Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, Verses 20 to 21
﴿وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمُ اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا ٢٠﴾“But if you want to replace one wife with another and you have given one of them a great amount [in gifts], do not take [back] from it anything. Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin?” (4:20)
﴿وَكَيْفَ تَأْخُذُونَهُ وَقَدْ أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ وَأَخَذْنَ مِنْكُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا ٢١﴾“And how could you take it while you have gone in unto each other and they have taken from you a solemn covenant?” (4:21)
Saheeh International
Choose how you want to read this verse. §
Read the verse’s central meaning in clear language. Begin here if this is your first serious encounter with the passage or you want a concise explanation before going further.
→Muslim readers, parents, and educatorsUnderstand the verse more fullyExplore the verse’s context, key words, themes, and explanation. This path is for personal study, family learning, teaching, and study circles.
→Readers seeking guidance for lifeSee the verse come to lifeDiscover the verse’s spiritual guidance, points for reflection, relevance to life, and answers to common misunderstandings. This path connects understanding with how the Qurʾān shapes belief, character, and action.
→Students and scholarsEnter the scholarly analysisStudy the verse through tafsīr, naḥw, ṣarf, balāgha, qirāʾāt, fiqh, transmitted reports, disagreements among scholars, and citations to the sources.
→Simple Explanation
1. Summary
If you decide to end your marriage, you may want back what you gave your wife, perhaps to pay the dower (a husband's marriage gift) of the wife who replaces her.[1] These two verses forbid it. Suppose your wife has committed no indecency (the "clear immorality" of 4:19) and has not turned against you, and the parting is your choice. Then you may not take back or keep back anything you gave her, a great fortune or a trifle.[2]
Two cases are different. First, a wife who dislikes you may pay to be released; you may keep what she pays. Second, if she is an adult of sound mind and freely offers you a gift unasked, you may accept it.[3]
To take back what you gave her is an open sin that falsely charges her with a wrong she never committed. You and she have been as close as two people can be, and the marriage contract bound you by a solemn pledge to either keep her with kindness or let her go with grace.[4]
Once the marriage has been consummated (that is, after intercourse), the whole dower is hers. By the ruling of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, which this tafsīr follows, being alone together with nothing to prevent intercourse also gives her the whole dower; others give half.[5] The great fortune the verse mentions also shows that a large dower is permissible, though a light one is better.[6]
2. Historical Context
The words "and you have given one of them a great amount" are at the centre of a famous incident from the time of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه. In Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ's report, ʿUmar رضي الله عنه told the people not to set women's dowers high. If high dowers were an honour in this world or piety before Allah, he said, the Prophet ﷺ would have had the most right to them. As far as ʿUmar رضي الله عنه knew, the Prophet never married any of his wives, or gave any of his daughters in marriage, for more than twelve ūqiyya. An ūqiyya is forty dirhams, so twelve are 480 dirhams in all (al-Tirmidhī).[1]
In another report of the incident, ʿUmar رضي الله عنه went further. He spoke from the Prophet's pulpit, said that the dowers among the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions had been four hundred dirhams or less, and forbade any man to give a dower of more than four hundred dirhams. As he came down, a woman of Quraysh stopped him. She asked whether he had not heard Allah say "and you have given one of them a great amount, do not take back from it anything". He went back up to the pulpit and told the people that whoever wished could give from his wealth whatever he liked.[2]
This report of the woman is weaker than that of the sermon, though another report also states that the verse stopped him.[3] This tafsīr takes the position of those who accept these reports, concluding that he retracted the cap, and his sermon remained advice to keep dowers light, rather than a ban (Ibn al-ʿArabī, Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-ʿAdawī).[4]
3. Word-by-Word Analysis
Each word of the two verses in order, with its root, its kind and its meaning.[1]
Verse 20
| Arabic | Transliteration | Root | Type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| وَإِنْ | wa-in | none | "and" + "if", a word that opens a condition | And if |
| أَرَدْتُمُ | aradttumu | ر-و-د | a past-tense verb, "you wanted", addressed to men | you intend |
| اسْتِبْدَالَ | is'tib'dāla | ب-د-ل | a noun naming the action, "replacing" | replacing |
| زَوْجٍ | zawjin | ز-و-ج | an indefinite noun, "a spouse", here a wife | a wife |
| مَكَانَ | makāna | ك-و-ن | a noun of place, "the place of", joined to the word after it | (in) place |
| زَوْجٍ | zawjin | ز-و-ج | an indefinite noun, "a spouse", here a wife | (of) a wife |
| وَآتَيْتُمْ | waātaytum | ء-ت-ي | "and" + a past-tense verb, "you gave" | and you have given |
| إِحْدَاهُنَّ | iḥ'dāhunna | و-ح-د | a noun, "one of", + "them", the wives | one of them |
| قِنْطَارًا | qinṭāran | ق-ن-ط-ر | an indefinite noun, "a great amount", the thing given | heap (of gold) |
| فَلَا | falā | none | "then" + "not", a word that forbids | then (do) not |
| تَأْخُذُوا | takhudhū | ء-خ-ذ | a present-tense verb, "you take", forbidden by the word before it | take away |
| مِنْهُ | min'hu | none | "from" + "it", the amount given | from it |
| شَيْئًا | shayan | ش-ي-ء | an indefinite noun, "a thing", so "anything" | anything |
| أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ | atakhudhūnahu | ء-خ-ذ | a question word + a present-tense verb, "you take", + "it" | Would you take it |
| بُهْتَانًا | buh'tānan | ب-ه-ت | an indefinite noun, "a shocking lie" | (by) slander |
| وَإِثْمًا | wa-ith'man | ء-ث-م | "and" + an indefinite noun, "a sin" | and a sin |
| مُبِينًا | mubīnan | ب-ي-ن | a describing word, "clear", describing "a sin" | open |
Verse 21
| Arabic | Transliteration | Root | Type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| وَكَيْفَ | wakayfa | none | "and" + "how", a question word | And how |
| تَأْخُذُونَهُ | takhudhūnahu | ء-خ-ذ | a present-tense verb, "you take", + "it" | could you take it |
| وَقَدْ | waqad | none | "while" + a word that marks the act as already done | when surely |
| أَفْضَى | afḍā | ف-ض-و | a past-tense verb, said here of intimacy between spouses | has gone |
| بَعْضُكُمْ | baʿḍukum | ب-ع-ض | a noun, "some", + "of you" | one of you |
| إِلَى | ilā | none | a preposition, "to" | to |
| بَعْضٍ | baʿḍin | ب-ع-ض | an indefinite noun, "some", here the other spouse | another |
| وَأَخَذْنَ | wa-akhadhna | ء-خ-ذ | "and" + a past-tense verb, "they took", said of the wives | and they have taken |
| مِنْكُمْ | minkum | none | "from" + "you" | from you |
| مِيثَاقًا | mīthāqan | و-ث-ق | an indefinite noun, "a covenant" | covenant |
| غَلِيظًا | ghalīẓan | غ-ل-ظ | a describing word, "strong", describing "a covenant" | strong |
4. Understanding the Verse
وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمُ اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ, "But if you want to replace one wife with another". The verses speak to a husband who wants to divorce his wife and marry someone else. She has done nothing to bring this about: she has committed no indecency (the "clear immorality" of 4:19) and has not turned against him. The parting is his own choice (al-Ṭabarī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[1] However hard he finds life with her, a husband who parts from a wife guilty of no indecency must still pay her the dower (Ibn ʿAjība).[2]
وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا, "and you have given one of them a great amount (in gifts), do not take (back) from it anything". The word for "a great amount" is qinṭār. A qinṭār is a great amount of wealth with no fixed quantity, and no confirmed amount is reported from the Prophet (Ibn al-ʿArabī).[3] Large or small, what the husband gave her stays hers.
The ban forbids a husband who chooses to part from a wife guilty of no indecency or defiance to take back anything he gave her, a qinṭār or a trifle, paid or still owed (al-Ṭabarī, al-Shāfiʿī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Rāzī, Abū Ḥayyān).[4] The verse mentions replacing a wife as the usual case, not as a condition (al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Abū Ḥayyān).[5]
The ban leaves the khulʿ of 2:229 untouched, where the dislike is hers and she offers wealth to end the marriage, and neither verse abrogates the other (al-Ṭabarī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[6] Khulʿ is a divorce initiated by the wife, where she returns wealth, usually her marriage gift, to end the marriage. In the situation 2:229 describes, she feels she can no longer live with him, and what she gives back serves as compensation to dissolve the union. To say one verse abrogates another simply means it cancels the other's ruling.
The ban protects the more vulnerable party. Because the husband is responsible for his wife and has more ways to earn an income, he must not take what belongs to her (al-Māturīdī, al-Marāghī).[7]
Marriage is also built on generosity, not on the bargaining of a business deal. The dower is a pure gift, not a rental fee for what the husband gains from her. If it were like rent, it would have to be paid repeatedly over time. Nor is it a purchase price, because if it were, she would have to refund it at divorce. Instead, verse 4:20 strictly forbids him from taking back any of it (Ibn ʿĀshūr).[8]
To part from her and then take back what he gave adds a second hurt to the first and abandons that generosity (al-Qushayrī, Maḥmūd Gharīb).[9] What a wife owns is hers to keep and to use, and however great a husband's need, he should not covet his wife's money (ʿAṭiyya Ṣaqr).[10]
The ban is not the whole rule. Other verses on marriage explain where this rule stops applying. When she commits a clear indecency, he may pressurize her to give back part of what he gave, by the exception in 4:19, on the view this tafsīr follows (Mālik's school does not allow this). When she dislikes or defies him and returns wealth to dissolve the union, which is khulʿ, he may keep whatever she offers to end the marriage, by the khulʿ verse, 2:229.
Two further cases depend on one question: whether she gives freely. A husband who harms his wife until she offers wealth to end the marriage sins in taking it. The aversion is his, so the ban of 4:20 applies. This tafsīr concludes that he must give it back, because she did not give it freely (al-Shāfiʿī, Mālik).[11] It concludes too that a gift she makes him freely and unasked, as a sane adult, is hers to give (Ibn ʿUthaymīn, al-Shāfiʿī).[12] Her consent makes his taking it permissible under 4:4.
The great amount the verse mentions also settles a question about the dower itself. A large dower is permissible and the dower has no upper limit, by the verse, though a light dower is the better course (al-Shāfiʿī, al-Qurṭubī, al-Saʿdī).[13] The historical account aligns with this. As Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ reports it, ʿUmar's sermon against costly dowers was meant as guidance, not a ban. Ultimately, this tafsīr takes the position that it was this verse that made him step back from setting a maximum (Ibn al-ʿArabī, Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-ʿAdawī).[14]
أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا, "Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin?" The word translated as "injustice" is buhtān, a lie so shocking that it stuns the person it is told against. Taking back the dower is called buhtān because Allah allowed a husband to take it against her will only when she commits a clear indecency (4:19). So taking it when she has committed none implies that she did, a false charge against her (Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Rāzī, al-Biqāʿī).[15] It also takes her property from her unjustly (al-Rāzī, al-Ṭabarī).[16]
The question asks for no answer; it tells the husband that the deed is shameful. "Would you take it" disapproves and rebukes, and so confirms the ban; buhtānan wa-ithman describe the takers, "as false accusers and sinners" (al-Rāzī, al-Wāḥidī, Ibn Kamāl Pāshā).[17]
وَكَيْفَ تَأْخُذُونَهُ وَقَدْ أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ, "And how could you take it while you have gone in unto each other". "Gone in to one another" refers to intercourse. The Qurʾān uses an allusion here, as it does for any intimate matter it chooses not to name outright (al-Ṭabarī, Ibn al-Faras, al-Rāzī; reported from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما).[18]
A valid khalwa occurs when a husband and wife are completely alone after the marriage contract, in a setting and condition where nothing prevents intercourse. Once the marriage is consummated, the entire dower belongs to the wife and none of it may be taken back. By the ruling of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, a valid khalwa gives her that exact same right to the full dower (Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Qurṭubī).[19] Other scholars, however, conclude that she receives only half the dower after such a khalwa (al-Baʿdānī).[20]
وَأَخَذْنَ مِنْكُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا, "and they have taken from you a solemn covenant?" The solemn covenant is the pledge the husband makes to his wife in the marriage contract that makes her lawful to him, promising to keep her with kindness or let her go with grace, as Allah commanded (2:229). Taking back her dower violates that promise of a graceful parting (al-Ṭabarī, al-Samarqandī, al-Wāḥidī, al-Zajjāj).[21]
While Allah lays down rights to protect people, He also encourages them to act generously: "And do not forget graciousness between you" (2:237). A judge once explained that justice means taking exactly what is yours, but graciousness means giving up your right so a dispute can end peacefully (al-Shaʿrāwī).[22] Al-Ḥasan's advice to a father choosing a husband for his daughter captures this same spirit: a righteous husband honours the wife he loves, and if he comes to dislike her, he still does not wrong her (as al-Shaʿrāwī reports it).[23]
At the heart of this rule is the sacred trust of marriage, as the Prophet ﷺ described it in his Farewell Sermon (al-Māturīdī).[24] As for the verse's wording, it says the wives "take" this covenant because Allah bound the husbands to it for their protection, and it is called "solemn" to reflect its binding strength (Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Nasafī, al-Khafājī).[25]
5. Thematic Connections in the Qurʾān
The exception of 4:19. The verse before this pair says:
﴿وَلَا تَعۡضُلُوهُنَّ لِتَذۡهَبُواْ بِبَعۡضِ مَآ ءَاتَيۡتُمُوهُنَّ إِلَّآ أَن يَأۡتِينَ بِفَٰحِشَةٖ مُّبَيِّنَةٖۚ﴾"And do not make difficulties for them in order to take (back) part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality."
4:20 forbids the taking where no such wrong exists.[1]
A gift she gives willingly (4:4).
﴿فَإِن طِبۡنَ لَكُمۡ عَن شَيۡءٖ مِّنۡهُ نَفۡسٗا فَكُلُوهُ هَنِيٓـٔٗا مَّرِيٓـٔٗا﴾"But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then take it in satisfaction and ease."
The dower belongs to her, and 4:4 lets her husband accept what she gives up of it willingly.[2]
Khulʿ (2:229).
﴿فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ ٱللَّهِ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا فِيمَا ٱفْتَدَتْ بِهِۦ﴾"But if you fear that they will not keep (within) the limits of Allāh, then there is no blame upon either of them concerning what she gives to obtain her divorce."
The same verse also says
﴿فَإِمْسَاكٌۢ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌۢ بِإِحْسَـٰنٍ﴾"either keep (her) in an acceptable manner or release (her) with good treatment"
, the words that explain the solemn covenant of 4:21. 4:20 does not cancel 2:229.[3]
Half the dower (2:237).
﴿وَإِن طَلَّقۡتُمُوهُنَّ مِن قَبۡلِ أَن تَمَسُّوهُنَّ وَقَدۡ فَرَضۡتُمۡ لَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةٗ فَنِصۡفُ مَا فَرَضۡتُمۡ﴾"And if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have already specified for them an obligation, then (give) half of what you specified."
A husband who divorces before the marriage is consummated owes half.[4]
The least dower (4:24). Marriage is made lawful at 4:24 on condition
﴿أَن تَبۡتَغُواْ بِأَمۡوَٰلِكُم﴾"that you seek them (in marriage) with (gifts from) your property"
. The pair puts no upper limit on the dower, and the least that a dower may be is taken up there.[5]
Heaped-up sums of gold and silver (3:14). The word qinṭār appears in its plural at 3:14, among the things people love:
﴿وَٱلْقَنَـٰطِيرِ ٱلْمُقَنطَرَةِ مِنَ ٱلذَّهَبِ وَٱلْفِضَّةِ﴾"heaped-up sums of gold and silver"
. A qinṭār is a great amount of wealth, and the commentators explain the word at that verse (al-Ṭabarī).[6]
6. Gems and Subtleties
Gem 1
An argument rooted in absolute closeness.
Verse 4:21 answers a husband who wants to take back the dower with a question: how can you take it, when you have “gone in to one another”?[1] The word used for their intimacy, أَفْضَى (afḍā), paints a picture of reaching an open, barrierless space (faḍāʾ) with another person; it refers to intercourse.[2] The ban against taking back the wealth is based on this profound physical closeness, not just the legal contract.[3] Intimacy creates its own bond. If Allah commands a husband to be kind even to a wife he divorces before consummating the marriage (33:49), that kindness is owed all the more when such absolute closeness once brought them together.[4]
Gem 2
Marriage named in the words of the Prophets' covenant.
Consider the gravity of a “solemn covenant,” مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا, mīthāqan ghalīẓan. The Qurʾān uses this exact phrase only three times. It refers to the pact taken from the Children of Israel when the mountain was raised above them (4:154), to the ultimate pledge binding the prophets to their Lord (33:7), and here, to marriage.[5] Naming marriage with this phrase is a stunning elevation. Of all the earthly ties we forge, marriage is the single human promise that Allah binds with the same immense language as His covenants with nations and messengers.[6]
7. Contemporary Applications
Costly dowers.
The situation: In some Muslim communities, high expectations and expensive dowers are making marriage unaffordable for young people, and families are turning away good men simply because they cannot pay.[1]
The Qurʾānic standard: The dower has no maximum amount and a large one is permissible, though a light one remains the better course,[2] and ʿUmar's sermon against costly dowers was meant as advice rather than a ban.[3]
What to do: Families should make dowers affordable for the couple without condemning a large dower as a sin.[4] Where the state has capped dowers, however, this tafsīr concludes that the cap is binding. Asking for more can be considered forbidden because it defies those in authority; where no limit is set, any amount is permitted (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[5] Rulers may also step in to regulate dowers and prevent excessive demands when most people cannot afford them (Darwaza).[6]
Alone together after the contract, before the wedding.
The situation: it is common in many cultures for a couple to sign the legal marriage contract months before the public wedding celebration. They are legally married during this gap and sometimes spend private time together. If they separate before the wedding party, a dispute often arises: does the wife keep half the dower, or all of it?[7]
The verse's guidance: once the marriage is consummated, the entire dower belongs to the wife. This tafsīr follows the ruling of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه: if the couple are alone together in private, with nothing to prevent intercourse, the whole dower becomes hers as well.[8] If they separate before that time alone, she receives half.[9]
What to do: couples and families should know that time alone together secures the full dower, and a husband who divorces after sharing that privacy pays it in full.[10] Know this before you are alone together, not after the families have begun to argue.
8. Common Misconceptions
Wrong: "I am the one ending the marriage, so I can take back the dower and the gold I gave her."
A husband wants to divorce his wife because he cannot bear her. He asks whether he may take back the dower, or part of it, and the gold and gifts he and his family gave her.[1]
Correct: A husband who chooses to end the marriage, when his wife has done no open wrong, may not take back anything he gave her: dower or gift, paid or still owed, large or small (al-Ṭabarī, al-Shāfiʿī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Rāzī, Abū Ḥayyān, Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[2] This ban does not apply to khulʿ, where the wife wants to leave and returns something by agreement (al-Ṭabarī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[3] Nor does it cover jewellery he only lent her, since a loan was never hers,[4] or a gift she freely chooses to give him when they part (Ibn ʿUthaymīn, al-Shāfiʿī).[5]
9. Points for Reflection
- True weight of the separation. Whatever wealth a husband gave his wife pales beside the bitterness of the parting he makes her taste. The verse forbids him from compounding her emotional heartbreak with a financial injury.[1]
And Allah knows best.
Deeper Study for Specialists
1. The Questions This Verse Raises
4:20 and 4:21 raise five questions. The table below summarizes the outcome of each discussion.
| Question | Core Issues | Practical consequence | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. What does فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا, "do not take (back) from it anything", forbid, and how does it align with 4:19, 4:4 and the khulʿ of 2:229? | Who the ban applies to and what property it protects; how it aligns with the exception in 4:19 and a wife's voluntary gift; and whether it cancels out, or is cancelled by, the khulʿ verse (2:229). | Determines when a husband who ends a marriage may take back anything he gave his wife | A husband who chooses to leave a wife who has done no wrong may not take back anything he gave her, large or small, paid or unpaid. The verse mentions replacing a wife merely as a common example, not a requirement. This does not affect the khulʿ of 2:229, where the dislike is hers and she offers wealth to end the marriage, and neither verse cancels out the other. |
| 2. What is the قِنْطَارًا, "great amount", and does the verse show that a dower has no maximum? | Defining the qinṭār, evaluating the figures reported for it, deciding whether a large dower is permissible, and explaining ʿUmar's sermon on costly dowers | Determines whether a dower may be large | A qinṭār is a great amount of wealth with no fixed quantity, and no reported figure for it from the Prophet is sound. The verse shows that a large dower is permissible and has no cap, though a lighter one is the better course. As Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ reports it, ʿUmar's sermon against costly dowers was advice, not a ban, and this tafsīr concludes it was this verse that stopped him from setting a maximum. |
| 3. Why is taking back the dower called بُهْتَانًا, "injustice", and what does the question "Would you take it" add? | Explaining why the taking is called buhtān, and what the question adds to the prohibition | Highlights the gravity of the act | Taking back the dower is called buhtān because Allah only allows a husband to take it forcefully if his wife commits a clear indecency (4:19). Taking it from an innocent wife implies she committed one, making it a false charge, while also taking her property unjustly. The question "Would you take it" is a sharp rebuke that confirms the ban, while buhtānan wa-ithman describes the takers themselves: "as false accusers and sinners". |
| 4. What does أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ, "you have gone in unto each other", mean, and is the whole dower due after a valid khalwa? | Defining the words and deciding what makes the whole dower due | Determines when the whole dower is owed | "Gone in to one another" means intercourse, which the Qurʾān names by allusion, as it does whatever is not said outright. Once the marriage is consummated the whole dower is hers and none of it may be taken back, and a valid khalwa in which nothing barred intercourse makes it hers as well, by the ruling of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه. |
| 5. What is the مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا, "solemn covenant", and why are the wives described as taking it? | Defining the covenant, and explaining why the wives are said to take it | Establishes the husband's duty to release his wife with grace | The solemn covenant is the husband's pledge in the marriage contract making her lawful to him: to keep his wife with kindness or release her with grace (2:229). Taking back her dower violates that promise of a graceful release. The verse says the wives take this covenant because Allah bound the husbands to it for their sake at the contract, and it is called solemn for its binding strength. |
Q1. What does فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا, "do not take (back) from it anything", forbid, and how does it align with 4:19, 4:4 and the khulʿ of 2:229?
Verse 4:20 opens with a case and a strict ban: وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمُ اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا, "But if you want to replace one wife with another and you have given one of them a great amount (in gifts), do not take (back) from it anything." Understanding this ban requires answering three questions:
- What exactly does it cover, who it applies to, and what he may not take?
- How does it align with the verses 4:19 and 4:4, which allow a husband to take wealth if the wife commits open immorality or gives a gift freely?
- How does it interact with the khulʿ verse (2:229), which permits a wife to return wealth to end the marriage, and did early scholars consider any of these rulings to abrogate one another? The scholars hold three positions on it, and the stronger is weighed after all three.
