban (‘amaama) used to be a symbol of respect, dignity, freedom, and intelligence, to the extent that in the past, they only saw a person without a turban as either a slave or insane. However, now in most Islamic countries, wearing a turban is the exception and wearing a hat or cap is the norm, and both are acceptable.
Another example is the difference in social norms based on location. As Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned, the women of the Ansar in Medina had more forceful personalities towards their husbands than the women of the Muhajirin in Mecca, yet Omar did not describe this as negative.
An example related to circumstances is a man dancing at his son’s wedding, even if he is from the nobility or scholarship. The circumstances can be a mitigating factor, even if some consider it a breach of decency. This is supported by what Imam Ahmad narrated about Zaid bin Haritha and Ja’far bin Abi Talib when they made Hajil -dancing on one foot- when the Prophet (peace be upon him) told the first one: “you are my mawlā” and the second one: “As for you, you resemble me in both my looks and manners.” The hadith is considered good (hasan) due to its various chains of transmission as Ahmad, Al-Bazzar, Al-Bayhaqi, At-Tabarani, Abu Nu’aim, Ibn Asakir, Ibn Saad, and others narrated it.
Therefore, what may be considered contrary to noble ethics in a certain time, place, or circumstance may not be judged with the same verdict. Masturbation is an example of this as in their time, marriage was easy, and concubinage -taking a female slave as a concubine by her master- was accessible, and only those who were extremely poor or had something within themselves would abandon them. In our time, praise be to God, the ruling of slavery has been abolished with the cooperation of the whole world, and marriage may have its difficulties, but it is still accessible. Therefore, describing the past cannot be accepted as a valid description in our time due to the difficulty of finding an alternative.
The final reason is that masturbation opens the door to sexual desire. However, this reason is also insufficient because arousing sexual desire is not entirely prohibited. In fact, it is sometimes recommended, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Jabir, “Why don’t you have a virgin wife to play with each other?” (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim). Playing with one’s spouse is a form of arousing sexual desire. Similarly, it is reported that Ibn Abbas used to adorn himself for his wife, which also involves arousing sexual desire. Thus, arousing sexual desire is not prohibited in itself. Rather, it is what follows it that may be prohibited. We say that if what follows is prohibited, then it is the prohibited act that is forbidden, not just masturbation. Masturbation is simply one way of relieving sexual desire, and it can be a temporary solution to a need may be difficult to be fulfilled otherwise.
After this exploration of the matter, there is still more to be said, but I will suffice with what has been presented for now.
The summary of the scholars’ opinions on the matter are as follows:
First: Prohibition and non-permissibility except for the necessity to avoid zina.
Second: Karāhah –undesirability- except in cases of fear of disease, fornication, or fear of falling into a prohibited act, in which case it is permissible, and for the Hanafi school, it is even a duty.
Third: absolute permissibility without any restrictive evidence.
Based on what we have presented and considering the current circumstances, we lean towards the third opinion. And Allah knows best.
Fatwa by Dr. Khālid Naṣr