What the ban covers
The verse describes the case of a husband who divorces one wife in order to marry another (Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, Mujāhid, al-Ṭabarī).[1] The verse takes it as given that divorce is permissible and in the husband's hand (al-Shāfiʿī, Bakr b. al-ʿAlāʾ).[2] From this al-Shāfiʿī draws that mutʿa, a marriage for a fixed term, was abrogated after it had been allowed. The marriage the Qurʾān allows ends by divorce and has the rulings of spouses, while mutʿa ends at its term with no divorce and has none of them. Because mutʿa is not the marriage allowed by the Qurʾān, he states that the Qurʾān and the Sunna abrogated it.[3]
Divorce is permissible, but it is not always liked. The verse points to permissibility as its base ruling, which its circumstances may change. Most scholars hold this. Abū Ḥanīfa, and Aḥmad in one narration, hold instead that in a sound marriage divorce starts as forbidden and may become permitted, disliked or even obligatory (al-Ṭarīfī).[4]
One circumstance that can change that base ruling is a wife who has done no wrong. Divorcing her is held to be disliked, since the verse puts the case as his wish, "if you want", the form used for an act that Islamic law would rather not see done (Abū Zahra; a view Ibn ʿArafa reports).[5] What the verse blames, though, is the taking and not the new marriage, since a husband may marry a wife to take the first one's place (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[6]
Nothing she has done causes the separation, as she has committed no clear immorality and shown no defiance (nushūz). The case itself makes clear who wants the parting: he desires another wife, and she does not want to go (al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[7] Taking from her then would be a clear wrong, a taking with no fault of hers, while what she keeps eases the hurt of being sent away (al-Qāsimī).[8]
In that case he may take back nothing that he gave her (al-Ṭabarī, al-Shāfiʿī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Māturīdī, al-Rāzī, Abū Ḥayyān, Abū Zahra, Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[9] And nothing means everything he gave her. The ban covers the dower whether he has paid it or still owes it, because the contract made it hers, and handing it over adds nothing to her right (al-Rāzī).[10] It also covers his other gifts, because the verse forbids taking "anything" of what "you have given", and a husband may not go back on a gift he made to his wife (al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Abū Ḥayyān).[11] A wife divorced before any khalwa or intercourse has half her dower, by 2:237, as Question 4 explains.
By mentioning a great amount, the verse also protects the small. If a husband who gave a vast sum may not take back even a fraction of it, a husband who gave only a little has even less right to ask for it back (al-Qāsimī).[12] A great sum is also the one a husband is most tempted to take back (Muḥammad al-Hilāl).[13]
One might object that 4:21's "you have gone in unto each other" shows that only the dower is meant, since the intimacy is what makes the dower due. But a general first clause is not narrowed by a later clause that speaks of one part of it (al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[14] And the intimacy itself makes it unfitting for him to take back anything he gave her, dower or not (Abū Ḥayyān).[15]
Some scholars draw another conclusion from the same words of 4:21, "you have gone in unto each other". They hold that the ban of 4:20 was tied to the intimacy, so before the intimacy a husband who wants to part may still take a payment from her for the parting, by khulʿ. Al-Shāfiʿī holds this before consummation, and Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfa before the khalwa, even when she has committed no clear immorality, as al-Ṭarīfī reports them.[16]
The more evident view, which this tafsīr follows, is that the ban of 4:20 is general. Spouses usually part after consummation and not before it, so the verse mentions the intimacy as their usual state, and the mention does not narrow the ban (al-Ṭarīfī).[17]
The ban is general, but the scenario it describes is a husband leaving a living wife. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ applies the wording even after a wife's death: if a husband paid her maintenance in advance and outlived her, he cannot take that money back from her estate, reasoning that he too might marry another in her place.[18] The answer is that a husband can only leave a living wife. Replacing a wife means actively leaving her for another; since he does not "leave" a wife who has died, the verse does not support the ruling al-Jaṣṣāṣ draws from it (Abū Ḥayyān).[19]
Leaving her for another wife is the usual case, not a condition of the ban. A husband who divorces his wife without marrying again, because he no longer wants to live with her or prefers to live alone, may take nothing either (Muḥammad ʿAbduh, as Rashīd Riḍā reports him).[20]
The verse mentions replacing a wife because of what a husband might think in that case. He might think he could take back the dower of the wife who is leaving and give it to the wife who is coming, since the new wife has taken her place (Abū Ḥayyān).[21] He might also think that once he divorces her, and loses his right to her, what he gave her for that right comes back to him. The ban is stated where taking back seems most excusable, so it applies all the more everywhere else (al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Abū Ḥayyān).[22]
4:19, and a gift she makes freely
The ban in 4:20 picks up exactly where the exception in 4:19 leaves off. 4:19 forbids a husband to pressurize his wife to give back part of what he gave her "unless they commit a clear immorality". 4:20 then forbids him to take anything when she has committed none and he wants the separation. So the two verses state one rule for a husband who wants to part or to pressurize her: what he gave her remains hers unless her own clear wrong allows him to take what she offers to end the marriage (al-Jaṣṣāṣ; the commentators reported by al-Wāḥidī).[23]
Mālik's school does not allow him to pressurize her even then. A husband who dislikes his wife may not keep her in the marriage against her will and make her life hard until she offers wealth to end the marriage. He may not do so even if she has committed zinā, defiance or abusive speech, because 4:20 and 4:21 forbid it. This is the position of Mālik and all his companions, with no difference among them. Pressurizing her takes her money without her consent, and 4:4 allows him only what she gives gladly (Ibn Rushd).[24]
So the exception in 4:19 is disconnected: it does not take a case out of the ban, and its "except" means "but". The verse then means that if she defies him, what she gives him of her own free will is permissible to him (Ibn Rushd).[25]
This tafsīr, though, follows the tarjīḥ given at 4:19. On that view, the clear immorality is any open wrong a wife commits against the marriage, and only then may he pressurize her until she offers wealth to end the marriage. When she has done no such wrong, to harm her so that she pays him to let her go is forbidden, however small the sum, even a grain of silver (al-Ṭabarī).[26] Pressurizing her to give back what he gave her is among the ugliest of acts (al-Ḥarrālī).[27]
What does “pressurize her” mean when she commits “a clear immorality”? Al-Ṭabarī includes withholding maintenance and clothing when she commits zinā or defies her husband in duties she owes him. His reason is that, in these circumstances, her entitlement to that support falls away. He therefore distinguishes withholding support no longer owed from denying a wife a right that remains hers. If she then offers wealth to end the marriage, he permits the husband to accept it under the words “unless they commit a clear immorality”.[28]
The husband may also refuse to grant the requested divorce until they agree on what she will give to end the marriage, including a waiver of unpaid dower. Her “clear immorality” does not itself make her property his or cancel the dower he owes her. If he divorces her without an agreed waiver, the unpaid dower remains due. A payment to end the marriage is also different from a financial settlement to remain together: a settlement to continue the marriage requires her consent.[29]
The permission to pressurize her does not apply simply because the husband calls her conduct “defiance”. A wife who leaves to escape his abuse is not necessarily guilty of nushūz. Nor may he punish a “clear immorality” from which she has repented or search for another fault to obtain her money. Maintenance during pregnancy remains due under the position adopted in the cited fatwa. If she continues committing zinā but refuses to give wealth to end the marriage, Ibn ʿUthaymīn says he must separate rather than keep her in that situation indefinitely.[30]
A gift she makes of her own will is a different matter. While the marriage goes on, 4:4 lets a husband take what his wife gives him of her dower freely: "But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then take it in satisfaction and ease." A husband decides to divorce his wife, though she has done nothing wrong. She then offers him back part of what he gave her, of her own free will. May he accept it? The scholars give two answers and the first seems to be stronger:
- Yes, if she is a sane adult and gives it willingly, because the dower is her right and she may give up a right of her own (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[31] Just as 2:237 lets a divorced wife forgo half her dower, her property is halal for her husband with her consent, whether he keeps her or parts from her (Ibn ʿUthaymīn, al-Shāfiʿī).[32]
- No, while he is the one who wants the parting, because 4:4 allows her gift in a marriage that goes on, not at a parting he chose (Abū Zahra).[33] If she consents then, that is noble character on her part and a corrupt soul on his, and such a taking is not permissible. Nor does 2:237 apply, since it speaks of forgoing a dower not yet paid, not of returning one that was. The ban covers every way of taking: pressurizing her until she returns it, asking her gently for it, or accepting it when she offers it unasked (Abū Zahra, Ibn ʿArafa).[34]
The first answer seems to be stronger, and it is not based on 2:237 alone, which Abū Zahra takes to speak only of a dower not yet paid. Al-Shāfiʿī holds that Allah allowed a husband to take his wife's property with her consent, whether he keeps her or parts from her. He cites 4:4 and 4:128, which lets a wife who fears her husband's aversion settle terms with him.[35]
An agreement is also reported on the very case of this verse: the husband who parts from her may take nothing of her dower except with her consent, so what she gives him freely is halal for him (al-Wāʾilī, Abū Ḥayyān).[36]
Two cases are reported against the agreement, one put to ʿAṭāʾ and one judged by ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān. ʿAṭāʾ was asked about a husband who meant to divorce his wife and asked her for part of her dower, which she gave willingly. When 4:4 was put to him, he recited 4:20.[37] In ʿAṭāʾ's case the husband asked for the gift. The answer that he may accept her gift concerns a gift she offers of her own will.
ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān judged the case of a wife who gave up to her husband the thousand dinars of her dower. When he divorced her a month later, ʿAbd al-Malik ordered him to return it.[38] In ʿAbd al-Malik's case the husband said she gave it willingly, and ʿAbd al-Malik still made him return it. So that judgment seems to go against the answer that he may accept her gift.
ʿAbd al-Malik's judgment comes in two reports. A view recorded with the second report ties the return to a husband who asked her for the gift while he already meant to divorce her, and who admits that he meant it.[39] Neither report says whether the husband asked. Only if he had not asked does the judgment go against the answer that he may accept her gift.
Al-Shāfiʿī makes one exception to the answer that he may accept her gift: a gift she makes while she believes he will keep her. She does not know that he has already decided to divorce her, so in his view he should not accept it and then divorce her, since that resembles deceiving her. Yet if he does, al-Shāfiʿī sees no clear reason to make him return it, because the apparent sense is that she gave it willingly.[40]
Since only her own consent makes the gift permissible, some commentators add that no one may make it for her, not even her guardian. 2:237 lets "the one in whose hand is the marriage knot" forgo half the dower, and the early Muslims explained that person in two ways, as the husband or as her guardian. Words that bear both senses are explained by the verses on her dower whose sense is clear, 4:4, 4:20 and 2:229. Those verses give her husband her property only by her own gift or by what she gives to end the marriage (al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[41]
The words may also be taken as clear, meaning the husband, and even if they were ambiguous, the same verses would decide them (Abū Ḥayyān). On either route, al-Jaṣṣāṣ and Abū Ḥayyān hold, the one in whose hand is the marriage knot is the husband, so they conclude that her guardian may not forgo her dower for her.[42]
Khulʿ, and the reports of abrogation
Khulʿ, in 2:229, is the opposite of the case in which 4:20 forbids taking. In khulʿ the wife dislikes the marriage and fears that she and her husband will not keep within the limits of Allah. She offers wealth to end the marriage: "then there is no blame upon either of them concerning what she gives to obtain her divorce." In that case the husband may take what she gives. So taking is permissible when the cause of the parting is the wife's, and forbidden when it is the husband's, apart from the free gift on which the scholars give two answers (al-Ṭabarī, al-Shāfiʿī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[43]
The Prophet ﷺ ruled on such a case, as Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما relates:
أَنَّ امْرَأَةَ ثَابِتِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ أَتَتِ النَّبِيَّ ﷺ، فَقَالَتْ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، ثَابِتُ بْنُ قَيْسٍ مَا أَعْتُِبُ عَلَيْهِ فِي خُلُقٍ وَلَا دِينٍ وَلَكِنِّي أَكْرَهُ الْكُفْرَ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ: أَتَرُدِّينَ عَلَيْهِ حَدِيقَتَهُ؟ قَالَتْ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ: اقْبَلِ الْحَدِيقَةَ وَطَلِّقْهَا تَطْلِيقَةً."The wife of Thābit b. Qays came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: 'Messenger of Allah, I find no fault in Thābit b. Qays in his character or his religion, but I dislike being ungrateful in Islam.' The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Will you give him back his garden?' She said: 'Yes.' The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Accept the garden and divorce her once.'"[44]
The dislike was hers, since she found no fault in her husband, and the payment was the garden he had given her. Where the two agree on some other payment instead, the husband takes that payment, and the dower he has already paid remains hers, in al-Jaṣṣāṣ's view, following Abū Ḥanīfa.[45]
The scholars differ on whether khulʿ is only for a wife who dislikes her husband. A group of the early Muslims and later imams allowed it only when the defiance is hers, because 2:229 gave it for that case alone (ʿAṭāʾ, al-Zuhrī, ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb); Ibn Kathīr counts the majority among them.[46] Others allow it also when the two simply agree to part, even if neither fears failing Allah's limits, and Ibn Nūr al-Dīn counts the majority among these.[47] The two counts cannot both be right, so the count decides nothing, and the reason does.
Where both agree to part, the parting is not his choice alone, and nothing is taken by pressure. In that case 2:229 is not the only verse that applies. Its fear that the two will not keep within Allah's limits is mentioned because it is the usual case of khulʿ, not as a condition (al-Qurṭubī).[48]
4:20 and 4:21 forbid a husband to take anything back. 4:19 shows what is forbidden: the taking by pressure, when he keeps her in the marriage against her will to make her pay. So where nothing is taken by pressure, it is permissible, and 4:4, which lets him accept what she gives him gladly, says the same without restriction (Ibn Nūr al-Dīn).[49]
A second reason follows in Ibn Nūr al-Dīn: if a husband may accept what she gives him for nothing in return, he may accept it all the more when she gets something in return.[50] That reasoning is a grave error, says Ibn al-Mundhir, who holds that khulʿ is not valid in this case. A payment for a parting is an exchange, and what Allah forbids among exchanges cannot be made permissible by what He allows among gifts, just as being free to give one's money away does not make interest permissible.[51]
That objection answers the second reason. It does not take up the first, what 4:19 shows about the forbidden taking, and this tafsīr follows the tarjīḥ on that reason.
The case changes when the husband himself brings the khulʿ about. A husband who harms his wife until she asks for khulʿ is in the case of 4:20, not of 2:229. She is the one who asks for the divorce, but the dislike that drives the parting is his: he wants her gone and makes her life hard so that she pays. On both answers below, taking that payment is forbidden to him before Allah (al-Ṭabarī, al-Shāfiʿī, Ibn al-Humām, al-Maẓharī).[52] The answers differ on what happens to the payment afterwards:
- The payment goes back to her, because she did not give it freely (al-Shāfiʿī, Mālik).[53]
- A court upholds the payment, though he sinned in taking it, just as a sale made at the call to the Friday prayer, when 62:9 tells believers to leave trade, is forbidden, and the buyer still owns what he bought (the Ḥanafī scholars and al-Rāzī).[54]
The answer that the payment goes back to her seems to be stronger, because she did not pay freely. The buyer at the Friday call buys willingly, while she paid only to be free of his harm, so what 4:20 forbade him to take goes back to her. An agreement is reported for the answer that a court upholds the payment, against the Ẓāhirīs (al-Maẓharī),[55] but al-Shāfiʿī and Mālik hold that the payment goes back to her, so that agreement does not settle the question.
So five cases decide what a husband may take: her clear immorality, her dislike of the marriage, an agreement to part, her free gift during the marriage, and his wish to leave a wife who did no wrong. A wife may commit a clear immorality, and then, on the tarjīḥ this tafsīr follows, 4:19 lets her husband pressurize her until she offers wealth to end the marriage. She may come to dislike the marriage herself, and then 2:229 lets her end the marriage by khulʿ, returning wealth to her husband.
The two may agree to part when neither has done wrong, and then what she gives to end the marriage is permissible for him, on the tarjīḥ this tafsīr follows. While the marriage goes on, she may give him part of her dower freely, as 4:4 allows. Or he may want to end the marriage when she has done nothing wrong. Then 4:20 forbids him to take back anything, though a gift she then makes freely and unasked he may accept, on the answer that seems to be stronger.
| The case | Who wants the parting | What the husband may take |
|---|---|---|
| She commits a clear immorality (4:19) | He, because of her wrong | What she offers to end the marriage when he pressurizes her, on the tarjīḥ this author follows; Mālik's school allows only what she gives freely |
| She dislikes the marriage and fears they cannot keep within Allah's limits (2:229) | She | What she returns to end the marriage by khulʿ |
| They agree to part, and neither has done wrong (4:19 and 4:4, on the tarjīḥ this tafsīr follows) | Both | What she gives to end the marriage |
| She gives him part of her dower freely while the marriage goes on (4:4) | No one | What she gives |
| He wants to replace her, and she has done no wrong (4:20) | He | Nothing, apart from a gift she then makes freely and unasked, on the answer that seems to be stronger |
These cases also decide the claims of abrogation. Two claims of abrogation set 2:229 and 4:20 against each other: that 4:20 abrogated 2:229, and that 2:229 abrogated 4:20. The view this tafsīr follows is that neither verse abrogates the other:
| Position | Core Argument | Principal authorities | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Neither verse abrogates the other: 4:20 forbids taking when the husband wants the parting, and 2:229 permits it when the wife wants it | Abrogation needs two rulings on one case, and these two cases are opposite | al-Ṭabarī; al-Shāfiʿī; Ismāʿīl al-Qāḍī; al-Naḥḥās; al-Jaṣṣāṣ; Makkī, reporting it as the view of most scholars; al-Wāḥidī; Ibn ʿAṭiyya; Ibn al-ʿArabī; Ibn al-Faras; al-Rāghib; al-Qurṭubī; Ibn Juzayy; Ibn Kathīr; Ibn Qudāma; Ibn al-Humām; al-Maẓharī; al-Shawkānī; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān; al-Qāsimī; Rashīd Riḍā; Ibn ʿĀshūr; Abū Zahra; Darwaza; al-Zuḥaylī; ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad; and, as a specification of 4:20 by 2:229 and other verses of al-Nisāʾ, al-Zarkashī, Ibn Ḥajar and Ibn Nūr al-Dīn[56] | The two cases in the verses' own words; the Prophet's ﷺ ruling for the wife of Thābit b. Qays رضي الله عنه; the agreement that khulʿ is permissible |
| 2. 4:20 abrogated 2:229, so nothing may be taken even in khulʿ | 4:20 forbids taking anything, and the solemn covenant of 4:21 protects what she was given | Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī, by the report of ʿUqba b. Abī al-Ṣahbāʾ[57] | The general word "anything"; 4:21's covenant, which Bakr recited |
| 3. 2:229 abrogated 4:20 | 2:229 came later and allowed the husband to take what his wife gives to end the marriage | Ibn Zayd; Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما and ʿIkrima, as Ibn al-Faras reports them; Jābir b. Zayd; al-Māwardī and al-Rūyānī, for the khulʿ payment[58] | 2:229's "then there is no blame upon either of them concerning what she gives to obtain her divorce" |
On the view that 4:20 abrogated 2:229, a husband may take nothing even when his wife asks for khulʿ. This view is based on the wording of the pair: 4:20 forbids taking "anything", and 4:21 asks how he could take it when وَأَخَذْنَ مِنْكُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا, "they have taken from you a solemn covenant", a covenant no khulʿ payment can undo. Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī held this view. Asked whether a husband may take anything from a wife who offers wealth to end the marriage, he said no, recited those words, and said that 4:20 had abrogated 2:229.[59]
Short of Bakr's denial, narrower views allow khulʿ in some cases only: not when it is the husband who calls her to it, even if she has wronged him (ʿAṭāʾ), and only when he finds her in zinā (Ibn Sīrīn, Abū Qilāba).[60] These narrow the cases of khulʿ rather than deny it, and the tarjīḥ this tafsīr follows, which allows khulʿ even where both agree to part, answers them.
The view that 2:229 abrogated 4:20 runs the other way: 2:229 came later and allowed the husband to take what his wife gives to end the marriage, so it cancelled the ban of 4:20 (Ibn Zayd).[61]
One answer applies to both claims of abrogation: abrogation needs two rulings on one case, the later one cancelling the earlier (al-Ṭabarī).[62] Here the cases are opposite. 4:20 forbids taking when the husband wants the parting, and 2:229 permits it when the wife wants it and he does not. Neither ruling cancels the other, so both remain in force, each in its own case (al-Ṭabarī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Qāsimī).[63] The view that 4:20 abrogated 2:229 is also answered in three further ways:
- The Prophet ﷺ let Thābit b. Qays رضي الله عنه take back his garden when his wife sought the parting, so a husband may take what his wife gives him in khulʿ (al-Ṭabarī).[64]
- The Companions, the Successors who learned from them, and the Muslims after them held that a husband may take what his wife gives him in khulʿ, and Bakr is the only one reported to deny it in every case (al-Ṭabarī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Ibn Qudāma, al-Shawkānī).[65]
- The question "And how could you take it" does not extend the ban to khulʿ. That question strengthens the ban just before it, which concerns a husband who wants another wife, and a clause that only strengthens another cannot set a general ban by itself (al-Qāsimī).[66]
Which interpretation is stronger?
The view that neither verse is abrogated is the stronger, because it alone keeps both verses in force, each in its own case, while each claim of abrogation sets aside a ruling that the other verse does not touch (al-Ṭabarī).[67] Other scholars come to the same result by another route: 2:229 and other verses of al-Nisāʾ specify the general words of 4:20, so the ban remains, with the cases they mention set apart from it (al-Zarkashī, Ibn Ḥajar, Ibn Nūr al-Dīn).[68]
Conclusion: The ban forbids a husband who chooses to part from a wife guilty of no indecency or defiance to take back anything he gave her, a qinṭār or a trifle, paid or still owed, and the verse mentions replacing a wife as the usual case, not as a condition. It leaves untouched the khulʿ of 2:229, where the dislike is hers and she offers wealth to end the marriage, and neither verse abrogates the other. A gift she makes him freely and unasked, as a sane adult, is hers to give, on the answer that seems to be stronger.
And Allah knows best.
Q2. What is the قِنْطَارًا, "great amount", and does the verse show that a dower has no upper limit?
Verse 4:20 speaks of a husband who has given his wife a great sum: وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا, "and you have given one of them a great amount (in gifts)". The verse calls that sum a qinṭār. Understanding it requires answering three questions:
- What is a qinṭār?
- Does the verse show that a large dower is permissible, so that a dower has no upper limit? The scholars hold two views on it, and the stronger is weighed after both.
- Is a light dower still better, and what did ʿUmar رضي الله عنه mean by his sermon against costly dowers, since he is reported to have held back from limiting dowers because of this verse?
What a qinṭār is
A qinṭār is a great amount of wealth. The Arabs used the word for "much wealth, piled part upon part", and that is its sense in the verse (al-Ṭabarī, al-Rabīʿ b. Anas, al-Rāzī).[1]
Many figures were also given for it, and they lie far apart. They run from forty ūqiyya of gold or silver, through 1,200 and 12,000 ūqiyya, 12,000 dirhams of silver or 1,000 dinars of gold, and 80,000 dirhams. They go up to 70,000 mithqāl, the fill of a bull's hide with gold, and "what lies between the sky and the earth".[2] Some of these figures were attributed to the Prophet ﷺ. Al-Suyūṭī even marked one of them sound, the report from Abū Hurayra رضي الله عنه of twelve thousand ūqiyya.[3]
Yet none of these figures is proven from the Prophet ﷺ. Al-Albānī holds that no wording of the report is sound from him, despite al-Suyūṭī's grade: the wordings differ considerably, their chains are frail, and it is uncertain whether each is the Prophet's word or a Companion's. Earlier scholars had judged these reports the same way (al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn al-ʿArabī).[4] A figure that is not sound from him cannot fix what the word means.
The figures are therefore guesses at "much". Ibn ʿAṭiyya holds 1,200 ūqiyya the soundest of them, and he grants that even this figure changes with the size of the ūqiyya, which differs from one land to another.[5] So the word means great wealth (al-Zamakhsharī, al-Saʿdī, Ibn ʿĀshūr),[6] with no fixed quantity (al-Ṭabarī, Ibn al-ʿArabī).[7] It is relative, like "enough": a little is enough for one person, and much is not enough for another (al-Rāghib).[8]
Whether a large dower is permissible
Whatever its quantity, the qinṭār is wealth a husband has already given his wife. The verse forbids him to take it back, and it does not blame him for giving it. Allah gives as an example only what is permissible, so the verse shows that a large dower is permissible (al-Qurṭubī, Ibn ʿĀshūr, Ibn al-ʿArabī).[9] The verse also set no limit for a small dower, so a dower has no fixed amount, large or small (al-Shāfiʿī).[10] How little a dower may be is the question of 4:24, and some set a minimum (al-Māturīdī).[11]
Not every commentator accepts that the verse itself proves that a large dower is permissible. The commentators give two views: that the verse shows it, and that the verse by itself does not, though no one who says so finds a limit in the verse:
| Position | Core Argument | Principal authorities | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The verse shows that a large dower is permissible, and the dower has no upper limit | The verse forbids taking the qinṭār back and does not blame the giving, and Allah gives as an example only what is permissible | al-Shāfiʿī; al-Thaʿlabī; al-Wāḥidī; Ibn al-ʿArabī; al-Qurṭubī; Ibn Kathīr; Ibn ʿĀdil; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā; al-Maẓharī; al-Saʿdī; Ibn ʿĀshūr; Abū Zahra; Ibn ʿUthaymīn; Ṭanṭāwī; al-Zuḥaylī; al-Ṣābūnī; al-Muqaddim; and among the jurists Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Māwardī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Ibn Qudāma and Ibn Taymiyya[12] | The example of the qinṭār; the large dowers given in the Companions' time; the agreement the jurists report, which they base on this verse |
| 2. The verse by itself does not show that a large dower is permissible, though none of them finds a limit in the verse | The qinṭār may be mentioned as hyperbole or as a supposition, and what was given may be gifts rather than a dower | al-Rāzī; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī; al-Nīsābūrī, as a possibility; al-Ālūsī, reporting it; Rashīd Riḍā; Darwaza; al-Dihlawī; al-Ithyūbī; al-Fawzān[13] | 21:22, which supposes gods besides Allah without affirming them |
Two objections are raised against the view that the verse proves it: that the qinṭār may be hyperbole, and that the verse may only suppose the giving.
- The qinṭār may be hyperbole, an exaggeration made for effect. On this view the verse means "this vast amount that no one gives", and so it shows nothing about what may be given (a view al-Qurṭubī reports).[14] The answer is that the hyperbole is itself the proof. Even as an exaggeration, the verse pictures a permissible act, since Allah does not use as an example what His law forbids, so a qinṭār given as a dower is permissible (Ibn ʿĀshūr).[15]
- The words "and you have given" may only suppose the giving without approving it, just as 21:22 supposes gods besides Allah without affirming that they exist (al-Rāzī, Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī).[16] What was given may also have been jewellery and gifts rather than a dower (Rashīd Riḍā, Darwaza; a view al-Ālūsī reports).[17] This objection does not deny that a large dower is permissible. It denies only that this verse, by itself, proves it for the dower.
Nor does the verse set an upper limit. Had it been meant to fix a maximum, it would have forbidden going beyond it, and the Law left the amount to people's means (al-Fawzān, Rashīd Riḍā).[18] Whether a ruler may cap dowers is a question of the present day, taken up in Contemporary Applications.
Which interpretation is stronger?
The view that the verse shows a large dower to be permissible is the stronger, because the Companions' practice confirms what this view takes from the verse. The jurists who report the agreement take the same from the verse. They report agreement that a dower has no upper limit (Ibn al-Mundhir),[19] and they base that agreement on this verse (al-Māwardī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-ʿImrānī, al-Qurṭubī).[20]
Apart from the limit on dowers reported from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, one cap is recorded against that agreement. Al-Murtaḍā, a jurist of the Imāmīs, the Twelver Shīʿa, limited the dower to five hundred dirhams on a report and on an agreement he claimed.[21]
Al-Rawḍa al-Bahiyya gives the Imāmī school's well-known view, that by this verse a dower has no upper limit. The answer given there is that al-Murtaḍā's report is weak, that the agreement he claimed is not accepted, and that every explanation of the word qinṭār counts against his cap.[22] His cap is therefore based on proofs that a work of his own school rejects.
Still, because a cap is recorded against the agreement the jurists report, that agreement cannot settle by itself whether a dower has an upper limit. On the view this tafsīr follows, the verse settles it: it mentions a great amount given as a dower and does not forbid giving it.
Some Companions also gave large dowers (al-Qurṭubī, Ibn Kathīr).[23] And a dower is fixed by a contract between two parties who must both consent, so a wife and her guardians who will accept only a large amount may ask for it (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[24] So the verse and the Companions' practice point one way. The view that the verse by itself does not prove a large dower permissible questions one proof and finds no limit in the verse. This is the tarjīḥ of al-Qurṭubī, who takes the verse itself as the proof, and of Ṭanṭāwī, who holds the same after stating the objection of hyperbole.[25]
A light dower, and ʿUmar's sermon
Permissible, though, is not the same as better. The scholars agree that a light dower is recommended, as al-Maẓharī and Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm report.[26] The Prophet ﷺ and his Companions usually gave small dowers, and to follow him in this is the better course (Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Saʿdī, Ṭanṭāwī).[27]
A light dower brings blessing to a marriage. If the two cannot agree, it makes the parting easier on both, while a heavy one can turn a husband against the wife whose dower put him in debt (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[28] It also makes marriage easier for the poor, as 24:32 asks of the community (Darwaza).[29]
A dower beyond what the husband can afford is disliked, even when it is less than the Prophet's own dowers (Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm).[30] For the same reason, a husband who must ask others to help him pay his dower does what the scholars agree is disliked, and the large dower that is permissible is one paid from ample means (Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Qurṭubī).[31] A large dower may still be forbidden when it involves a harm to religion and brings no benefit to offset it (al-Saʿdī).[32]
The light dower is also the point of ʿUmar's sermon against costly dowers, whose account is given in Historical Context. The sermon itself is sound: in Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ's report he told people not to set women's dowers high, since, so far as he knew, the Prophet ﷺ gave none of his wives more than twelve ūqiyya. Al-Tirmidhī grades it ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ, good and sound, and al-Ḥākim, Aḥmad Shākir and al-Albānī also grade it sound.[33]
In Nāfiʿ's report, ʿUmar رضي الله عنه forbade dowers above four hundred dirhams, and he would have punished a man who gave his daughter in marriage for six hundred.[34] Al-Dāraquṭnī calls that report mursal, a link missing between Nāfiʿ and ʿUmar رضي الله عنه.[35] Al-Albānī holds the ban on dowers above four hundred dirhams sound from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه.[36]
Two further reports say that he held back from that limit because of this verse. In one, a woman of Quraysh recited 4:20 to him after the sermon, and he went back up the pulpit and withdrew the limit.[37] In the other, he went out meaning to forbid large dowers until he recited the verse himself, and he held back (Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī).[38] The two reports differ on when the verse was put to him, before he spoke or after he came down, but they agree that it stopped him.
These reports are weaker than the sermon. Of those who relate the sermon from al-Shaʿbī, only Mujālid adds the woman to it, as al-Dāraquṭnī noted, and his addition cannot be accepted on his word alone, since al-Haythamī found weakness in him, though others declared him reliable.[39] Ibn Kathīr graded his route good and strong.[40]
Al-Albānī answers that grade and holds the woman's story weak. In al-Bayhaqī's chain of narrators, Mujālid's report is broken, a narrator missing from it. The woman also appears in none of the sermon's five other routes, so al-Albānī judges the story munkar, a weak narrator's addition that the other routes lack. Another route of hers, through Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī, is weak as well: al-Sulamī did not hear from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, and a narrator of its chain had a poor memory. Bakr's report is mursal, its chain skipping a narrator, and it differs from the woman's on the timing. For these reasons al-Albānī rejects both reports.[41]
Al-ʿAdawī answers from what the two reports of ʿUmar's holding back agree on, that the verse stopped him. He does not base his case on the woman's chain. Instead he takes the account in which ʿUmar رضي الله عنه held back on his own, which he cites from ʿAbd al-Razzāq with a chain he calls mursal but strong. That account is Bakr's report. He takes the woman's story as a witness to that shared point, so the routes are sound taken together.[42]
The woman's absence from Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ's route does not undo a report that comes in many forms and by many routes (Darwaza).[43] Earlier still, al-Bayhaqī had called Bakr's version a good mursal.[44] So the core the routes share, that the verse stopped ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, is based on more than the woman's chain.
This tafsīr follows al-ʿAdawī's weighing: ʿUmar رضي الله عنه held back from limiting dowers because of this verse. As Ibn ʿĀshūr explains it, ʿUmar رضي الله عنه had first thought excess a reason to forbid large dowers, and he may have forgotten the verse, or taken it as hyperbole. When the verse was brought to his mind, he saw that it shows a large dower to be permissible, so he withdrew a restriction on what Allah had allowed (Ibn ʿĀshūr).[45] The qinṭār of the verse then refers to real abundance, not a hyperbole with nothing real behind it (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[46]
The sermon itself, in Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ's report, was counsel and not a prohibition. ʿUmar رضي الله عنه said it to urge lighter dowers, not to forbid large ones (Ibn al-ʿArabī, Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Dihlawī).[47] Al-Albānī, who rejects the reports of his holding back, takes ʿUmar's words against dowers above four hundred dirhams as dislike, not prohibition.[48]
This tafsīr follows another view: what the verse stopped was a prohibition, while ʿUmar's dislike of excess remained (al-Maẓharī).[49] Counsel would have needed no withdrawing, and the reports of his holding back, whose shared core this tafsīr follows, show him withdrawing a ban on large dowers or holding back from one.
Al-Albānī's grade covers the ban on dowers above four hundred dirhams. That this ban bound, with a punishment for going beyond it, comes only in Nāfiʿ's mursal report. That ʿUmar رضي الله عنه withdrew the four hundred comes only in Mujālid's report through Masrūq. So the view this tafsīr follows is based on al-Maẓharī's tarjīḥ and on the core the reports of his holding back share, not on what those two reports alone add.[50]
Abū Zahra understands the sermon itself differently, as setting a limit. He takes its twelve ūqiyya as a figure ʿUmar رضي الله عنه set, and holds that even if ʿUmar رضي الله عنه erred in that figure, he did not err in forbidding excess in dowers.[51] On the view this tafsīr follows, the sermon agrees with the light dower the Prophet ﷺ preferred, and it does not make a large dower forbidden.
Conclusion: A qinṭār is a great amount of wealth with no fixed quantity, and no figure for it from the Prophet is sound. A large dower is permissible and the dower has no upper limit, by the verse, though a light dower is the better course. ʿUmar's sermon against costly dowers, as Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ reports it, is sound counsel, not a ban, and on the weighing this tafsīr follows, it was this verse that made him hold back from limiting dowers.
And Allah knows best.
Q3. Why is taking back the dower called بُهْتَانًا, "injustice", and what does the question "Would you take it" add?
Verse 4:20 closes its ban with a question: أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا, "Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin?" Understanding this question requires answering three questions:
- What does بُهْتَانًا mean, and how can a taking, which is an act and not speech, be called by a word for a lie?
- Why is this taking given that name, and which of the reasons given for it is the clearest?
- What does the question "Would you take it" add to the ban before it?
What buhtān means here
The word بُهْتَانًا comes from a verb that means to be struck speechless. Buhtān is the lie that stuns the one it is told against: a lie told to a person's face, so false that he cannot answer it. The verb from the same root means to charge someone to his face with a wrong he did not do, and the noun later came to cover any falsehood so false that it stuns (al-Wāḥidī, al-Rāzī, Abū Ḥayyān, Rashīd Riḍā).[1]
Yet the verse gives this name to a taking, and a taking is an act, not words. A husband who takes back the dower says nothing false aloud, so the name needs explaining (al-Sāyis).[2]
One explanation takes the word in a more generic sense. The taking is a wrong so ugly that it is called by the name of the ugliest kind of lie, the brazen lie told to a man's face (al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[3] Arabic speaks of truth and lying in deeds as well as in speech, so a deed can be called a lie (al-Rāghib).[4] On this explanation, بُهْتَانًا here means taking without right, which Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما called "a great injustice", and it is in this sense that Saheeh International renders it "injustice" (al-Ṭabarī, al-Wāḥidī, Ibn Rajab; a view al-Bayḍāwī reports).[5]
The other explanation takes the word in its first sense, so that the taking is itself a lie (al-Zamakhsharī, al-Rāzī, Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Biqāʿī).[6] The lie may be about her, or about the Law that made the dower hers (Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī).[7] The two explanations need not exclude each other, and the reasons given for the name show how they meet.
Why the taking is called buhtān
The reasons given for calling a taking a lie are these:
- Allah made the dower her due, so taking it back acts as if it were not due, and that is a lie (al-Rāzī, Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Nīsābūrī).[8]
- At the contract the husband undertook to give her the dower and not to take it back, so taking it makes his own word a lie (al-Rāzī, Ibn ʿĀdil).[9]
- Before Islam, a husband who wanted to divorce his wife would accuse her of an indecency, so that she would fear for her name and give up her dower to end the marriage. Since the taking mostly came with that false charge, it was given the charge's name (al-Rāzī, al-Zamakhsharī, Ibn ʿĀdil, Ibn ʿĀshūr).[10]
- 4:19 allows a husband to take from his wife only when she commits a clear indecency, so taking without one implies that she committed it (al-Rāzī, al-Biqāʿī, Ibn ʿĀshūr).[11]
- "Would you take it as buhtān" means "would you take on the punishment of buhtān", just as 4:10 says that those who consume orphans' wealth unjustly consume only fire in their bellies. In both verses, taking the thing is taking its punishment (al-Rāzī, Ibn ʿĀdil).[12]
Ibn ʿĀshūr judges the reason from 4:19 the clearest, and the custom of the false charge leads to it.[13] Because husbands used to accuse a wife falsely so that she would give up her dower, a taking at divorce came to mark a wife as guilty of some wrong, and men who might have married her could hold back (Ibn ʿĀshūr).[14]
4:19 gives that mark a legal basis. It allows the taking only when she commits a clear indecency, and a Muslim is presumed not to disobey Allah, so people assume that a husband who takes from his wife does so where Allah allowed it (al-Rāzī, Ibn ʿĀshūr).[15] When she has committed none, the taking says something false about her. Al-Rāzī puts the same point first among the reasons the verse gives for its ban: the taking attributes a clear indecency to her, and that is buhtān.[16]
So the two explanations meet in one act. The taking attacks her person and seizes her property, so it is buhtān in one respect and injustice in another, and a major sin (al-Rāzī, al-Nīsābūrī, Nawawī al-Jāwī, al-Zuḥaylī).[17] The verse calls that sin مُبِينًا, "manifest", meaning evident (al-Ṭabarī, Muqātil).[18] It is evident because the dower is her right: to pressurize her into giving it back is one wrong, and it serves a second, the taking of her property (al-Rāzī).[19] Those addressed may already have known that it was a sin, from the ban itself, from 2:229, or from the rule that property is halal only with its owner's consent (Ibn ʿĀshūr).[20]
What the question adds
The verse puts all this as a question, "Would you take it", but the question asks for no answer. It disapproves of the act and rebukes the one who would do it: no one would do such a thing when its ugliness is evident in law and in reason (al-Rāzī, Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Ibn ʿĀshūr).[21] The ban was already stated in the words "do not take (back) from it anything", so the question adds no new ruling. It confirms the ban by showing how ugly the taking is (Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya).[22] The rebuke can also be put as a question about the taker's belief: "Do you count it halal to take it wrongfully?" (al-Samarqandī).[23]
On the grammar this tafsīr follows, explained in the Iʿrāb section, the two words after the question describe the takers themselves (Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Ibn ʿĀshūr). A husband who takes the dower back would take it بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا, "as false accusers and sinners": a false accuser for what the taking says about her, and a sinner for what it takes from her (Ibn ʿĀshūr).[24]
Conclusion: Taking back the dower is called buhtān because Allah allowed a husband to take it against her will only when she commits a clear indecency (4:19), so taking it when she has committed none implies that she did, a false charge against her, and it also takes her property from her unjustly. "Would you take it" disapproves and rebukes, and so confirms the ban; buhtānan wa-ithman describe the takers, "as false accusers and sinners".
And Allah knows best.
Q4. What does أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ, "you have gone in unto each other", mean, and is the whole dower due after a valid khalwa?
Verse 4:21 continues the ban of 4:20 with a second question: وَكَيْفَ تَأْخُذُونَهُ وَقَدْ أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ, "And how could you take it while you have gone in unto each other". Understanding this question requires answering three questions:
- What does أَفْضَى, "gone in", mean here: intercourse, or being alone together in private, which the jurists call khalwa?
- What does consummation settle about the dower?
- If a husband is alone with his wife in private and divorces her before intercourse, is the whole dower hers, or half? The scholars hold two positions on it, and the stronger is weighed after both.
What "gone in unto each other" means
The verb أَفْضَى means to reach something directly, with nothing between (al-Ṭabarī).[1] Its root and the poetry cited for it are explained in the Ṣarf section. The jurists use its verbal noun, ifḍāʾ, in another sense, for an injury that a wife may suffer in intercourse (Sayyid Sābiq).[2] That is not the sense of this verse.
Said of a husband and wife, the word is explained in two ways. It may mean intercourse, which the verse refers to by allusion, or it may mean being alone together in private, whether or not intercourse took place.[3]
| Explanation | Core Argument | Who states it | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. "Gone in" means intercourse, named by allusion | Intercourse is the act that reaches the other with nothing between, and the Qurʾān refers to it by allusion, as it does to whatever is not said outright | Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, by a sound isnād; Mujāhid; Muqātil; al-Shāfiʿī; al-Ṭabarī; Bakr b. al-ʿAlāʾ; al-Qaṣṣāb; al-Wāḥidī; al-Samʿānī; al-Baghawī; Ibn al-Faras; al-Rāzī; Ibn Juzayy; al-Bayḍāwī; Ibn Kathīr, relating it; Ibn ʿĀdil; al-Nīsābūrī, relating it; al-Jalālayn; al-Shirbīnī; al-Qāsimī; Rashīd Riḍā; al-Marāghī; al-Saʿdī; al-Shanqīṭī; Ibn ʿUthaymīn; al-Zuḥaylī; al-Albānī[4] | Ibn ʿAbbās's explanation; the verb with "to", which needs an act that reaches the other; the Qurʾān's allusion to what is not said outright |
| 2. "Gone in" means being alone together in private, with or without intercourse | The word comes from open ground where nothing bars, so it refers to the privacy in which nothing bars intercourse | al-Farrāʾ; al-Kalbī; al-Māturīdī; al-Jaṣṣāṣ; al-Samarqandī; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, relating it as his school's proof; Bayān al-Ḥaqq; Ibn al-ʿArabī; al-Qurṭubī; al-Nasafī; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā; Abū al-Suʿūd; al-Maẓharī; and among the jurists al-Qudūrī[5] | al-Farrāʾ's report of the usage; the derivation from open ground; the verb said of both spouses |
The explanation as privacy is based on three reasons: al-Farrāʾ's report of the usage, the word's derivation, and the verb said of both spouses. Al-Farrāʾ, a leading authority on the language, reports that the word means being alone together, so the verse forbids taking any of the dower after such privacy (al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[6]
The word also comes from the word for open ground, a place with no building or barrier to stop anyone from reaching what is in it, so it refers to the privacy in which nothing bars intercourse (al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Nasafī, al-Maẓharī).[7] And the verb is said of both spouses, "each of you to the other", while intercourse is the husband's act, so the word fits what both of them do, which is being together (al-Māturīdī).[8]
The explanation as intercourse answers each of these reasons, and then gives one of its own:
- Al-Farrāʾ's report is answered by the explanation of Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما. He said that the word means intercourse, and that Allah is generous and alludes to what He wills. Ibn Ḥajar grades the isnād of this report, its chain of narrators, ṣaḥīḥ, that is, sound.[9] Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, the interpreter of the Qurʾān, is preferred to al-Farrāʾ. Al-Farrāʾ himself is also reported to give intercourse, so his report on privacy is not his only word (Ibn al-Faras).[10]
- The derivation points to intercourse as well. Whichever root the word comes from, open ground or a word for mixing, it points to intercourse, and the apparent sense of the word is intercourse, which should not be given up without proof (Ibn al-Faras).[11]
- A verb said of both spouses still refers to an act. The verb is joined to "to", which marks the point an act reaches, so it refers to an act of one that reaches the other. When two people are only alone together, no act of either reaches the other (al-Rāzī).[12]
- Its own reason is the allusion. The Qurʾān alludes to intercourse because sound human nature dislikes naming it outright unless there is a need (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[13] Being alone together is not something one is shy to name, so it would need no allusion (Ibn al-Faras).[14]
The answer about "to" faces one objection: a husband and wife who lie under one cover and touch have each reached the other, though that is not intercourse. The reply takes the word to refer to what makes the whole dower due: no one gives the whole dower for such touching, so touching is not what the word means (al-Rāzī, Ibn ʿĀdil).[15]
Aḥmad gives the whole dower for touching and holding her, even without privacy, because the husband has had from her what is lawful to no one else (al-Mushayqiḥ).[16] So that reply is based on a claimed agreement, that no one gives the whole dower for touching, and Aḥmad's saying contradicts it. But the objection is about touching, not about privacy. Against privacy the answer about "to" remains valid, so the case for intercourse does not need that reply.
So intercourse is the stronger explanation. Each reason for the explanation as privacy has its answer, and only intercourse is the kind of thing the Qurʾān refers to by allusion (al-Ṭabarī, al-Samʿānī, Ibn al-Faras, al-Rāzī, Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Qāsimī).[17]
What consummation settles
Since the word means intercourse, 4:21 speaks of a wife whose marriage was consummated, and it asks how her husband could take her dower back in that state. The question disapproves of the taking a second time, after the disapproval in 4:20 (Abū Ḥayyān, Abū al-Suʿūd),[18] and its words "while you have gone in unto each other" give the reason for the ban (al-Qurṭubī, al-Māwardī, Ibn ʿArafa).[19]
The ruling in that case is clear. The whole dower is hers, and none of it may be taken back (al-Shāfiʿī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Shanqīṭī),[20] because consummation makes the dower a settled debt that she can claim (al-Qaṣṣāb).[21] This is reported as agreed, with no dissent, and the same is reported for the death of either spouse (Ibn Rushd, al-Rajrājī).[22]
Before any khalwa or intercourse, the case is the reverse. A wife divorced then has half the dower named for her, by 2:237: "And if you divorce them before you have touched them and you have already specified for them an obligation, then [give] half of what you specified." This too is reported as agreed (al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Kiyā al-Harrāsī, al-Mushayqiḥ).[23] So the dower has two fixed points: half before anything, and all of it after intercourse. The question is the case between them.
Whether a valid khalwa makes the whole dower due
The case between them is a husband who was alone with his wife in private, with nothing to bar intercourse, and who then divorced her without it. One position gives her the whole dower, and the other gives her half:
| Position | Core Argument | Principal authorities | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. A valid khalwa makes the whole dower due | She handed herself over and nothing on her part barred intercourse, so her right to the whole dower is settled | ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, by a sound isnād; the rightly guided caliphs, in Zurāra b. Awfā's mursal report; Zayd b. Thābit رضي الله عنه; Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما; Muʿādh b. Jabal رضي الله عنه, as Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr reports him; ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, Sulaymān b. Yasār and ʿUrwa; Abū Ḥanīfa, al-Layth, al-Awzāʿī and al-Thawrī; Aḥmad and Isḥāq; al-Shāfiʿī in his old view; Mālik in one narration; al-Māturīdī; al-Jaṣṣāṣ; Ibn al-ʿArabī; al-Qurṭubī; Ibn al-Jawzī; al-Nasafī; al-Maẓharī[24] | The judgment of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه; the agreement claimed for the Companions; the general ban of 4:20 |
| 2. Only intercourse, or death, makes the whole dower due, and after a khalwa without intercourse she has half | 2:237 gives half to the wife divorced "before you have touched them", and touching is intercourse | Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما; Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه; Shurayḥ; al-Shaʿbī, Ṭāwūs and Ibn Sīrīn; al-Shāfiʿī in his new view; Mālik; Dāwūd; Ibn Ḥazm; al-Rāzī; Ibn al-Faras; Ibn ʿĀdil; al-Nīsābūrī, relating its tarjīḥ; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr; al-Baʿdānī[25] | 2:237; 4:21's word taken as intercourse |
The half position reasons from 2:237. That verse gives half to the wife divorced "before you have touched them", and touching is intercourse, so a khalwa without intercourse leaves her half (Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما).[26] Shurayḥ ruled so for a husband who said he had not touched his wife, and she confirmed it, and when people faulted him he answered, "I ruled by the Book of Allah."[27]
Taken together, 4:21 and 2:237 state two cases, before touching and after it, with nothing between them (Ibn Rushd).[28] On the whole-dower position, a khalwa settles the dower as intercourse does. But a khalwa is not like intercourse, because by intercourse the husband takes in full what is his right under the marriage, and a khalwa does not (al-Māwardī).[29]
Where the ban of 4:20 seems more generic, 2:237 is the particular verse, and the specific governs the general (al-Rāzī, Ibn ʿĀdil).[30] Nor does 4:21 prove that a khalwa makes the whole dower due, since "gone in" is explained in more than one way (Ibn al-Faras).[31] And 2:237's "before you have touched them" covers a wife who was alone with her husband, giving her half so long as he has not touched her (Ibn al-Faras).[32]
The whole-dower position is based on the judgment of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه. They ruled that when a husband shuts a door or lowers a curtain, the whole dower is due and she owes the waiting period, the ʿidda, before she may marry again. Al-Aḥnaf relates it from them, as Ibn Abī Shayba records it, by an isnād that Saʿd al-Shathrī and al-Albānī grade sound.[33]
The whole-dower position's reason is that she handed herself over and nothing on her part barred intercourse. So her right to the dower is settled, as intercourse would settle it (al-Buhūtī), or as handing over the goods settles a seller's right to the price (al-Zaylaʿī).[34] It also reasons from 4:20 itself. The ban on taking anything is general, and 2:237 takes out of it only the divorce that comes before any khalwa (al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[35]
The whole-dower position also answers 2:237. The word "touching" there is not meant literally by either position, since a mere touch is not intercourse; each position identifies it as a figure of speech, a word used for something other than its first meaning. Taking it as the khalwa that leads to touching is no less fitting than taking it as intercourse (al-Maẓharī, al-ʿAynī),[36] and ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, who heard the revelation, took it so (al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Māturīdī).[37] So the words of 2:237 alone do not decide the case.
An agreement is also claimed for this position. The Companions' rulings on it were widely known, and no one in their time opposed them, so it was an agreement (al-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Ibn Qudāma).[38] But two Companions are named who gave half, Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه and Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, and Shurayḥ, a judge of the next generation, ruled the same.[39]
The claim is that no one in the Companions' time opposed their rulings. So the reports of Companions who gave half make that claim uncertain, even before those reports are shown to be established. But to outweigh the ruling of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, which comes by a sound isnād, the reports of half must be established.
Kamāl b. al-Sayyid Sālim answers the claim of agreement with the contrary view reported from these Companions, though he does not hold those reports established.[40] Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, who holds the half position, also denies any agreement to set aside the apparent sense of 2:237.[41] So the agreement is claimed, not established, and the question is decided by tarjīḥ between the two positions.
Which position is stronger?
The difference over khalwa is sometimes traced to the word "gone in" itself. Al-Shāfiʿī's school takes the word as an allusion to intercourse, so a khalwa without intercourse settles nothing; Abū Ḥanīfa's school takes it to cover khalwa, so a valid khalwa settles the dower (al-Rāzī, al-Qāsimī).[42] On that account, taking "gone in" as intercourse would decide the ruling on khalwa. It does not, because the two are different questions.
What "gone in" means is a question about the word. When the whole dower becomes due is a question about what the "touching" of 2:237 covers. There are two positions on that question because the judgment of the Companions who gave the whole dower points one way, while the apparent sense of the Qurʾān's words in 4:21 and 2:237 points the other way (Ibn Rushd).[43]
Yet 4:21 was not revealed to say when the dower becomes due. The verse revealed on that is 2:237, so the question depends on what its "touching" means, khalwa or consummation (Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis).[44] So the word and the ruling can be held apart. This tafsīr takes "gone in" as intercourse and still follows ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه on khalwa, because their ruling is based on what the "touching" of 2:237 covers and does not need the word of 4:21 to mean privacy.
The apparent sense of 2:237 favours the half position (Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Baʿdānī), and al-Rāzī, who also takes "gone in" as intercourse, judges al-Shāfiʿī's half position the stronger.[45] Yet even on the half position's explanation, "touching" in 2:237 is a figure of speech, used for intercourse, and the verse can bear the figure of khalwa as well.
Since the words can bear either figure, the Companions' rulings decide between the two positions. The ruling of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه comes by a sound isnād, while the reports of half from Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه and Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما are weaker. Ibn Qudāma reports that Ibn al-Mundhir found the chain to Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه broken, and he judges the report from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما unsound, giving Aḥmad's reason: its narrator is not strong, and a stronger narrator relates the opposite.[46]
The other route of the report from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما is broken as well, since the narrator who relates it did not hear from him.[47] Al-Baʿdānī notes the same break, yet grades the report through that route ḥasan; even on his grade it is weaker than the sound isnād of the two Companions' judgment.[48]
So their judgment prevails, and the whole-dower position is the stronger (Ibn al-ʿArabī, al-Qurṭubī, ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṭayyār, ʿAbd Allāh al-Muṭlaq, Muḥammad al-Mūsā).[49] The khalwa must, however, be valid, one in which nothing barred intercourse (al-Jaṣṣāṣ).[50] Where the spouses disagree over whether intercourse took place, a third view lets the khalwa support the word of whichever of them says that it took place (Mālik, as al-Māwardī reports him).[51]
Conclusion: "Gone in to one another" means intercourse, which the Qurʾān names by allusion, as it does whatever is not said outright. Once the marriage is consummated the whole dower is hers and none of it may be taken back, and a valid khalwa in which nothing barred intercourse makes it hers as well, by the ruling of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه.
And Allah knows best.
Q5. What is the مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا, "solemn covenant", and why are the wives said to take it?
Verse 4:21 closes with a third reason against taking back the dower: وَأَخَذْنَ مِنْكُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا, "and they have taken from you a solemn covenant". Understanding this reason requires answering two questions:
- What is the solemn covenant, and why is it called solemn? The scholars give four main explanations of the covenant, and all four are explained before they are weighed.
- Why does the verse say that the wives took the covenant, when it is Allah who binds the husbands to it?
What the solemn covenant is
A covenant is a firm pledge, and غَلِيظًا, "solemn", means strong and firm, as it does wherever the Qurʾān uses the word (Muqātil, Abū Mālik, Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[1] The covenant is called solemn for its strength and greatness (al-Zamakhsharī; a view al-Rāzī reports).[2] That strength comes from what marriage makes lawful: each spouse becomes lawful to the other in a matter lawful to no one else, and no other pledge between two people gives such a right (al-Shaʿrāwī).[3]
Many rulings also follow from marriage, among them the bond of unmarriageable kin, lineage and maintenance, so the law guards the marriage contract as it guards no other (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[4] In Ibn ʿUthaymīn's view, the contract needs a guardian, many scholars require witnesses for it, and even divorce, which ends it, has its proper times and is followed by a waiting period.[5]
The Qurʾān uses the phrase "a solemn covenant" for two other covenants: the one taken from the Children of Israel (4:154) and the one taken from the prophets (33:7) (al-Hilāl, al-Ṭarīfī).[6] The question here is which pledge this verse means, and the scholars give four main explanations:[7]
| Position | Core Argument | Principal authorities | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The covenant is the pledge taken for the wife from her husband at the contract, to keep her with kindness or release her with grace | Allah enjoined this pledge on husbands in 2:229, and it was spoken when the marriage was contracted | Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما; Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما, in the words he spoke when he gave a woman in marriage; al-Ḥasan and Ibn Sīrīn; al-Ḍaḥḥāk; Qatāda; al-Suddī; Muqātil; al-Farrāʾ; al-Ṭabarī; al-Samarqandī; Makkī; al-Wāḥidī; al-Samʿānī; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī; al-Bayḍāwī; al-Nasafī; al-Jalālayn; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā; al-Shirbīnī; Tanwīr al-Miqbās; Mullā Ḥuwaysh; Abū Zahra; Ṭanṭāwī; Ḥawwā; al-Zuḥaylī; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth; Abū Bakr al-Jazāʾirī; Ḥawmad; al-Muyassar; Abū Bakr Fawzī[8] | 2:229; the words spoken at the early contracts |
| 2. The covenant is the marriage contract itself, the word of marriage that made her lawful to him | She became lawful to him only by the contract, made on the dower named in it | Mujāhid; Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, by the husband's word "malaktu"; Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al-Quraẓī; Ibn Zayd; al-Khāzin, giving its proof; al-Suyūṭī; al-Shawkānī; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān; al-Saʿdī; Ibn ʿĀshūr; al-Shaʿrāwī; Sayyid Quṭb; Mawdūdī; Ibn ʿUthaymīn; Ṭanṭāwī; al-Zuḥaylī; al-Durra; al-Ṣābūnī; al-Ṭarīfī; al-Hilāl; al-Luhaymīd; Mullā Ḥuwaysh[9] | The word of the contract; the dower named in it |
| 3. The covenant is the Prophet's ﷺ words in the Farewell Sermon | The Prophet ﷺ said that husbands made their wives lawful "by Allah's word" | ʿIkrima; Mujāhid; al-Rabīʿ b. Anas; Abū al-ʿĀliya; al-Bayḍāwī; Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh[10] | Jābir's hadith of the Farewell Sermon (Muslim 1218) |
| 4. The covenant is the right of companionship and of the shared bed | The wives take it by the intimacy that 4:21 has just named | al-Zamakhsharī; al-Rāzī, reporting it; al-Bayḍāwī; Abū al-Suʿūd; al-Khafājī, explaining al-Bayḍāwī; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī; al-ʿUlaymī; Ḥijāzī; al-Ibyārī; al-Zuḥaylī[11] | The intimacy named in 4:21; companionship as a bond of kinship |
The pledge explanation is based on 2:229, where Allah tells husbands to keep their wives with kindness or release them with grace: a pledge Allah took from husbands for their wives (al-Wāḥidī).[12] The pledge was taken when the marriage was contracted, with the husband accepting it (al-Ṭabarī).[13] In the early contracts the groom was told, "By Allah, you must keep her with kindness or release her with grace" (al-Ṭabarī, Qatāda).[14] Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما, when he gave a woman in marriage, said, "I marry her to you on what Allah commanded: keeping with kindness or releasing with grace."[15]
The contract explanation takes the covenant to be the contract itself, the word of marriage by which she became lawful to him (Mujāhid).[16] Before the contract she was forbidden to him, and she agreed to become lawful to him only by the contract made on the dower named in it (al-Saʿdī, Ṭanṭāwī).[17] So the dower belongs to the very terms on which she gave herself.
The pledge explanation and the contract explanation are close, because the pledge is spoken within the contract, or the contract contains it. On this view the contract is itself a covenant of good treatment (al-Samarqandī, Ibn ʿĀshūr, Ḥawwā, al-Jazāʾirī).[18]
The sermon explanation takes the covenant from the Prophet's ﷺ words in his sermon at the Farewell Pilgrimage. Several of the early Muslims give those words as their own explanation of the verse, without naming him (ʿIkrima, Mujāhid, al-Rabīʿ b. Anas, Abū al-ʿĀliya).[19] Jābir رضي الله عنه relates that the Prophet ﷺ said:
فَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ فِي النِّسَاءِ. فَإِنَّكُمْ أَخَذْتُمُوهُنَّ بِأَمَانِ اللَّهِ. وَاسْتَحْلَلْتُمْ فُرُوجَهُنَّ بِكَلِمَةِ اللَّهِ."Fear Allah concerning women, for you have taken them by Allah's security and made their private parts lawful by Allah's word."[20]
Many copies of the hadith have "Allah's security" (amān), and some have "Allah's trust" (amāna), the word the commentators quote (al-Nawawī).[21] The hadith's own explainers give four meanings for "Allah's word":
- It is 2:229 itself, "keeping with kindness or releasing with grace" (al-Khaṭṭābī, al-Harawī; a view al-Māzarī reports).[22]
- It is the word of the contract, the offer and acceptance that Allah commanded (al-Khafājī, Ibn al-Ḥanbalī).[23]
- It is Allah's permission to marry, revealed in His Book at 4:3 (al-Māzarī), and al-Nawawī calls this the correct meaning.[24]
- It is the declaration of tawḥīd, "There is no god but Allah, Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah", since a Muslim woman is lawful only to a Muslim (Bakr al-Qushayrī).[25]
On the first two meanings, the hadith points back to the pledge or to the contract.
The companionship explanation takes the covenant with the words just before it. The wives took the covenant from their husbands by going in unto each other, and the covenant is the right of companionship and of the shared bed (al-Zamakhsharī).[26] The explanation is based on the weight of companionship. A saying states that twenty days of companionship make kinship, so the union between husband and wife makes a far stronger bond (al-Zamakhsharī).[27] Al-Khafājī replaces that saying with poetry by an unnamed poet, as al-Ṣābūnī quotes it from him:
صحبةُ يوم نسبٌ قريبُ ... وذمةٌ يعرفها اللبيبُ"A day's companionship is close kinship, and a bond the wise man knows."
The poet sets the kinship at a single day of companionship, so the bond of marriage, which is far more than one day's companionship, is weightier still (al-Khafājī).[28]
Which explanation is stronger?
The pledge explanation is the stronger, because the pledge is what Allah Himself enjoined on husbands concerning their wives, which puts it on the apparent sense of the Book (al-Ṭabarī).[29] It is also what the contract contains, so the pledge explanation and the contract explanation do not compete. The companionship explanation makes the covenant a right that follows from the intimacy, so the word "covenant" names that right and not a pledge Allah enjoined (al-Zamakhsharī, al-Khafājī).[30]
One modern commentator prefers the sermon explanation, because the hadith is sound (Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh).[31] The hadith does not displace the pledge, however. The hadith's charge to fear Allah concerning women urges husbands to keep their wives' rights and to live with them in kindness (al-Nawawī).[32] The hadith's words "by Allah's trust", in the wording the commentators quote, mean that Allah placed the wives in their husbands' care as a trust (al-Khafājī).[33] The charge and the words both ask of husbands what the pledge asks of them.
Where "Allah's word" means 2:229 or the word of the contract, the hadith points back to the pledge or to the contract, so it confirms the pledge and the contract. Where it means Allah's permission to marry or the declaration of tawḥīd, the hadith tells how she became lawful to him, by Allah's permission or by faith, and mentions no other pledge.
Taking back the dower breaks that pledge. A husband who takes back what he gave her, or pressurizes her until she gives up her dower, has not released her with grace but with ill treatment (al-Zajjāj, al-Rāzī, al-Nīsābūrī, Ṭanṭāwī, al-Jazāʾirī).[34] So the covenant gives the ban its reason: the taking breaks the covenant (Abū Bakr Fawzī),[35] and that covenant is the very term the husband accepted when the marriage was contracted.
Why the wives are said to take it
The husband accepted that term, yet the verse says that the wives took the covenant: وَأَخَذْنَ, "and they have taken", has the wives as its subject (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[36] It is Allah who enjoined the covenant and who binds the husbands to it. The answer is that Allah took the covenant from the husbands for the wives' sake, so it is as if the wives had taken it themselves (Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Nasafī, Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, al-Maẓharī).[37] The taking is ascribed to them because they are its cause, a figure of speech that the scholars call majāz ʿaqlī (Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Nawawī al-Jāwī; a view Ṭanṭāwī reports).[38] The covenant was also taken for them at the contract, so it became a covenant binding the men in the women's favour (al-Samarqandī).[39]
The covenant was taken for her sake because she is the one who needs it. She is usually the weaker party, the one more frequently overpowered in her right (al-Ṭarīfī).[40] She gives herself to a husband able to wrong her (ʿAbduh), and she does so only because she trusts the strength of this covenant (Mawdūdī).[41]
Taking the wording as a figure of speech follows from the pledge explanation. On the companionship explanation the wives take the covenant themselves, by the intimacy, so وَأَخَذْنَ, "and they have taken", needs no figure of speech, though the word "covenant" is then a figure for the right of companionship (al-Khafājī).[42] Another account also takes the wording literally: Allah placed the covenant in the wife's hand, so that she can bring her husband before Allah by it (ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb).[43]
Conclusion: The solemn covenant is the pledge taken from the husband for his wife in the marriage contract that made her lawful to him, to keep her with kindness or release her with grace as Allah enjoined (2:229), and taking back her dower breaks that release with grace. The wives are said to take it because Allah bound the husbands to it for their sake and it was taken for them at the contract, and it is called solemn for its strength.
And Allah knows best.
2. How the Commentators Read This Verse
Verses 4:20 and 4:21 belong to a passage that warns against the customs of the Jāhiliyya, the time before Islam: wronging women, consuming their dowers, and denying them noble and humane treatment (al-Ṣābūnī).[1] After the ruling on replacing one wife with another and the kindness owed in living with wives, the passage addresses the women forbidden in marriage in 4:22 (al-Marāghī).[2] The accounts below take up what the Questions leave aside on the covenant that closes 4:21: what else it has been taken to be, and what makes it solemn.
Ibn ʿAṭiyya (d. 542 AH / 1147–48 CE)
Ibn ʿAṭiyya records the pledge, the contract and the Farewell Sermon, and then one more explanation, from people he does not name: the solemn covenant is the child.[3] Abū Ḥayyān reports it with the reason given for it: through the child the bonds of sanctity grow firmer, and the reasons for affection grow stronger.[4] On this view the covenant is not a pledge spoken at the contract but a tie that the marriage itself produces.
Al-Rāzī (d. 606 AH / 1210 CE)
Al-Rāzī explains what makes a covenant solemn at 33:7, where Allah took مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا, "a solemn covenant", from the prophets. When a king sends a messenger with a command and the messenger accepts it, that is a covenant. When the king also tells him that he will be asked about everything he did and said, the covenant becomes solemn, so that the messenger neither adds to his message nor leaves anything out.[5]
On this basis, al-Rāzī suggests, the solemn covenant of 4:21 may be the news that husbands will be questioned about their wives. He draws the parallel from 4:34: as Allah made men the maintainers of women, He made the prophets responsible for the affairs and the guidance of their communities.[6] On this account the covenant is solemn because the husband will answer for how he treated his wife.
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1354 AH / 1935–36 CE)
Rashīd Riḍā explains the bond that أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ, "you have gone in unto each other", describes. In that union each spouse is joined to the other until the two are as one reality. That is why each of them is called by one word that implies a pair, زَوْجٍ, "spouse", and why from the two comes the child, one being related equally to both.[7]
Rashīd Riḍā's teacher Muḥammad ʿAbduh finds that meaning in the wording itself. The expected words were "you went in to them". Instead, "each other", literally "some of you to some", presents each spouse as a part of the other that completes it, as if one reality had been divided and was joined again.[8] After such a union, the one who joined himself to her and gave to her cannot rightly be the one who cuts that great tie, coveting the property of the one he wrongs.[9] Rashīd Riḍā puts what the situation says in poetry by an unnamed poet:
وَبِتْنَا وَمَا بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَكَ ثَالِثٌ ... كَزَوْجِ حَمَامٍ أَوْ كَغُصْنَيْنِ هَكَذَافَمِنْ بَعْدِ هَذَا الْوَصْلِ وَالْوُدِّ كُلِّهِ ... أَكَانَ جَمِيلًا مِنْكَ تَهْجُرُ هَكَذَا؟"We spent the night with no third between me and you, like a pair of doves, or like two branches, like this. After all this union and love, was it fine of you to forsake like this?"
The poetry in Question 5 sets the weight of companionship; here an unnamed poet reproaches the one who forsakes after it. Rashīd Riḍā cites it for a bond cut after the closest union, which is what a husband does when he takes back the dower after the two have gone in unto each other.[10]
From that union ʿAbduh explains the solemn covenant itself. The covenant must answer to the union, because both belong to sound natural disposition, fiṭra. That disposition is what 30:21 points to: Allah created mates for you from yourselves so that you may find rest in them, and placed affection and mercy between you.[11]
That affection, ʿAbduh says, is the strongest thing a woman relies on when she leaves her parents, her brothers and all her family. She leaves them to join a man who was a stranger to her and to share ease and hardship with him.[12] She does this trusting that her tie to him is stronger than any other tie.[13] That trust is a covenant of fiṭra, among the most solemn and firmest of covenants. It binds what words confirmed by pledges and oaths cannot bind.[14]
ʿAbduh then asks what a man is worth who does not keep this covenant, and what place he has among human beings.[15] On this explanation the taking is the wives' own and is meant literally (a view al-Hararī reports).[16] For ʿAbduh, then, the covenant is a bond of natural disposition built into marriage itself, not the pledge spoken at the contract that Question 5 adopts.
ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb (d. 1391 AH / 1971–72 CE)
ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb ties the covenant to the verse before the pair. The solemn covenant is the strong, confirmed pledge that Allah took from men for women in His words "and live with them in kindness" (4:19).[17] The command he names is the living with kindness of 4:19, where the pledge Question 5 adopts is the keeping with kindness or releasing with grace of 2:229. He adds that Allah placed this covenant in the wife's hand, and that this makes the solemn covenant more solemn still.[18]
Saʿīd Ḥawwā (d. 1409 AH / 1989 CE)
Ḥawwā places the solemn covenant of 4:21 within the whole sūra. Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, he notes, speaks both of those who break their covenant, "for their breaking of their covenant" (4:155), and of covenants it mentions, among them the solemn covenant of 4:21. He points to a passage of al-Baqara, 2:21 to 2:29, which he calls the passage of the two ways. In his view its first five verses, 2:21 to 2:25, are the axis of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, the theme the sūra develops. He ties the sūra's covenants to the two verses after them, 2:26 and 2:27, the second on those who break Allah's covenant after it has been confirmed.[19]
3. Iʿrāb: Grammatical Analysis
4:20 opens with a conditional sentence: a husband who wants to put one wife in another's place is forbidden to take back anything of what he gave her. A new sentence, a question, then rebukes the taking. 4:21 asks a second question and joins two facts to it as the state in which the taking would happen: the spouses have gone in unto each other, and the wives have taken a solemn covenant from their husbands.
Arabic shows a word's role by the state of its ending. The tables use four states:
- rafʿ, as for a subject;
- naṣb, as for an object;
- jarr, after a preposition or as the second term of a possessive;
- and jazm, a state of a present-tense verb after certain particles, among them those of condition and prohibition.
A word in these states is called marfūʿ, manṣūb, majrūr or majzūm. A short vowel on the last letter, or its absence, usually marks the state: ḍamma, a short u, for rafʿ; fatḥa, a short a, for naṣb; kasra, a short i, for jarr; and sukūn, no vowel, for jazm.
The word and clause tables follow Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, published by Dār al-Ṣaḥāba.[1] The explanations after them show where other works differ, and whether the difference changes the English.
Word / Grammar / What it does
4:20
| Word | Grammar | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| وَإِنْ wa-in |
استئنافيّة; حرف شرط جازم wāw istiʾnāfiyya; in ḥarf sharṭ jāzim The wāw opens a fresh statement. In is a conditional particle that puts its verbs in jazm. |
"And if": opens the condition.[2] The particle is used for an act that is not certain to happen. Here it signals that the wish to replace a wife may be unsound and not built on strong reasons (Abū Zahra, Ṭanṭāwī).[3] Or it marks the event as possible, even rare (al-Hilāl).[4] Both describe the husband's wish, and the English "if" fits both. |
| أَرَدْتُمُ aradtumu |
فعل ماض مبني على السكون في محل جزم فعل الشرط fiʿl māḍin mabnī ʿalā al-sukūn fī maḥall jazm fiʿl al-sharṭ A past verb whose ending does not change. It occupies the place of jazm as the verb of the condition, and the tāʾ is its subject. |
"You want": the condition is the husbands' wish.[5] |
| اسْتِبْدَالَ istibdāla |
مفعول به منصوب mafʿūl bihi manṣūb, wa-huwa muḍāf The object, in naṣb. It is a maṣdar (مصدر), the noun that refers to the action, and it opens a possessive construction. |
"Replacing": what they want.[6] |
| زَوْجٍ zawjin |
مضاف إليه مجرور muḍāf ilayhi majrūr The noun completing the construction, in jarr. The maṣdar "replacing" is joined to its object, and its doer is left unsaid. |
"A wife": the new wife, who takes the other's place.[7] |
| مَكَانَ makāna |
ظرف مكان منصوب متعلّق بالمصدر استبدال ẓarf makān manṣūb, mutaʿalliq bi-l-maṣdar istibdāl An adverb of place, in naṣb, attached to the maṣdar "replacing". |
"In place of".[8] |
| زَوْجٍ zawjin |
مضاف إليه مجرور muḍāf ilayhi majrūr Completes the adverb's construction, in jarr. |
"A wife": the one who is replaced. |
| وَآتَيْتُمْ wa-ātaytum |
حاليّة al-wāw ḥāliyya; fiʿl māḍin wa-fāʿiluhu The wāw of state, then a past verb with its subject. Its clause is a ḥāl, a description of someone's state at the time of the act: here, the husbands' state. |
"When you have given".[9] |
| إِحْدَاهُنَّ iḥdāhunna |
مفعول به منصوب وعلامة النصب الفتحة المقدّرة; ضمير مضاف إليه mafʿūl bihi awwal manṣūb bi-fatḥa muqaddara; wa-l-ḍamīr muḍāf ilayhi The first object, in naṣb, its fatḥa reckoned on the final alif and not pronounced. The pronoun hunna completes the construction. |
"One of them": one of the wives.[10] |
| قِنْطَارًا qinṭāran |
مفعول به ثان منصوب mafʿūl bihi thānin manṣūb The second object, in naṣb. The verb takes two objects that were never a subject and its predicate, since "she is a qinṭār" cannot be said. |
"A great amount": what was given.[11] |
| فَلَا fa-lā |
رابطة لجواب الشرط; ناهية جازمة al-fāʾ rābiṭa li-jawāb al-sharṭ; lā nāhiya jāzima The fāʾ ties the answer to the condition. Lā forbids and puts the verb in jazm. |
"Then do not".[12] |
| تَأْخُذُوا taʾkhudhū |
مضارع مجزوم وعلامة الجزم حذف النون .. والواو فاعل fiʿl muḍāriʿ majzūm bi-ḥadhf al-nūn, wa-l-wāw fāʿil A present verb in jazm, shown by the loss of its nūn; the wāw is its subject. |
"Take": the act forbidden.[13] |
| مِنْهُ minhu |
متعلّق ب (تأخذوا) jārr wa-majrūr mutaʿalliq bi-taʾkhudhū A preposition with its pronoun, attached to the verb. |
"From it": the pronoun returns to the qinṭār.[14] |
| شَيْئًا shayʾan |
مفعول به منصوب mafʿūl bihi manṣūb The object, in naṣb. |
"Anything": indefinite in the setting of a prohibition, so it covers little and much, and not even a small part may be taken back (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[15] Deeper Study, Question 1 develops the ruling. |
| أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ a-taʾkhudhūnahu |
للاستفهام الإنكاري; مضارع مرفوع al-hamza li-l-istifhām al-inkārī; fiʿl muḍāriʿ marfūʿ, wa-l-wāw fāʿil, wa-l-hāʾ mafʿūl bihi The hamza asks a question of disapproval. The verb is in rafʿ, the wāw its subject, the hāʾ its object. |
"Would you take it": the hāʾ returns to the "anything" just forbidden.[16] |
| بُهْتَانًا buhtānan |
مصدر في موضع الحال من فاعل maṣdar fī mawḍiʿ al-ḥāl min fāʿil taʾkhudhūnahu A maṣdar in the position of a ḥāl, describing the subject. |
"As a false charge": the state of the takers. Other constructions follow below.[17] |
| وَإِثْمًا wa-ithman |
عاطفة; معطوف على (بهتانا) منصوب مثله al-wāw ʿāṭifa; maʿṭūf ʿalā buhtānan manṣūb Joined to buhtānan and in naṣb like it. |
"And a sin".[18] |
| مُبِينًا mubīnan |
نعت منصوب naʿt manṣūb An adjective of ithman, in naṣb. |
"Manifest".[19] |
4:21
| Word | Grammar | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| وَكَيْفَ wa-kayfa |
اسم استفهام مبني على الفتح في محل نصب حال al-wāw istiʾnāfiyya; kayfa ism istifhām mabnī ʿalā al-fatḥ fī maḥall naṣb ḥāl A fresh statement. Kayfa asks about a state; its ending does not change, and it occupies the place of a ḥāl. |
"And how": asks in what state they could take it.[20] Its sense is "would you take it, acting unjustly?", as the answer to a "how" question shows: asked "how did you take Zayd's wealth?", one answers with a state, "I took it unjustly" or "justly" (Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, al-ʿUkbarī, al-Hararī).[21] The question disowns and rebukes the act and has the sense of a negation: there is no state in which they could take it (Ṣāfī, al-Hilāl).[22] The verb after it, "take it", is what puts "how" in naṣb, and the clause is a fresh start (al-Hamadhānī).[23] |
| تَأْخُذُونَهُ taʾkhudhūnahu |
مفعول به fiʿl muḍāriʿ marfūʿ, wa-l-wāw fāʿil, wa-l-hāʾ mafʿūl bihi A present verb in rafʿ, its subject and its object. |
"Could you take it": the hāʾ is the dower, or part of it.[24] |
| وَقَدْ wa-qad |
واو الحال; حرف تحقيق al-wāw ḥāliyya; qad ḥarf taḥqīq The wāw of state. Qad affirms that the act has happened. |
"When already".[25] |
| أَفْضَى afḍā |
فعل ماض مبني على الفتح المقدر على الألف fiʿl māḍin mabnī ʿalā al-fatḥ al-muqaddar ʿalā al-alif A past verb; its fatḥa is reckoned on the final alif. |
"Has gone in".[26] |
| بَعْضُكُمْ baʿḍukum |
فاعل مرفوع و (كم) ضمير مضاف إليه fāʿil marfūʿ, wa-l-kāf ḍamīr muḍāf ilayhi The subject, in rafʿ, with the pronoun completing its construction. |
"One of you". |
| إِلَى ilā |
حرف جر ḥarf jarr A preposition. |
"To". |
| بَعْضٍ baʿḍin |
جارّ ومجرور متعلّق ب (أفضى) ism majrūr, wa-l-jārr wa-l-majrūr mutaʿalliqāni bi-afḍā In jarr after ilā; the two are attached to afḍā. |
"The other".[27] |
| وَأَخَذْنَ wa-akhadhna |
الواو عاطفة al-wāw ʿāṭifa; fiʿl māḍin, wa-l-nūn fāʿil The wāw joins. A past verb; the nūn of the women is its subject. |
"And they have taken": the wives. |
| مِنْكُمْ minkum |
جار ومجرور متعلق بـ ﴿أخذن﴾ jārr wa-majrūr mutaʿalliq bi-akhadhna Attached to the verb. Another construction follows below. |
"From you".[28] |
| مِيثَاقًا mīthāqan |
مفعول به منصوب mafʿūl bihi manṣūb The object, in naṣb. |
"A covenant". |
| غَلِيظًا ghalīẓan |
نعت naʿt li-mīthāqan manṣūb An adjective of mīthāqan, in naṣb. |
"Solemn".[29] |
Clause / Position
A clause can be a statement of its own, fill a single word's position, or describe the state of someone in the sentence. The table shows which each clause of the pair does.
| Clause | Position |
|---|---|
| وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمُ اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ | الشرطية مستأنفة (istiʾnāfiyya, lā maḥall lahā): a fresh statement that opens the condition and fills no word's position.[30] |
| أَرَدْتُمُ اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ | في محل جزم فعل الشرط (fī maḥall jazm fiʿl al-sharṭ): the verb of the condition with its object.[31] |
| وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا | في محل نصب حال (fī maḥall naṣb ḥāl): describes the husbands' state, with qad understood: "when you have already given".[32] Another construction joins it to the condition, below. |
| فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا | في محل جزم جواب الشرط (fī maḥall jazm jawāb al-sharṭ): the answer to the condition, tied to it by the fāʾ.[33] |
| أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا | لا محلّ لها استئنافيّة (istiʾnāfiyya, lā maḥall lahā): a fresh question of rebuke.[34] |
| وَكَيْفَ تَأْخُذُونَهُ | مستأنفة لا محل (istiʾnāfiyya, lā maḥall lahā): a second question, asked anew.[35] |
| وَقَدْ أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ | في محل نصب حال (fī maḥall naṣb ḥāl): the state of those who would take it.[36] The ḥāl describes the subject pronoun of "could you take it", so the question asks in what state they would take it, when what passed between them has passed (al-Kharrāṭ, al-Durra, al-Hamadhānī, al-Ālūsī, Abū al-Suʿūd).[37] Qad brings that past act near to the present (al-Samīn, Ibn ʿĀdil).[38] The husbands already have with them what should turn them away from taking it (Ibn Kamāl Pāshā).[39] |
| وَأَخَذْنَ مِنْكُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا | في محلّ نصب معطوفة على جملة الحال (fī maḥall naṣb, maʿṭūfa ʿalā jumlat al-ḥāl): joined to the clause before it as a second fact of the same state.[40] Qad is understood in it because it came just before (al-Samīn, al-Hamadhānī, al-ʿUkbarī).[41] The going in and the wives' covenant are two facts of one state (Abū Ḥayyān).[42] So the rebuke is based on two things already done: the spouses have gone in unto each other, and the wives hold a covenant from their husbands. |
Where the clauses end also decides where a reciter may pause. A sufficient stop falls at مُبِينًا "manifest" (al-Naḥḥās), and the complete stop at غَلِيظًا "solemn" (al-Naḥḥās, Ibn al-Anbārī).[43] After a sufficient stop the next words still belong to the thought; after a complete stop they do not. So 4:20's question may pause at "manifest", while 4:21's "and how" continues the same rebuke to "a solemn covenant", where the thought ends.
Where the grammar changes the meaning
Some words and clauses of the pair are construed in more than one way. The table gives each in brief: its constructions, whether they change the meaning or a ruling, and which this tafsīr follows. The entries after it explain each in the verses' order.
| Word or clause | The constructions, in brief | Does the meaning change, and how? | Does a ruling change? | What this tafsīr follows |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| أَرَدْتُمُ, "you want" | The wish is put in the place of the act; or a second verb, "and you replace", is understood after it | Not in the English: "if you want to replace" fits both | No: on both, the ban applies to taking back the dower when the replacement takes place | Not chosen |
| مَكَانَ, "in place of" | An adverb of place attached to "replacing"; or the maṣdar's second object | Not in the English: "in place of" fits both | Not stated | The adverb of place, as the word table has it |
| إِحْدَاهُنَّ, "one of them": why plural | The plural returns to wives as a kind, since the men are addressed as a group, or it is plural because the new wife may in turn become one he replaces; "one of them" takes the place of "you gave them", or shows that each husband gave his own wife | Yes: who gave what to whom | Not stated | Al-Samīn's explanation: each husband gave his own wife |
| إِحْدَاهُنَّ, "one of them": which wife | The wife he means to divorce; or either the earlier wife or the later one | Yes: whose dower the ban protects | Yes: if either wife is meant, the ban also protects what he gives the wife he marries | The wife he means to divorce, for the reason drawn from 4:21 |
| وَآتَيْتُمْ, "and you have given" | The wāw of state, the husband having already given; or joined to the verb of the condition as a second condition | Not in the English: "and you have given" fits both | Not stated | The state, the apparent construction |
| فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا, "then do not take" | The answer clause fills the position of a verb in jazm; or it fills no word's position | No: the English "then do not take" is the same on both | No: the ban is the same on both | The position of a verb in jazm, as the clause table has it |
| مِنْهُ, "from it" | Attached to the verb; or to an unsaid ḥāl of "anything" | No: on both, the pronoun returns to the qinṭār, and the thing forbidden is a part of that dower | Not stated | Attached to the verb, as the word table has it |
| بُهْتَانًا and وَإِثْمًا, "a false charge and a sin" | A ḥāl; a cause; a dropped preposition; an unsaid verb | Yes: the false charge is the takers' state, what moves them, the means of the taking, or what they incur | Not stated | The ḥāl describing the takers, as the word table has it |
| مِنْكُمْ, "from you" | Attached to "they have taken"; or a ḥāl of "a covenant" placed before it | Not in the English: "they have taken from you" fits both | Not stated | Attached to "they have taken", the most apparent construction |
أَرَدْتُمُ, "you want"
Does the ban fall on the wish, or on the act?
The condition mentions a wish, أَرَدْتُمُ "you want", but the ruling concerns the act. This is explained in two ways: the wish is put in the place of the act, or a second verb is understood after the first (Abū Ḥayyān).[44]
If the wish is put in the place of the act, the verse means "and if you replace".
If a second verb is understood, it is joined to the first by "and" though not spoken: "if you want to replace, and you replace".
Why this matters. On both constructions the ban applies to taking back the dower when the replacement takes place. The English "if you want to replace" is right on both.
مَكَانَ, "in place of"
How is "in place of" construed?
When Arabic speaks of an exchange, the thing given up usually takes the preposition bāʾ, "for": "I took this for that". A word with the same sense can do the bāʾ's work, and this phrase is the example al-Suyūṭī chose for it.[45] Here مَكَانَ marks the wife who is given up, as the bāʾ would.
The phrase also gives the next pronoun its noun. The sense would be clear without "in place of a wife", but the words are there so that the pronoun in "one of them" has something to return to (Ibn ʿArafa).[46]
The word itself is construed in two ways: as an adverb of place attached to "replacing", or as the maṣdar's second object.
The word table identifies it as an adverb of place attached to the maṣdar "replacing".
It may also be the maṣdar's second object, which the sense does not refuse (al-Durra).[47]
Why this matters. Neither construction changes the English "in place of". The pronoun the phrase prepares raises the next question.
إِحْدَاهُنَّ, "one of them": why plural
Why is the pronoun plural when the verse speaks of one wife, and why is the wealth given to "one of them"?
The word زَوْجٍ "a wife" is singular, yet the pronoun in إِحْدَاهُنَّ "one of them" is plural. The address is to men as a group, and any of them may want to replace one wife with another. So "a wife in place of a wife" refers to the kind: wives in place of wives. The plural pronoun returns to that kind (al-Samīn, Ibn ʿĀdil, Abū Ḥayyān, al-Bayḍāwī, al-Ālūsī).[48]
A singular commonly serves for a plural where the kind is meant and no specific one. The plural does not come from the word زَوْجٍ itself, al-Khafājī adds. A husband is called by the same word, and the two spouses together by its dual, the form Arabic reserves for two. That the word refers to one of a pair is a separate matter, and whoever concludes from it that the word was coined for a plural is mistaken.[49]
Al-ʿUkbarī raised two difficulties, one about the plural and one about the giving. Why is the pronoun plural, and not the form Arabic reserves for two, when the words before it speak of only two wives? And why is wealth said to have been given to "one of them", when the husband has given the new wife nothing?[50]
The difficulty about the plural has two answers: the address is to the men as a group, or the new wife will herself become a wife whom he may one day replace (al-ʿUkbarī).[51]
To the difficulty about the giving, al-ʿUkbarī also gives two answers. The words "one of them" may take the place of a pronoun, as if the verse said "you gave them", so the giving is not tied to the new wife. Or the wife who is to be replaced is not a specific wife, so no pronoun could point back to her, and the verse refers to her with "one of them".[52]
Al-Samīn finds this long and of little use, and he rejects the answer that "one of them" takes the place of "you gave them". Had the base been "you gave them a qinṭār", the wording would suggest that the men together gave the wives a qinṭār.[53]
Al-Samīn's own explanation is based on the same point and is shorter. "One of them" shows that "you have given" means each husband gave his own wife a qinṭār. "You gave them" was not said because it would suggest that the men together gave it (al-Samīn, Ibn ʿĀdil, Abū Ḥayyān).[54]
Why this matters. So the plural pronoun and the singular "one" together say exactly who gave what to whom, which no shorter wording could say.[55]
إِحْدَاهُنَّ, "one of them": which wife
Which wife does "one of them" refer to?
The answer decides whose dower is protected. "One of them" is construed in two ways: as the wife the husband means to divorce, or as either the earlier wife or the later one.
She is the wife the husband means to divorce (Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Maẓharī), and where he has several, each of them (al-Nakhjuwānī). The reason is that she is the one who took the dower from him, and 4:21 proves it: "how could you take it when you have gone in unto each other" can be said only of the earlier wife (al-Samīn).[56]
Al-Saʿdī allows either the earlier wife or the later one: the one he parts from or the one he marries.[57] If either wife is meant, the ban would also protect what he gives the wife he marries.
Why this matters. The reason drawn from 4:21 favours the wife he means to divorce, and this tafsīr follows it. The English "one of them" is singular and leaves open which wife is meant.
وَآتَيْتُمْ, "and you have given"
Is the giving the husband's state, or a second condition?
The clause is construed in two ways: as a state of the husband, with the wāw of state, or as a second condition joined to the verb of the condition. The order of events decides between them.
A man ordinarily wants to replace a wife after he has already given her the dower, so "and you have given" has the sense "and you had given" (Ibn al-Munayyir).[58] The wāw is therefore the wāw of state, with qad understood. The clause describes the husband as he forms the wish: "when you have already given the one you want to divorce" (al-Ālūsī, Abū al-Suʿūd, Ṭanṭāwī, al-Suyūṭī in al-Jalālayn, al-Kharrāṭ, al-Nīsābūrī).[59] This is the apparent construction (Abū Ḥayyān).[60]
Joining the clause to the condition is reported, and Daʿʿās allows either construction.[61] Joined to the verb of the condition, the giving would become a second condition beside the wish: "if you want to replace, and if you have given". The state treats the giving as a fact already past, and the joining is called not apparent (Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān).[62]
The giving can also cover what was undertaken: you undertook to give one of them this great sum (Ṭanṭāwī).[63] On Ṭanṭāwī's explanation the ban covers a dower promised as well as one handed over. The verb is وَآتَيْتُمْ with a long hamza, "you gave", and not أتيتم with a short one, "you came" (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[64]
Why this matters. On both constructions the English is "and you have given". The word table follows the state: the husband has already given the dower when he forms the wish.
فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا, "then do not take"
Does the answer clause fill the position of a single word?
The answer to the condition is a prohibition, and a prohibition cannot follow the condition directly. It needs the fāʾ to tie it to the condition (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[65] Ibn ʿUthaymīn cites a verse of a teaching poem, not of the Qurʾān, that lists the answers needing the fāʾ. They are a nominal clause, a request, a frozen verb, and those opening with mā, qad, lan or the particle of the future.[66]
The fāʾ makes the ban follow on the case the condition states: once a man replaces a wife, the dower she was given is closed to him. The clause it opens is construed in two ways: as filling the position of a single verb in jazm, or as filling no single word's position at all.
The answer clause fills the position of a single verb in jazm (al-Hararī, Ṣāfī).[67] Most grammarians hold this, al-Durra reports, while al-Dasūqī holds that the clause fills no single word's position at all.[68]
Why this matters. The two describe the clause's position differently. The ban and its English, "then do not take", are the same on both.
مِنْهُ, "from it"
What is "from it" attached to?
The phrase مِنْهُ "from it" is construed in two ways: attached to the verb, or attached to an unsaid ḥāl of شَيْئًا "anything".
The word table attaches it to the verb "take".
It may instead attach to an unsaid ḥāl of شَيْئًا, since it would have been that word's description had it come after it (al-Durra).[69]
Why this matters. On both constructions its pronoun returns to the qinṭār,[70] the thing forbidden is a part of that dower, and the English "take anything from it" is right.
بُهْتَانًا and وَإِثْمًا, "a false charge and a sin"
Why are the two words in naṣb, and how do they relate to the taking?
The two words describe the taking as a false charge and a plain sin. Their naṣb shows how the two words relate to the taking, and it is explained in four ways:
| Construction | What it means |
|---|---|
| A ḥāl: each is a maṣdar in the position of a ḥāl | "Would you take it, slandering and sinning?" (al-Zajjāj, al-Qurṭubī).[71] |
| A cause, mafʿūl lahu, the noun that gives the reason for an act | "Would you take it for the sake of your false charge and your sin?"[72] |
| A dropped preposition: the sense is "with a false charge", and the bāʾ has fallen away (al-Rāzī, al-Baghawī).[73] | The false charge is what the taking is done with |
| An unsaid verb: "you incur by it a false charge and a sin" (al-Rāzī, al-ʿUlaymī).[74] | The false charge is what the taker brings on himself |
The ḥāl raises a question of its own: whom does it describe? The more apparent answer is the subject of "would you take it": "as false accusers and sinners" (al-Samīn, Ibn ʿĀdil).[75] The other answer makes it describe the money: "do you take it as a thing that bewilders", for the ugliness of the deed and of the talk about it (Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Abū Ḥayyān).[76]
So either the takers are the slanderers, or the money taken is itself the outrage. In a view Abū Zahra reports, the maṣdars describe the takers: "would you take it as people who slander and commit a plain sin?" (Ṭanṭāwī).[77]
On the cause, a false charge is not what the takers aim at, but a cause need not be an aim: in "he sat out the fighting from cowardice", the cowardice is not his aim (al-Zamakhsharī).[78]
The cause faces one objection: sin is not a cause of the taking, since the relation runs the other way and the taking causes the sin (Ibn Kamāl Pāshā).[79]
The objection is right that the sin follows the taking, but the example makes a different point: a cause and its act can be one thing in sense, since sitting out the fighting is itself the cowardice (al-Hamadhānī).[80] In the same way the taking is itself the false charge and the sin.
So a cause can be either what moves a person to act or the goal he seeks (al-Khafājī), and here it is what moves him, not a goal (al-Ālūsī).[81] The commentators who explain the maṣdars as descriptions of the takers also allow the cause and call it the sharper rebuke: "would you take it for the sake of slander and a plain sin?" (Ṭanṭāwī, Abū Zahra). Abū Zahra prefers it.[82]
The four constructions do not give the same picture. The ḥāl makes the false charge the takers' state, the cause makes it what moves them, the dropped preposition makes it the means, and the unsaid verb makes it what they incur. On every construction the taking and the false charge go together, and none separates the taking from the wrong.
One more explanation concerns how the two words relate to each other. Mujāhid explained بُهْتَانًا "a false charge" here as sin itself. On his explanation, "sin" is joined to it to explain it, as the poet says:
وألفي قولها كذبا ومينا"And he found her words a lie and falsehood."
Al-Ālūsī cites the poetry for the joining of two words of one sense, the second explaining the first.[83] On this explanation "a false charge and a sin" refers to one wrong twice, not two wrongs.
Why this matters. The English follows the construction: "slandering and sinning", "for the sake of slander", "with slander", or "you incur slander". The word table follows Dār al-Ṣaḥāba's ḥāl from the subject, the construction al-Samīn calls more apparent. What makes the taking a false charge is the matter of Question 3.
مِنْكُمْ, "from you"
Is "from you" attached to the verb, or does it describe the covenant?
The phrase مِنْكُمْ "from you" is construed in two ways: attached to "they have taken", or as a ḥāl of مِيثَاقًا "a covenant" placed before it.
The most apparent construction attaches it to "they have taken" (al-Samīn, Ibn ʿĀdil).[84]
Al-ʿUkbarī allowed it as a ḥāl of مِيثَاقًا placed before it, since after it the phrase would describe it, and al-Samīn calls that weak.[85]
Why this matters. The English "they have taken from you a solemn covenant" fits both constructions.
4. Ṣarf: Roots and Morphology
The table follows the root-bearing words of the pair in verse order, repeated words included. Particles and pronouns are treated in the grammatical table. The prose after it explains the roots that decide the meaning: replacing, the word for a wife, the qinṭār, the false charge, going in unto, and the solemn covenant.
| Verse | Form | Root | Pattern and inflection | What the form adds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4:20 | أَرَدْتُمُ aradtumu |
ر و د | Form IV أَفْعَلَ (afʿala) of أَرَادَ (arāda), a hollow root; past tense, second person masculine plural, its long vowel dropped before the consonant ending | "You want": the wish itself is the condition |
| 4:20 | اسْتِبْدَالَ istibdāla |
ب د ل | اسْتِفْعَال (istifʿāl), the regular maṣdar of the six-letter Form X اسْتَبْدَلَ (istabdala), on the pattern of its past with the third letter given kasra and an alif added before the last;[1] the added alif, sīn and tāʾ express seeking[2] | "Replacing": a new wife in the old one's place, which the verse mentions; whether the added letters have their sense of seeking here, the prose below explains |
| 4:20 | زَوْجٍ zawjin |
ز و ج | فَعْل (faʿl), a noun; indefinite, in jarr as the second term of a possessive construction | "A wife": the same word serves for husband and wife; the prose below explains it |
| 4:20 | مَكَانَ makāna |
ك و ن | مَفْعَل (mafʿal), a noun of place from كَانَ (kāna), "to be". Its middle root letter is the wāw. It takes fatḥa because in the present tense, yakūnu, it has ḍamma; so the base was makwan, and the wāw gave its vowel to the kāf before it and became an alif, the long ā of makān[3] | "In place of": the place the new wife takes |
| 4:20 | زَوْجٍ zawjin |
ز و ج | as above | "A wife": the wife who is replaced |
| 4:20 | وَآتَيْتُمْ wa-ātaytum |
أ ت ي | Form IV أَفْعَلَ (afʿala) of آتَى (ātā), "to give", the hamza lengthened; past tense, second person masculine plural | "You have given": the long hamza makes it giving, not coming |
| 4:20 | إِحْدَاهُنَّ iḥdāhunna |
و ح د | فِعْلَى (fiʿlā), the feminine counterpart of أَحَد (aḥad) in its affirmative uses, except as a description of Allah; its hamza in place of an original wāw, given kasra[4] | "One of them": one wife among the wives |
| 4:20 | قِنْطَارًا qinṭāran |
ق ن ط ر | فِعْلَال (fiʿlāl), a four-letter noun; indefinite, in naṣb as the second object; plural قَنَاطِير (qanāṭīr) | "A great amount": the prose below gives its derivation |
| 4:20 | تَأْخُذُوا taʾkhudhū |
أ خ ذ | فَعَلَ يَفْعُلُ (faʿala yafʿulu) of أَخَذَ (akhadha); present tense, second person masculine plural, in jazm by the loss of the nūn | "Take": the act forbidden |
| 4:20 | شَيْئًا shayʾan |
ش ي أ | فَعْل (faʿl), a noun; indefinite, in naṣb | "Anything": the indefinite noun after a prohibition |
| 4:20 | أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ a-taʾkhudhūnahu |
أ خ ذ | the same verb, present tense in rafʿ, with the hamza of the question before it and the pronoun after it | "Would you take it" |
| 4:20 | بُهْتَانًا buhtānan |
ب ه ت | فُعْلَان (fuʿlān), a maṣdar known by usage, مصدر سماعي (maṣdar samāʿī), of بَهَتَ يَبْهَتُ (bahata yabhatu); the verb has a second maṣdar, بَهْت (baht)[5] | "A false charge": the prose below gives the root |
| 4:20 | وَإِثْمًا wa-ithman |
أ ث م | فِعْل (fiʿl), a noun; indefinite, in naṣb | "A sin": the prose below gives the root |
| 4:20 | مُبِينًا mubīnan |
ب ي ن | مُفْعِل (mufʿil), the active participle of Form IV أَبَانَ (abāna), a hollow root; in naṣb as an adjective | "Manifest": a sin that makes itself plain |
| 4:21 | تَأْخُذُونَهُ taʾkhudhūnahu |
أ خ ذ | the same verb, present tense in rafʿ, with the pronoun as object | "Could you take it" |
| 4:21 | أَفْضَى afḍā |
ف ض و | Form IV أَفْعَلَ (afʿala); its base afḍaya, the yāʾ, vowelled after a fatḥa, turned to alif, and that yāʾ from an original wāw;[6] imperfect يُفْضِي (yufḍī), maṣdar إِفْضَاء (ifḍāʾ), active participle مُفْضٍ (mufḍin)[7] | "Has gone in": the prose below gives the root and its witnesses |
| 4:21 | بَعْضُكُمْ baʿḍukum |
ب ع ض | فَعْل (faʿl), a noun, in rafʿ, annexed to the pronoun | "One of you" |
| 4:21 | بَعْضٍ baʿḍin |
ب ع ض | the same noun, indefinite, in jarr | "The other" |
| 4:21 | وَأَخَذْنَ wa-akhadhna |
أ خ ذ | فَعَلَ (faʿala); past tense, third person feminine plural, the nūn of the women its subject. The verb also serves for making firm and taking a covenant, and 4:21 is among its examples[8] | "They have taken": the covenant is the wives' |
| 4:21 | مِيثَاقًا mīthāqan |
و ث ق | مِفْعَال (mifʿāl) from الوَثِيقَة (al-wathīqa), a binding assurance, made by an oath, a pledge or another tie[9] | "A covenant": the prose below gives the root |
| 4:21 | غَلِيظًا ghalīẓan |
غ ل ظ | فَعِيل (faʿīl), an adjective of fixed quality, صفة مشبهة (ṣifa mushabbaha), from غَلُظَ (ghaluẓa), with ḍamma on the lām[10] | "Solemn": the prose below gives the root |
Replacing: اسْتِبْدَال
The root tells us what kind of replacing the verse means. Ibn Fāris separates two acts. One says بدّلْتُ, "I changed", of a thing when you change it, even if you bring nothing in its place. One says أبْدَلْتُه, "I replaced it", when you bring a substitute for it.[11] Ibn Fāris's witness for أبْدَلْتُه is poetry in the rajaz metre:
عَزْلَ الأمِيرِ للأَميرِ المُبْدَل"As the governor is dismissed for the governor put in his place."
Ibn Fāris cites it without naming its poet; ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn identifies him as Abū al-Najm al-ʿIjlī.[12]
Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī cites the same poetry for those who hold that بدّل is other than أبدل, and he does not separate the two in uses of this kind. In his view the two verbs are close in meaning. The verb بدّل is said where the thing replaced is gone, as the fear is gone once security comes in 24:55. It is also said where the thing replaced remains, as in 2:59, "those who did wrong changed the word to one other than what was said to them", where both sayings remain.[13]
The verse's word اسْتِبْدَالَ is Form X, whose added letters express seeking. Al-Hilāl gives them that sense at this verse, which would make the verse speak of seeking a new wife. But Form X can also have the sense of Form IV, أَفْعَلَ, as in this poetry:
فلم يستجبه عند ذاك مجيب"And no answerer answered him at that time."
Here يستجبه means يجبه, "answered him". From this Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī concludes that الاستبدال, "replacing", can likewise mean الإبدال, putting one in another's place. His muḥaqqiqs, the scholars who established and annotated his text, Badr al-Dīn Qahwajī and Bashīr Juwayjābī, name the poet as Kaʿb b. Saʿd al-Ghanawī.[14] Ibn ʿĀshūr explains الاستبدال as التَّبْدِيل, "changing".[15]
What all the explanations share comes from the verse's own words. The verse mentions the substitute, "a wife in place of a wife". So the case is a husband who brings a new wife in the old one's place, whether or not the form also says that he sought her.
The word for a wife: زَوْج
The root explains why one word can refer to either spouse. At the root, a زَوْج is one of two things joined together, alike or opposite, and each of the two is a زَوْج.[16] The core of the letters is an interlacing of one thing with another until the two are bound, physically or in meaning, so the word is said of one only when it is joined to another (Jabal).[17] That is why a woman's زَوْج is her husband and a man's زَوْج is his wife. It is also why زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ, "a spouse in place of a spouse", in 4:20 is a woman in place of a woman.[18]
For the wife, 4:20 uses زَوْج, without the tāʾ, and this is the Qurʾān's word for a wife throughout. The lexicons call it the higher usage.[19] A grammarian reports that the people of the Ḥijāz say زَوْج of both man and woman.[20] Al-Aṣmaʿī refused زَوْجَة altogether. He was answered that Allah did say زَوْج, but did not say that زَوْجَة may not be said.[21]
Abū Ḥātim reports زَوْجَة from the people of Najd and says the people of the Ḥaram use it too. Ibn al-Sikkīt instead gives زَوْج to the Ḥijāz and زَوْجَة to the rest of the Arabs.[22] The jurists keep to زَوْجَة for clarity in inheritance. There, "an estate with a زَوْج and a son" could leave the sex of the spouse unclear.[23] Al-Jawharī cites al-Farazdaq for زَوْجَة:
وإِنَّ الَّذِي يَسعَى يُحَرِّشُ زَوْجَتِي، ... كَسَاعٍ إِلى أُسْدِ الشَّرَى يَسْتَبِيلُها"The one who goes about stirring up my wife against me is like one who goes to the lions of al-Sharā to collect their urine."
Ibn Manẓūr reports al-Jawharī's use of this poetry.[24] So both forms are sound Arabic (Abū Uways al-Kurdī), and the verse uses the more eloquent one, زَوْج (al-ʿAdawī).[25] In other verses the word means a companion, as in 37:22, or a kind, as in 31:10 (al-Durra).[26] In 4:20 it can only be a wife, since the verse gives her a dower.
The qinṭār: قِنْطَار
By its root the قِنْطَار is great wealth, and the commentators explain it through the arched bridge. The word comes from قَنْطَرْتُ the thing, "I made it firm". The arched bridge, the قَنْطَرَة, is named from the same root for its firmness, so the قِنْطَار is, as it were, wealth tied up and made firm (al-Zajjāj, as al-Qurṭubī and Ibn ʿAṭiyya report him). Others explain قَنْطَرْتُ as "I raised it", and the bridge as a raised, solid structure (Abū Zahra, Ṭanṭāwī, Darwīsh; a view al-Hamadhānī reports).[27]
The bridge, some say, was named for its courses of building packed one on another (Abū ʿUbayd al-Harawī).[28] Al-Qurṭubī cites Ṭarafa's poetry as al-Zajjāj's witness:
كَقَنْطَرَةِ الرُّومِيِّ أَقْسَمَ رَبُّهَا ... لَتُكْتَنَفَنْ حَتَّى تُشَادُ بِقَرْمَد"Like the Byzantine's arched bridge, whose owner swore it would be enclosed until it is raised with fired brick."
Ṭarafa compares his she-camel, her bones packed tight, to that bridge (al-Ṭībī), and the poetry is from his Muʿallaqa.[29]
The bridge also explains how the word came to mean wealth. The قَنْطَرَة of wealth is that by which life crosses over, likened to a bridge (al-Rāghib).[30] One says قَنْطَر of a man when his wealth grows so great it is weighed by the قِنْطَار (Ibn Manẓūr, Ibn ʿAṭiyya).[31] The Arabs knew no fixed weight for it (Abū ʿUbayda).[32]
Others report the word as foreign: in Syriac or the language of the Romans, an ox-hide filled with gold, and in Berber, a thousand mithqāls (Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Qurṭubī, Ibn Manẓūr).[33] On either origin the word refers to greatness. In 4:20 it means much wealth given as a dower (al-Shaʿrāwī, al-Muqaddim).[34] So the verse mentions a very large dower and forbids taking back even part of it. What a قِنْطَار weighs is the matter of Question 2.
The false charge and the sin: بُهْتَان and إِثْم
The two roots describe the wrong from two sides: what it does to the one it is spoken against, and what it does to the one who commits it. One says بَهَتَهُ when he says against someone what that person did not do. The noun بُهْتَان is its maṣdar, like الشُّكْرَان and الْغُفْرَان (Ibn ʿĀshūr).[35]
The same root describes the state of the one charged: بُهِتَ, "he was struck dumb", and البَهْتَة is bewilderment (Ibn Fāris, al-Samīn, al-Khafājī, al-Rāghib).[36] A lie is called بُهْتَان because it leaves the one lied against silent and confused (al-Hararī).[37] The root also refers to force: it is the breaking of a thing's sharpness, or of its hardness and pride (Jabal).[38] Every verb whose first letters are bāʾ and hāʾ expresses a feeling of the soul (Darwīsh).[39]
وما هي إلا أن أراها فجاءة ... فأبهت حتى ما أكاد أجيب"It is only that I see her suddenly, and I am struck dumb until I can scarcely answer."
Darwīsh cites this poetry for بهت, "to be struck dumb": the poet sees her suddenly and cannot answer.[40] So بُهْتَان describes a wrong by its effect on the one who suffers it.
The word إِثْم, "sin", describes the other side. It comes from a root of slowness and lagging behind, because the sinner is slow to good and falls behind it (Ibn Fāris).[41] One says that a she-camel أثمت in her walking when she was slow, as Ṣafwān Dāwūdī notes on al-Rāghib.[42] The noun إِثْم is the name of the deeds that hold one back from reward, and a lie is called إِثْم because lying is part of sin (al-Rāghib).[43] So إِثْم describes a wrong by what it does to the one who commits it. What makes this taking a false charge is the matter of Question 3.
Going in unto: أَفْضَى
The root describes a meeting with nothing left between. One says فضا يفضو when a place widens, and الفضاء is open space (al-Sāyis, Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Hararī, Ṭanṭāwī).[44] The phrase أَفْضَى فلانٌ إِلى فُلَانٍ means "he came to him". Its origin is that he came into the other's opening, his open space and his precinct, and الإِفضاء in its literal sense is coming to the end (Ibn Manẓūr).[45] One says أفضى المكان when a place grew wide and empty and its barriers were removed (Qalʿajī).[46] The root's core is a thing accompanied by an open gap, with nothing attached to it and nothing between (Jabal).[47]
So الإفضاء to a thing is coming to it by direct contact with it (al-Ṭabarī), and al-Ṭabarī cites an unnamed poet for it:[48]
بَلِينَ بِلًى أَفْضَى إلَى كُلِّ كُتْبَةٍ ... بَدَا سَيْرُهَا مِنْ بَاطِنٍ بَعْدَ ظَاهِر"They wore away, a wear that reached every stitch, so that their thongs showed from the inside after the outside."
The decay and wear reached the stitches themselves. ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad gives this poetry in this wording among al-Ṭabarī's witnesses and does not know its poet. The wording is Maḥmūd Shākir's in his edition of al-Ṭabarī. The edition of al-Ṭabarī cited here opens the poetry with "wear [and decay]". It takes the bracketed word from al-Tibyān, where its manuscripts leave a gap. It also gives "every", كُلِّ, which its manuscripts drop.[49]
Muḥammad b. Ḥamad al-Muḥaymīd, in his notes to al-Wāḥidī's al-Basīṭ, finds the poetry in the Dīwān of al-Ṭirimmāḥ. There the second half runs the other way, "from an outer side after an inner". His notes also give al-Ṭabarī's "wear" and كُتْبَةٍ, "stitch", where al-Basīṭ's copy has other letters, and both halves as Shākir gives them. None of them gives أَفْضَى in another form.[50]
Zuhayr uses the verb for a heart that comes into the open space of righteousness:
ومَنْ يوفِ لَا يُذْمَمْ، ومَنْ يُفْضِ قَلْبه ... إِلى مُطْمَئِنِّ البِرِّ لَا يَتَجَمْجَم"Whoever fulfils his pledge is not blamed, and whoever's heart comes to the settled place of righteousness does not falter."
Ibn Manẓūr reports this poetry from Abū al-Haytham, and explains it: whoever's heart comes to an open space of righteousness with no screen before it.[51]
The root has a second sense: فَضًا means things mixed together, as in an unnamed poet's verse:
فَقُلْتُ لَهَا يَا عَمَّتِي لَكِ نَاقَتِي ... وَتَمْرٌ فَضًا فِي عَيْبَتِي وَزَبِيب"I said to her: aunt, yours is my she-camel, and dates mixed in my bag, and raisins."
Al-Qurṭubī cites it for فَضًا, "mixed", and holds that mixing is the origin of الإفضاء in the language, where the authorities above derive it from open space. In 4:21 the two senses meet: the spouses reached each other and were mixed together (Ṭanṭāwī).[52]
The verb is followed by إِلَى because it has the sense of وصَل, "came to" (Ibn Manẓūr, Ibn Sīda).[53] The same construction explains 2:187, الرَّفَثُ إِلَى نِسَائِكُمْ, "going in to your wives". There الرَّفَثُ takes إِلَى, though it normally takes bāʾ, because it has the sense of الإفضاء (Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Zamakhsharī, al-Qāsimī, Ibn Badrān).[54] So 4:21 describes the spouses as having reached each other, and mingled, with nothing between them. Whether that is intercourse or being alone together is the matter of Question 4.
The solemn covenant: مِيثَاق and غَلِيظ
The two roots together describe a tie made fast and made hard to break. The letters wāw, thāʾ and qāf point to tying and making firm. One says وثَّقْت the thing, "I made it firm", and the مِيثَاق is the covenant made firm (Ibn Fāris).[55] One says وَثِقْتُ به for being at ease with someone and relying on him, and أَوْثَقْتُهُ for binding him fast; الوَثَاق is that by which a thing is bound (al-Rāghib, al-Zamakhsharī).[56]
The core of the root is a thing lasting to the hoped-for term because its parts are tightly bound (Jabal).[57] In the Qurʾān, the words mawthiq and mīthāq refer to this abstract fastening and tie (Jabal).[58] What makes a مِيثَاق firm is explained in three ways: a contract made firm by an oath and a covenant (al-Rāghib),[59] a covenant to keep the covenant (al-Jamal),[60] or a pledge in which Allah is called to witness (a view al-ʿAdawī reports).[61] At this verse the phrase is a binding pledge (Ibn Qutayba).[62]
Al-Zamakhsharī cites Kaʿb b. Zuhayr for تواثقوا, "they covenanted", a covenant made between two:
ليوفوا بما كانوا عليه تواثقوا ... بخيف منًى والله راءٍ وسامع"That they may fulfil what they covenanted upon at Khayf of Minā, while Allah sees and hears."
Al-Zamakhsharī gives this poetry for the mutual pledge that the word مِيثَاق refers to.[63] Which pledge 4:21 means is the matter of Question 5.
The word غَلِيظ adds the hardness. Its noun الغِلَظ is the opposite of thinness, in make, nature, deed, speech and living. It came to be used of what is not a body, and التغْلِيظ of an oath is making it strict and firm (Ibn Manẓūr, Ibn Sīda).[64] The core is great bulk and solidity with hardness, which brings severity and strength (Jabal).[65] The word الْغِلْظَة is properly the hardness of bodies; it is then borrowed for the strength of a covenant (Ibn ʿĀshūr).[66] So a غَلِيظ covenant is one made strict and firm, as an oath is.
5. Balāghah: Rhetorical Analysis
The two verses forbid one act: taking back what a husband gave his wife. Each device below serves that ban, in the order the verse gives them. The verse states the case, names the largest sum, asks two questions that reject the taking, and gives two reasons against it, the closeness of the spouses and the covenant.
Repeating "wife" (التكرار, al-takrār)
Where it is. اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ, "to replace one wife with another."
The plain way. "To replace her" or "to take another wife" would name only the new marriage.
What it does. The word zawj comes twice, and the repetition is one of the passage's figures, takrār (Abū Ḥayyān); it says more than the bare meaning needs, iṭnāb (al-Hararī).[1] The second zawj also tells the pronoun of إِحْدَاهُنَّ, "one of them," which women it means; al-Basīlī calls this istikhdām.[2]
The effect. One word refers to both women, the wife being left and the wife being sought. So the case the ban answers is stated in full: a husband who wants to replace one wife with another.
The plural address and the singular wife (al-ifrād wa-l-jamʿ)
Where it is. أَرَدْتُمُ, "you want," and وَآتَيْتُمْ, "you have given," are plural; زَوْجٍ, "a wife," and إِحْدَاهُنَّ, "one of them," are singular.
The plain way. "If you want to replace wives with wives, and you have given them a great amount" could make it seem that all the men together gave all the wives one sum.
What it does. The same case is now made general. The plural verb shows that the single zawj means many wives. The singular iḥdāhunna shows that the plural "you have given" means each husband, one by one, who gave his own wife a great amount. The verse does not say "and you have given them," so that no one supposes the whole company gave one sum. Abū Ḥayyān calls this subtle eloquence: the meaning cannot be said more briefly or more clearly.[3]
The effect. The ban is spoken to all the men and applies to each marriage on its own.
Naming the largest sum (المبالغة, al-mubālagha)
Where it is. وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا, "and you have given one of them a great amount."
The plain way. "And you have given her a dower" would state the gift without its size.
What it does. The gift each husband gave is then made as large as it can be. A qinṭār is a very large sum, and here it is hyperbole for the dower: much wealth, more than is usual (Ibn ʿĀshūr).[4] The verse makes the gift great so that taking it back is seen as grave and avoided (al-Hararī, Abū Ḥayyān).[5] The great sum also covers the small one. The husband who gave a qinṭār may not take back even a little of it, so taking back even part of a smaller dower is forbidden all the more (al-Muqaddim).[6]
The image also has a meaning the words were not said for, which follows from them: a large dower may be given. Ibn ʿĀshūr calls this dalālat al-ishāra, and he identifies it as the reason ʿUmar رضي الله عنه withdrew his restriction on dowers.[7] What that permission allows is weighed in Question 2.
The effect. The size of the gift becomes part of the ban. Even a very large gift gives him no right to take it back, and what is said of the greatest sum is true of every smaller one.
A question that rejects (استفهام إِنكاري, istifhām inkārī)
Where it is. أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا, "Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin?"
The plain way. The ban has already been given: فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا, "do not take [back] from it anything." A statement such as "Taking it is unjust" would add only a judgment.
What it does. Because the command is already given, the question that follows asks for no information. The hamza of a-taʾkhudhūnahu rejects the taking and rebukes whoever would do it, and its clause begins anew (Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, Darwīsh, al-Ṣābūnī, Fawzī, al-Ṭarīfī).[8] The question puts the act before the husband and leaves him no answer: taking it would be buhtān and open sin. What buhtān means here is the matter of Question 3.
The effect. After the command, the verse turns to the husband who would break it. The ban is now also a rebuke.
A second question, with wonder (التعجب, al-taʿajjub)
Where it is. وَكَيْفَ تَأْخُذُونَهُ, "And how could you take it."
The plain way. "And do not take it" would only repeat the ban.
What it does. The second question builds on the first. The two are a rejection after a rejection, and the second adds wonder (al-Hilāl).[9] The word كَيْفَ, "how", asks how such a thing could be done, so it rejects the act and wonders at it (Ibn ʿUthaymīn, al-Durra).[10] The wonder declares the act enormous (al-Baghawī, in ʿAbd Allāh al-Zayd's abridgement).[11]
Wonder can praise or blame, and the context decides which. Here the context is blame, so the wonder marks the act as bad (al-ʿIzz b. ʿAbd al-Salām).[12] Wonder at what ought not to happen also has the sense of a prohibition, and 4:21 is among al-Jamal's examples of it.[13] The question then mentions the two facts that make the act so strange: the spouses have gone in to one another, and the wives have taken a covenant. It is part of perfect eloquence to show the ugliest picture of an act in order to turn people from it (Ibn ʿUthaymīn).[14]
The effect. The first question rejects the act; the second asks how it could be done at all. The ban gains force at each step.
Naming intimacy by allusion (الكناية, al-kināya)
Where it is. وَقَدْ أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ, "while you have gone in unto each other."
The plain way. The explicit word for intercourse would name the act directly.
What it does. The first of the two reasons is spoken by allusion. A kināya expresses an ugly or private meaning with a fair word (Ibn Abī al-Iṣbaʿ).[15] Ifḍāʾ is such a word: here it is a kināya for intercourse (al-Ṣābūnī).[16] Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما said: "Ifḍāʾ is direct contact, but Allah is generous and alludes to what He wills."[17] The Qurʾān names this act by allusion in other places too, with words of tilth, as in 2:223, "Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you", and of touching (Qalʿajī).[18] An allusion is used for what is not seemly to state openly, and through it the believers are taught refined manners (al-Ṣābūnī, Rashīd Riḍā).[19]
The allusion works because the hearer knows what is meant. Where the hearer would miss the meaning, the explicit word is needed to remove doubt, as in "the adulteress and the adulterer" (al-Nawawī, al-Wāʾilī).[20] At 4:21 the meaning is clear to every hearer, so the fair word loses nothing.
The effect. The verse refers to the closest bond between spouses without a word the reader would turn from, and that bond is the first reason the taking is shameful. Which act ifḍāʾ means, intercourse or being alone together, is the matter of Question 4.
Taking a covenant (الاستعارة, al-istiʿāra)
Where it is. وَأَخَذْنَ مِنْكُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا, "and they have taken from you a solemn covenant."
The plain way. "And you made a firm contract with them" would state the fact without the image.
What it does. The second reason is given in an image. A covenant cannot really be taken in the hand, so "taking" is borrowed for relying on the covenant and clinging to it (Abū Ḥayyān, al-Hararī).[21] The word mīthāq is itself borrowed for the lawful contract of marriage (al-Zuḥaylī).[22] Ghalīẓ, "thick," is a quality of bodies, and here it is used of what is not a body (Ibn Manẓūr).[23] It gives the covenant a form that can be felt, with thickness, to suggest its strength (ʿAbd al-Salām al-Rāghib).[24] The root of ghalīẓ is explained in Ṣarf.
The effect. The pledge is in the wives’ hands like a thing grasped, and it is thick and hard to tear. Taking back the dower would break a pledge of that strength. Which covenant this is, and why the wives are said to take it, is the matter of Question 5.
6. Qirāʾāt: Variant Readings
The ten readers, the masters of recitation whose readings are accepted as the Qurʾān, recite the words of 4:20 and 4:21 with no difference of farsh (فرش), the variants that change a word. Ibn al-Jazarī's record of their differences in the words of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ passes from 4:19 to 4:24 with nothing at the pair.[1] They differ only in how certain sounds are made, the uṣūl (الأصول).
These sounds take six terms: madd (مد), fatḥ (فتح), imāla (الإمالة), taqlīl (التقليل), tanwīn (التنوين) and ikhfāʾ (الإخفاء). Madd is the lengthening of a vowel, held short, medium or long. Fatḥ keeps a long a open; imāla tilts it toward i, and taqlīl tilts it only part of the way. Tanwīn is an n-sound added to the end of a noun, as in مِيثَاقًا, and ikhfāʾ says it hidden, between clear and merged, before certain letters.
The forms that change a word come from readers outside the ten, or from reports. One place in the pair also sounds like a verse ending without being one.
| Word | Form | Recited by | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| وَآتَيْتُمْ, إِحْدَاهُنَّ, شَيْئًا | the madd of وَآتَيْتُمْ short, medium or long; إِحْدَاهُنَّ with fatḥ or taqlīl; the yāʾ of شَيْئًا medium or long | Warsh by the route of al-Azraq | مُتَوَاتِر (mutawātir), among the ten, a difference of pronunciation[2] |
| إِحْدَاهُنَّ | imāla | Ḥamza, al-Kisāʾī and Khalaf al-ʿĀshir | مُتَوَاتِر (mutawātir), among the ten, a difference of pronunciation[3] |
| إِحْدَاهُنَّ | taqlīl | Abū ʿAmr; Warsh as well, by one of two ways reported from him | مُتَوَاتِر (mutawātir), among the ten, a difference of pronunciation[4] |
| تَأْخُذُوا | the still hamza changed to alif | Warsh, by the routes of al-Azraq and al-Aṣbahānī, and Abū Jaʿfar; Abū ʿAmr by a difference reported from him | مُتَوَاتِر (mutawātir), among the ten, a difference of pronunciation[5] |
| أَفْضَى | fatḥ or taqlīl; imāla | al-Azraq; Ḥamza, al-Kisāʾī and Khalaf al-ʿĀshir | مُتَوَاتِر (mutawātir), among the ten, a difference of pronunciation[6] |
| مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا | the tanwīn hidden before the ghayn, ikhfāʾ | Abū Jaʿfar | مُتَوَاتِر (mutawātir), among the ten, a difference of pronunciation[7] |
| إِحْدَاهُنَّ | آتيتم احداهن, the alif joined | Ibn Muḥayṣin | شَاذّ (shādhdh), outside the ten[8] |
| شَيْئًا | the hamza dropped and its vowel moved to the yāʾ | Abū al-Sammāl; Ibn ʿAṭiyya and Abū Ḥayyān name Abū Jaʿfar with him | شَاذّ (shādhdh), outside the ten for Abū al-Sammāl[9] |
| قِنْطَارًا | قِنْطَارًا مِنْ ذَهَبٍ, "a qinṭār of gold" | reported from ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd رضي الله عنه in accounts of ʿUmar's sermon | شَاذّ (shādhdh), outside the ten[10] |
| فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا | وَلا يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا (in other reports with فَلا), "it is not permissible for you to take anything of it" | the same | شَاذّ (shādhdh), outside the ten[11] |
The joining alif in إِحْدَاهُنَّ
Ibn Muḥayṣin recites إِحْدَاهُنَّ with a joining alif, as al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī records:
وقرأ ابن محيصن: «آتيتم احداهن» بوصل ألف «إحدى»"Ibn Muḥayṣin recited 'ātaytumu-ḥdāhunna', with the alif of iḥdā joined."
Ibn Muḥayṣin drops the hamza of إِحْدَاهُنَّ and joins the word to the one before it. The dropping lightens the word (Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī), and it is a dialect of the Arabs (Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Qurṭubī).[12] The same was recited at 74:35, إِنَّهَا لاحْدَى الكبر (Abū Ḥayyān, Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī).[13] Ibn Jinnī calls it plain elision, an easy dropping, like the form فَلا اثْمَ عَلَيْهِ.[14]
Al-Qurṭubī cites poetry from two unnamed poets for a hamza dropped in this way:
وَتَسْمَعُ مِنْ تَحْتِ الْعَجَاجِ لَهَا ازْمَلَاإِنْ لَمْ أُقَاتِلْ فَالْبِسُونِي بُرْقُعًا"And you hear from beneath the dust a clamour from her." "If I do not fight, then dress me in a veil."
In the first poet's words the hamza of ازْمَلَا, "clamour", is dropped; in the second's, the hamza of فَالْبِسُونِي, "dress me". Each poet drops a hamza that is normally said, as Ibn Muḥayṣin does in إِحْدَاهُنَّ.[15] With or without the hamza the word is the same, "one of them."
The dropped hamza in شَيْئًا
The word شَيْئًا too is recited without its hamza, as Abū Ḥayyān records:
وَقَرَأَ أَبُو السَّمَّالِ وَأَبُو جَعْفَرٍ: شَيًّا بِفَتْحِ الْيَاءِ وَتَنْوِينِهَا، حَذَفَ الْهَمْزَةَ وَأَلْقَى حَرَكَتَهَا عَلَى الْيَاء"Abū al-Sammāl and Abū Jaʿfar recited 'shayan', with fatḥa on the yāʾ and tanwīn: he dropped the hamza and put its vowel on the yāʾ."
The form moves the hamza's vowel to the yāʾ before it and drops the hamza (Abū Ḥayyān, al-Ibyārī, al-Hararī).[16] Ibn ʿAṭiyya and Abū Ḥayyān give the form to Abū Jaʿfar as well, and he is one of the ten. The record of the ten does not bear this out. Ibn al-Jazarī records the ten by their routes, and in his record of the words of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ he gives no difference at this word.[17]
Ibn al-Jazarī's chapter on the hamza lists the words in which the ten differ over changing a hamza that follows a still yāʾ: النَّسِيءُ, بَرِيءٌ and its plural, هَنِيئًا مَرِيئًا, كَهَيْئَةِ and يَيْأَسِ. The word شَيْء is not among them.[18] Nor is it among the four words in which his chapter on naql (النقل), moving a hamza's vowel to the still letter before it, allows the move inside one word: رِدْءًا, مِلْءُ, الْقُرْآنِ and اسْأَلِ.[19]
Abū al-Sammāl is outside the ten, and so the form, joined to what follows, is outside the ten as well. A pause is a different matter. Ḥamza, pausing on شَيْئًا, may move the hamza's vowel to the yāʾ and drop the hamza, as Ibn al-Jazarī records in his chapter on pausing on the hamza. By a second way that Sālim gives for Khallād from Ḥamza, Ḥamza may instead change the hamza to yāʾ and merge it into the yāʾ before it.[20]
Ibn Masʿūd's wording
The woman who answered ʿUmar's sermon on dowers is reported to have recited 4:20 with "of gold" after قِنْطَارًا. The narrator adds that the wording is found in the recitation, the qirāʾa, of ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd رضي الله عنه. Ibn al-Mundhir's report reads:
وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا مِنْ ذَهَبٍ قَالَ: وَكَذَلِكَ هِيَ، فِي قِرَاءَةِ عَبْدِ اللهِ، وَلا يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا"'And you have given one of them a qinṭār of gold.' He said: and so it is in ʿAbd Allāh's qirāʾa, 'and it is not permissible for you to take anything of it.'"
The reports differ on which words are his. In the route Ibn Kathīr gives, his qirāʾa is "it is not permissible for you". In others it is "a qinṭār of gold", and one edition sets "of gold" outside the verse, as the woman's own words (Ibn Kathīr, al-Suyūṭī, al-Māturīdī).[21] A note in Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, edited by Musāʿid b. Sulaymān al-Ṭayyār, calls the qirāʾa shādhdha, irregular, and refers to Ibn Ḥajar.[22]
Neither wording is the Qurʾān's. "Of gold" only mentions what the qinṭār is made of. "It is not permissible" says in other words what "do not take" says in the muṣḥaf, the written copy of the Qurʾān. The grade of the sermon's report is weighed in Question 2.
The ways of Warsh and of the other readers
At 4:20 three features of Warsh by the route of al-Azraq meet in one verse: the madd in وَآتَيْتُمْ, the alif of إِحْدَاهُنَّ, and the soft yāʾ of شَيْئًا. Each lets the reciter choose how to say one sound. The madd after the hamza in وَآتَيْتُمْ, madd al-badal (مد البدل), is held short, medium or long. The final alif of إحدى, written as a yāʾ, is said with fatḥ or taqlīl. The soft yāʾ before the hamza in شَيْئًا, madd al-līn (مد اللين), is held medium or long. Ibn al-Jazarī records each of these for al-Azraq.[23]
Since the three can meet in one recitation, the scholars of recitation count which combinations Warsh allows. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ al-Qāḍī counts six. Two have a medium līn: short badal with fatḥ, and medium badal with taqlīl. The other four have a long badal, with fatḥ or with taqlīl, each with a medium or a long līn.[24]
Ḥalīma Sāl gives the same six, citing al-Qāḍī's Sharḥ al-Naẓm al-Jāmiʿ and al-Miṣrī's al-Istabraq on Warsh by the route of al-Azraq. She also names three combinations that, she says, are barred for Warsh: short badal with taqlīl, medium badal with fatḥ, and long līn with a badal that is not long.[25]
Al-Qāḍī's six in al-Budūr are by the routes of the Shāṭibiyya and the Durra, as he says in its introduction.[26] Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Sālim gathers the ten from Ibn al-Jazarī's Ṭayyiba. His table also lists short badal with taqlīl and medium badal with fatḥ, so his count is larger than six.[27] The six ways of al-Budūr's routes are the ones given here. The difference is only in which combinations of sounds are allowed; every way recites the same words with the same meaning.
At 4:21 al-Azraq recites أَفْضَى with fatḥ or taqlīl, and Ḥamza, al-Kisāʾī and Khalaf al-ʿĀshir with imāla. Ibn Kathīr and Abū Jaʿfar join the mīm of مِنْكُمْ to the next word with a wāw, ṣila (الصلة), and Qālūn does so in one of his ways (Ibn al-Jazarī, Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Sālim).[28]
Abū Jaʿfar also hides the tanwīn of مِيثَاقًا before the ghayn of غَلِيظًا, ikhfāʾ, where the others say it clearly (al-Qāḍī, Ibn al-Jazarī).[29] Each of these is a way of saying the same word.
Where the verse does not end
إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا, "one of them a great amount," ends in a sound like a verse ending, but it is not counted as one. It is one of eight such places in Sūrat al-Nisāʾ (al-Biqāʿī, al-Qasṭallānī).[30]
What the forms change
None of these forms changes what the two verses rule. The ways of the ten change how a sound is made. Ibn Muḥayṣin's joined alif and the dropped hamza in شَيْئًا lighten a word without changing it. The wording of the reports mentions the qinṭār's metal and restates the ban. No form of the words lets a husband who parts from his wife by his own wish take back any of what he gave; the cases Question 1 weighs, khulʿ and her free gift, are untouched by them.
And Allah knows best.
Notes
Summary
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/452; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573, giving the motive, the dower of the wife who takes her place. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/562; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/13, covering a dower paid or still owed. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/548; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/163; al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/121. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/541; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/546. ↩
-
Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 3/48; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/473; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth Manār al-Sabīl, 6/356; Muḥammad b. Ḥizām al-Baʿdānī, Fatḥ al-ʿAllām fī Dirāsat Aḥādīth Bulūgh al-Marām, 8/333, naming those who give half. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/99; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, 173. ↩
Historical Context
-
al-Tirmidhī, Sunan al-Tirmidhī, Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf's edition, 2/407; al-Tirmidhī, Sunan al-Tirmidhī, Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf's edition, 2/408. ↩
-
al-Haythamī, al-Maqṣad al-ʿAlī fī Zawāʾid Abī Yaʿlā al-Mawṣilī, 2/334; al-Haythamī, al-Maqṣad al-ʿAlī fī Zawāʾid Abī Yaʿlā al-Mawṣilī, 2/335. ↩
-
al-Albānī, Jāmiʿ Turāth al-ʿAllāma al-Albānī fī al-Fiqh, 12/139, grading the woman's report weak and munkar; al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 14/479, Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī's report, in which the verse stopped him before he spoke; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10: أخرجه عبد الرزاق بإسناد مرسل قوي "ʿAbd al-Razzāq recorded it with a strong mursal chain.". ↩
-
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/470; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1028; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10. ↩
Word-by-Word Analysis
-
Quran.com API v4, verses/by_key/4:20, words with text_uthmani, https://api.quran.com/api/v4/verses/by_key/4:20?words=true&word_fields=text_uthmani&language=en, fetched 2026-10-03, seventeen words of 4:20 and eleven of 4:21, each with its transliteration and its meaning; Quran.com API v4, verses/by_key/4:21, words with text_uthmani, https://api.quran.com/api/v4/verses/by_key/4:21?words=true&word_fields=text_uthmani&language=en, fetched 2026-10-03. ↩
Understanding the Verse
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/68; Sayyid Quṭb, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, 67; al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, 12/351. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAjība, al-Baḥr al-Madīd fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/483. ↩
-
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/472; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 5/261, finding no report from the Prophet on its quantity sound enough to follow. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/562; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/68; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/13, covering a dower paid or still owed; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/548; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91. ↩
-
al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 3/85; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 2/172; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/216; ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/731; Muḥammad Yaʿqūb al-Dihlawī, Ḍamānāt Ḥuqūq al-Marʾa al-Zawjiyya, 34; Ṣalāḥ al-Khālidī, al-Qurʾān wa-Naqḍ Maṭāʿin al-Ruhbān, 1/448. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿa al-Islāmiyya, 3/428. ↩
-
al-Qushayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt, 1/323; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/483, reporting al-Qushayrī; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/484, the end of the same quotation from al-Qushayrī; Maḥmūd Muḥammad Gharīb, al-Ṭalāq Taḥsabūnahu Hayyinan wa-Huwa ʿinda Allāh ʿAẓīm, 88; Ibn ʿĀshūr, Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿa al-Islāmiyya, 2/345, in the study by Muḥammad al-Ḥabīb Ibn al-Khūja that accompanies the work; ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Khāliq, al-Zawāj fī Ẓill al-Islām, 149; Usāma Sulaymān, al-Taʿlīq ʿalā al-ʿUdda Sharḥ al-ʿUmda, 10/8; ʿAbd al-Munʿim Ibrāhīm, Fatḥ Dhī al-Jalāl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth al-Ẓilāl, 1/41. ↩
-
Fatāwā Dār al-Iftāʾ al-Miṣriyya, 10/6, ʿAṭiyya Ṣaqr's fatwā. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/210; Salmān al-Ṣamadī, muḥaqqiq's note to Bakr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/237, citing al-Mudawwana for Mālik; Sayyid Sābiq, Fiqh al-Sunna, 2/300, reporting Mālik and ruling the same himself. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/163; al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/121. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/561; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/99; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, 2/186; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, 173. ↩
-
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/470; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1028; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 5/227. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/540. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ, 2/30; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/45. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/541; Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 8/272, Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, in ʿAbd al-Razzāq's report as Ibn Ḥajar cites it; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/116; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15. ↩
-
Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 3/48; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/473; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth Manār al-Sabīl, 6/356. ↩
-
Muḥammad b. Ḥizām al-Baʿdānī, Fatḥ al-ʿAllām fī Dirāsat Aḥādīth Bulūgh al-Marām, 8/333, naming those who hold it, among them Shurayḥ, al-Shaʿbī, Ṭāwūs, Ibn Sīrīn and al-Shāfiʿī in his later view; preferring it as nearer to the proofs. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/546; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/291; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wajīz, 258; al-Zajjāj, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān wa-Iʿrābuh, 2/32. ↩
-
al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2088, a judge's saying, as al-Shaʿrāwī reports it; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/12630. ↩
-
al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2084, reporting al-Ḥasan's counsel to a father on a suitor for his daughter. ↩
-
al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 3/85. ↩
-
Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/485; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118. ↩
Thematic Connections in the Qurʾān
-
Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/263; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/570. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/548. ↩
-
Khālid al-Mushayqiḥ, al-Mukhtaṣar fī al-Ankiḥa wa-l-Aṭʿima wa-l-Aymān wa-l-Nudhūr, 58; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/47. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/561. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/539. ↩
Gems and Subtleties
-
Sayyid Quṭb, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, 67; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/16; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/60, quoting al-Rāzī; Nawāl al-ʿĪd, Ḥuqūq al-Marʾa fī Ḍawʾ al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya, 572, following al-Rāzī; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/190; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/30; al-Qushayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt, 1/323. ↩
-
al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Tafsīr al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, 3/1156. ↩
-
Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/390, explaining the reported sense of the word as the widest coming together of the two; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2086, holding that the closeness takes in the whole of the couple’s life together; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2087; Sayyid Quṭb, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, 67, explaining the word as covering more than physical intimacy, beside intercourse, the meaning Deeper Study, Question 4 adopts; ʿAbd al-Munʿim Ibrāhīm, Fatḥ Dhī al-Jalāl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth al-Ẓilāl, 1/40, quoting Sayyid Quṭb; ʿAbd al-Munʿim Ibrāhīm, Fatḥ Dhī al-Jalāl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth al-Ẓilāl, 1/41; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1624, explaining, like the works after him, the closeness as the couple’s shared life beyond intercourse; Ibn al-Khaṭīb, Awḍaḥ al-Tafāsīr, 1/95; Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 282; ʿAbd al-Salām al-Rāghib, Waẓīfat al-Ṣūra al-Fanniyya fī al-Qurʾān, 106; al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya al-Mutakhaṣṣiṣa, 1/555. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 25/175, reasoning from 33:49. ↩
-
Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/390; Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/391; Aḥmad Yāsūf, Jamāliyyāt al-Mufrada al-Qurʾāniyya, 297; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/12186. ↩
-
Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/12186; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/10611; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/8103; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/9527; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/9553; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/9753; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/9831; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 1/428; Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, Taysīr al-Tafsīr, 1/279; Fatāwā wa-Istishārāt al-Islām al-Yawm, 11/265. ↩
Contemporary Applications
-
islamweb.net, fatwa 122714, https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/122714/, fetched 2026-10-02, asking whether the religion fixes the cost of marriage and the dower, answered that it fixes no amount; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/378; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/379; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/217; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/479; ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/699; the muḥaqqiq of this copy, unnamed in it, note to al-Thaʿālibī, al-Jawāhir al-Ḥisān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/196; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/470; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/47; Ḥusayn al-ʿAwāyisha, al-Mawsūʿa al-Fiqhiyya al-Muyassara fī Fiqh al-Kitāb wa-l-Sunna al-Muṭahhara, 5/165. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/561; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/99; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, 2/186; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, 173. ↩
-
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/470; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1028; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10. ↩
-
Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/6664; Fatāwā wa-Istishārāt al-Islām al-Yawm, 11/149; islamweb.net, fatwa 210727, https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/210727/, fetched 2026-10-02, answered that a village’s agreeing of its own will on an amount is no harm. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, al-Sharḥ al-Ṣawtī li-Zād al-Mustaqniʿ, 1/6258, reporting that the well-known view allows no cap, and saying that where the state has set one, it may be held that asking for more is forbidden; Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm Āl al-Shaykh, Fatāwā wa-Rasāʾil Samāḥat al-Shaykh Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Āl al-Shaykh, 10/194, holding that rulers must set a limit to dowers; Fatāwā Dār al-Iftāʾ al-Miṣriyya, 9/483, ʿAṭiyya Ṣaqr’s fatwā, calling on those in authority to intervene; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/6448, against any cap, from ʿUmar’s turning back; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/6563, holding a customary limit to have no legal force; Nawāl al-ʿĪd, Ḥuqūq al-Marʾa fī Ḍawʾ al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya, 606, holding that a ruler may not cap the dower. ↩
-
Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth, 8/60. ↩
-
islamweb.net, fatwa 98384, https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/98384/, fetched 2026-10-02, answering a bride whose husband went abroad after the contract, with a divorce expected before the wedding. ↩
-
Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 3/48; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/473; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth Manār al-Sabīl, 6/356. ↩
-
Khālid al-Mushayqiḥ, al-Mukhtaṣar fī al-Ankiḥa wa-l-Aṭʿima wa-l-Aymān wa-l-Nudhūr, 58; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/47. ↩
-
islamqa.info, answer 193347, https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/193347, fetched 2026-10-02, quoting Ibn ʿUthaymīn, who reports that most scholars hold it. ↩
Common Misconceptions
-
islamweb.net, fatwa 55021, https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/55021/, fetched 2026-10-02, answered that none of it may be taken back, nor a gift given to her, by him or by his family, once she has received it. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/562; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/68; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/13, covering a dower paid or still owed; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/163, forbidding him to take even a little of it. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/548; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91. ↩
-
islamweb.net, fatwa 76709, https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/76709/, fetched 2026-10-02. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/163; al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/121. ↩
Points for Reflection
-
al-Qushayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt, 1/323; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/184; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/28. ↩
Q1. What does فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا, "do not take (back) from it anything", forbid, and how does it align with 4:19, 4:4 and the khulʿ of 2:229?
-
Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/905, Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما by ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭalḥa; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/906; Mujāhid, Tafsīr Mujāhid, 271; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/540, reporting Mujāhid; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/539; Abū Jaʿfar al-Tirmidhī, Juzʾ fīhi Tafsīr al-Qurʾān bi-Riwāyat Abī Jaʿfar al-Tirmidhī, 81; Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/615; Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān, 1/365; Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAzīz, 1/356; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/290; ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Darj al-Durar fī Tafsīr al-Āy wa-l-Suwar, 1/475; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-Masīr, 1/386; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl, 1/357; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/263; al-Fīrūzābādī, Tanwīr al-Miqbās, al-Kalbī's recension, 67; al-Suyūṭī, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, 103; al-Nakhjuwānī, al-Fawātiḥ al-Ilāhiyya wa-l-Mafātiḥ al-Ghaybiyya, 1/147; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/45; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/158; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/183; Ibn ʿAjība, al-Baḥr al-Madīd fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/483; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/189; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Laṭīf al-Mannān fī Khulāṣat Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 162; Ibn al-Khaṭīb, Awḍaḥ al-Tafāsīr, 1/95; Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, Taysīr al-Tafsīr, 1/279; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1025; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/783; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2084; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/94; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/447; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10; al-Luhaymīd, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 4/387; al-Mukhtaṣar fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/81; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/27; Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 2/22. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/563; al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/192; Bakr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/601. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/563. ↩
-
al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/768. ↩
-
Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1623; an unsigned note in the Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī edition of Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1623; Ibn ʿArafa, Tafsīr Ibn ʿArafa, 2/17, reporting the usual answer. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/162. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/68; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/49; al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 10/153; Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAzīz, 1/356; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/290; al-Kiyā al-Harrāsī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/176; al-Baghawī, Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/588; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/482; al-ʿUlaymī, Fatḥ al-Raḥmān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/104; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/45; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/215; Muḥammad Maḥmūd Ḥijāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Wāḍiḥ, 1/352; Mullā Ḥuwaysh, Bayān al-Maʿānī, 5/534; Ibn al-Khaṭīb, Awḍaḥ al-Tafāsīr, 1/95; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/783; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/94; Asʿad Ḥawmad, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 513; Abū Bakr al-Jazāʾirī, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 1/454; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/476; Muḥammad Fārūq al-Zayn, Bayān al-Naẓm fī al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/323; ʿAbd Allāh al-Zayd, Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-Musammā bi-Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/171; Mawdūdī, Towards Understanding the Qurʾān, section on 4:20-21, no page number in this copy. ↩
-
al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/60. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/162; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/562; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/47; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 2/165; Bakr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/237; al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn, 1/467; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/60; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 2/776; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1623; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/158; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/159; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/163; ʿIyāḍ al-Sulamī, Uṣūl al-Fiqh alladhī lā Yasaʿ al-Faqīh Jahluh, 383, reporting the Ḥanafīs; Ismāʿīl al-Qāḍī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 117; ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Darj al-Durar fī Tafsīr al-Āy wa-l-Suwar, 1/475; al-Baghawī, Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/588; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/266; al-Fīrūzābādī, Tanwīr al-Miqbās, al-Kalbī's recension, 67; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/377; al-Nakhjuwānī, al-Fawātiḥ al-Ilāhiyya wa-l-Mafātiḥ al-Ghaybiyya, 1/147; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/215; Fayṣal Āl Mubārak, Tawfīq al-Raḥmān fī Durūs al-Qurʾān, 1/511; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Laṭīf al-Mannān fī Khulāṣat Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 162; ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/731; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis, Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 246; Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, Taysīr al-Tafsīr, 1/279; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1024; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 2/992; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 1/516; Asʿad Ḥawmad, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 513; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/476; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Ṣafwat al-Tafāsīr, 1/244; Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 230; Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh, al-Tafsīr al-Maʾmūn ʿalā Manhaj al-Tanzīl wa-l-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masnūn, 2/209; al-Mukhtaṣar fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/81; al-Muntakhab fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 110; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/27; al-Tafsīr al-Muyassar, 1/81; Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 1/344; Sayyid Quṭb, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, 67; Mawdūdī, Towards Understanding the Qurʾān, section on 4:20-21, no page number in this copy. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/13; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/47, holding that the verse makes the dower hers by a true ownership, whether he replaces her or keeps her. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572. ↩
-
al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/59; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/483; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl, 1/357; al-Nakhjuwānī, al-Fawātiḥ al-Ilāhiyya wa-l-Mafātiḥ al-Ghaybiyya, 1/147; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/45; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/159; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/183; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/189; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1025; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/783; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/476; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Ṣafwat al-Tafāsīr, 1/244; al-Luhaymīd, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 4/387; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/27. ↩
-
Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/389. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573, answering al-Jaṣṣāṣ on 4:21. ↩
-
al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/769, reporting al-Shāfiʿī; reporting Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfa. ↩
-
al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/769. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573, answering al-Jaṣṣāṣ on a wife who has died. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-Masīr, 1/386; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/215; Muḥammad Maḥmūd Ḥijāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Wāḍiḥ, 1/352; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2084; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/476; Muḥammad Fārūq al-Zayn, Bayān al-Naẓm fī al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/323; al-Luhaymīd, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 4/387. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/400, reporting the commentators; Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān, 1/365; al-Samʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/231; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/491; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl, 1/357; al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 4/484; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 4/140; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/377; al-ʿUlaymī, Fatḥ al-Raḥmān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/104; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/215; ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/731; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis, Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 246; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/782; al-Makkī al-Nāṣirī, al-Taysīr fī Aḥādīth al-Tafsīr, 1/320; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/403; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/94; Abū Bakr al-Jazāʾirī, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 1/454; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/476; Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 281; Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh, al-Tafsīr al-Maʾmūn ʿalā Manhaj al-Tanzīl wa-l-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masnūn, 2/205; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10; al-Luhaymīd, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 4/387. ↩
-
Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, al-Bayān wa-l-Taḥṣīl, 5/233, commenting on Mālik's words that a husband who finds his wife in zinā should not harm her until she offers wealth to end the marriage; Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt, 1/554; Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, al-Bayān wa-l-Taḥṣīl, 5/234. ↩
-
Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, al-Bayān wa-l-Taḥṣīl, 5/234. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/162; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/540. ↩
-
al-Ḥarrālī, Turāth Abī l-Ḥasan al-Ḥarrālī, 410; al-Ḥarrālī, Turāth Abī l-Ḥasan al-Ḥarrālī, 411; al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 3/358, reporting al-Ḥarrālī; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 2/162, quoting al-Ḥarrālī. ↩
Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/535–537, ed. ʿAbd Allāh al-Turkī. For the permission to pressurize her in the specified circumstances, see also Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/364.
The jurists also discuss other marital rights. Ibn Taymiyyah describes loss of maintenance, clothing and marital turns during nushūz (Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 32/279–281). His permission for a light tap in the case of “a clear immorality” (32/283–284) must be understood alongside his qualification in the related nushūz discussion: it must be ghayr mubarriḥ (32/279).
Ibn Bāz explains the limits more fully: only after advice and separation in bed have failed may he tap lightly, without causing injury. This excludes wounds, fractures and endangerment. His answer concerns marital discipline, not obtaining a payment (fatwa 9103).
Ibn ʿUthaymīn names separation in bed while describing forbidden pressure, then distinguishes the grounds on which pressure is permitted (al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ, 12/462–464). Islamweb distinguishes withdrawal of housing during actual nushūz from expelling a wife because of an earlier wrong from which she has repented (fatwa 93039). Mālik’s contrary position is explained in the preceding paragraphs.↩
For refusal of divorce pending an agreed payment, see Islamweb, fatwa 426391; for unpaid dower, IslamQA, answer 214779; and for the distinction between compensation for separation and a consensual settlement to continue the marriage, IslamQA, answer 219987.↩
For leaving because of abuse and maintenance during pregnancy, see IslamQA, answer 112002; for repentance and searching for faults, Islamweb, fatwa 93039; for continuing zinā despite refusal of payment, Ibn ʿUthaymīn, al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ, 12/464, also quoted in IslamQA, answer 184382.↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/163; al-Shanqīṭī, Aḍwāʾ al-Bayān, 1/244. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/163; al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/121. ↩
-
Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 2/776; Ibn ʿArafa, Tafsīr Ibn ʿArafa, 2/17, giving the same answer without the reason from 4:4. ↩
-
Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 2/776; Ibn ʿArafa, Tafsīr Ibn ʿArafa, 2/17, saying the husbands were forbidden the taking outright, even when she gives willingly, by way of emphasis. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/121. ↩
-
Muḥammad al-Wāʾilī, Bughyat al-Muqtaṣid Sharḥ Bidāyat al-Mujtahid, 11/6229: ولا شكَّ أن هذا الفهم يخالف الفهم الذي أَجمَعَ عليه كافَّة أهل العلم قاطبةً، من أنَّ آية سورة النساء تتناول زَجْرَ الزوج عن الطمع فيما أعطاه ووهبه لزوجته من الصداق، فليس له أن يأخذ شيئًا منه إلا برضا الزوجة، "No doubt this understanding contradicts the one on which all the people of knowledge agreed: that the verse of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ restrains the husband from coveting what he gave his wife of the dower, so he may take nothing of it except with the wife's consent."; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572, reporting, with no one named, an agreement that 4:4 restricts the ban. ↩
-
ʿAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, 6/496. Ibn Jurayj relates his own question to ʿAṭāʾ. A note in this edition marks ʿAṭāʾ’s initial answer as missing; the surviving text preserves Ibn Jurayj’s objection from 4:4 and ʿAṭāʾ’s response by reciting 4:20. ↩
-
ʿAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, 6/496. Two asanid relate this judgment from ʿIkrima b. Khālid, who says he witnessed it: ʿAbd al-Razzāq from Ibn Jurayj, whom ʿIkrima informed directly; and ʿAbd al-Razzāq from Maʿmar, from Ayyūb, from ʿIkrima. Both accounts therefore return to the same eyewitness. No grade is stated for these asanid at this locus. ↩
-
ʿAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, 6/496. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/210. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/152; Yāsir al-Najjār, Mawsūʿat al-Fiqh ʿalā al-Madhāhib al-Arbaʿa, 15/521, quoting al-Jaṣṣāṣ. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 2/538; Majallat Majmaʿ al-Fiqh al-Islāmī, 6/801, quoting Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 2/236; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/152. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/548; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/563; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/151; al-Kiyā al-Harrāsī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/176; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl, 1/357; al-Thaʿālibī, al-Jawāhir al-Ḥisān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/196; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 2/172; Ibn al-Khaṭīb, Awḍaḥ al-Tafāsīr, 1/95; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 2/992; Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 282; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10; Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 1/344. ↩
-
al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, the Sulṭāniyya printing, 7/46–47, Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما by ʿIkrima, no. 5273; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/548, who calls the report sound. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91, reporting ʿAṭāʾ, al-Zuhrī and ʿAmr b. Shuʿayb; Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ithyūbī, Dhakhīrat al-ʿUqbā fī Sharḥ al-Mujtabā, 31/217, quoting Ibn Kathīr. ↩
-
Ibn Nūr al-Dīn, Taysīr al-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/46. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/140, where he gives the majority of the jurists as allowing khulʿ without a complaint of harm. ↩
-
Ibn Nūr al-Dīn, Taysīr al-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/46. ↩
-
Ibn Nūr al-Dīn, Taysīr al-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/46. ↩
-
Ibn Nūr al-Dīn, Taysīr al-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/45, recording Ibn al-Mundhir's choice with al-Nakhaʿī, al-Zuhrī, ʿAṭāʾ, Dāwūd and Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī; Ibn Baṭṭāl, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 7/421, reporting Ibn al-Mundhir. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/162; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/562; Ibn al-Humām, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 4/216; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 1/307, reporting al-Marghīnānī: disliked, in the sense of forbidden; Ibn Ḥazm, Marātib al-Ijmāʿ, 74, who reports agreement that a husband who harms his wife takes nothing; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Fiqh al-Islāmī wa-Adillatuh, 9/7028, who reports agreement that the taking is disliked where the aversion is the husband's, and that where a husband pressurizes her into khulʿ the Ḥanafīs, Ḥanbalīs and Shāfiʿīs hold that taking anything from her is not permissible, and the Mālikīs hold the same and make him return it; Mawsūʿat al-Ijmāʿ fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī, 3/444, which finds no agreement that he may not keep the payment, since the Ḥanafīs uphold it; Abū Bakr al-Ḥaddād, Kashf al-Tanzīl fī Taḥqīq al-Mabāḥith wa-l-Taʾwīl, 1/410. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/210; Salmān al-Ṣamadī, muḥaqqiq's note to Bakr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/237, citing al-Mudawwana for Mālik; Sayyid Sābiq, Fiqh al-Sunna, 2/300, reporting Mālik and ruling the same himself. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91, reporting Abū Ḥanīfa and his companions; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 1/307, who reports agreement that it is valid in court, against the Ẓāhirīs; Sayyid Sābiq, Fiqh al-Sunna, 2/300, reporting scholars who let it take effect; Kamāl b. al-Sayyid Sālim, Ṣaḥīḥ Fiqh al-Sunna wa-Adillatuh wa-Tawḍīḥ Madhāhib al-Aʾimma, 3/354, adopting the Ḥanafī view that the taking is forbidden when the wrong is the husband's, without a word on the court. ↩
-
al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 1/307: لكن يقع الخلع ويجب المال للزوج على الزوجة فى جميع الصور قضاء اجماعا خلافا للظاهرية "But the khulʿ takes effect and the money is owed to the husband by the wife in every case, in judgment, by consensus, against the Ẓāhirīs". ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/548; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/163; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/563; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/564; al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/211; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, 23/369, reporting Ismāʿīl al-Qāḍī; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, 23/370; al-Naḥḥās, al-Nāsikh wa-l-Mansūkh, 227; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 2/1268; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/405; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/406; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 1/308; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/30; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/474; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/114; al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Tafsīr al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, 3/1155; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; Ibn Juzayy, al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl, 1/184; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 2/181; Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/324; Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ Sharḥ Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, 5/2144; Ibn al-Humām, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 4/216; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 1/307; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/508; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān, 3/63; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/60; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/61; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/378; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 2/412; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1623; Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth, 6/426; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/307; ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad, al-Kifāya fī al-Tafsīr bi-l-Maʾthūr wa-l-Dirāya, 5/30; al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 2/223; Yāsir al-Najjār, Mawsūʿat al-Fiqh ʿalā al-Madhāhib al-Arbaʿa, 16/459, quoting Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 9/395–396, the source its own note names; Ibn Nūr al-Dīn, Taysīr al-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/311. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/161, Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī, by ʿUqba b. Abī al-Ṣahbāʾ; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/90, reporting Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, 23/375, Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī, by ʿUqba b. Abī al-Ṣahbāʾ; Ibn Ḥazm, Marātib al-Ijmāʿ, 74, reporting an unnamed scholar who bars all khulʿ. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547, reporting Ibn Zayd; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 2/1268, reporting Ibn Zayd; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/113, reporting Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما and ʿIkrima; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290, answering Jābir b. Zayd; al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, 10/151, for the khulʿ payment; al-Rūyānī, Baḥr al-Madhhab, 10/38, for the khulʿ payment. Al-Ṭabarī transmits Ibn Zayd’s interpretation through Yūnus and Ibn Wahb, without a grade at this locus. Makkī also attributes it to Ibn Zayd, without an isnad here. Ibn al-Faras names Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما and ʿIkrima without asanid, while Ibn ʿĀshūr attributes the position to Jābir b. Zayd when answering it. Those three attributions rest on these later scholars’ accounts. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/161, Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī, by ʿUqba b. Abī al-Ṣahbāʾ; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/546, reporting Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/161, reporting the view that 4:20 abrogated 2:229; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/90, reporting Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, 23/375, Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī, by ʿUqba b. Abī al-Ṣahbāʾ; Ibn Ḥazm, Marātib al-Ijmāʿ, 74, reporting an unnamed scholar who bars all khulʿ; al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn, 1/295; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/406; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 1/308; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/30; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/474; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 2/181; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 1/307; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/274; al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-Manthūr, 2/468; al-Suyūṭī, al-Iklīl fī Istinbāṭ al-Tanzīl, 85; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/60; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/378; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/453; al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-Qārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 20/260; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/113; al-ʿIzz b. ʿAbd al-Salām, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/223. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/90, reporting ʿAṭāʾ; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91, reporting Ibn Sīrīn and Abū Qilāba; al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-Qārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 20/260, reporting Ibn Sīrīn and Abū Qilāba; Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/324, reporting Ibn Sīrīn and Abū Qilāba. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547, reporting Ibn Zayd; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 2/1268, reporting Ibn Zayd; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547, reporting the view that 2:229 abrogated 4:20; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/30; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/474; Ibn Juzayy, al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl, 1/184; al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn, 1/468; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/508; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/378; al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-Manthūr, 2/468; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/60; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/113, reporting Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما and ʿIkrima. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/162. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/163; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/91; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/49; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/60; al-Ṭūfī, al-Ishārāt al-Ilāhiyya ilā al-Mabāḥith al-Uṣūliyya, 157. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/548, who calls the report sound. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/162, who reports the agreement of the Companions, the Successors and the Muslims after them; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, 23/375, reporting the body of scholars, Bakr excepted; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 6/76; Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/324, reporting ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, ʿUthmān رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه with no opponent known; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/274; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/90; al-Naḥḥās, al-Nāsikh wa-l-Mansūkh, 227; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/140, relaying al-Naḥḥās; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 1/308; Muḥammad al-Wāʾilī, Bughyat al-Muqtaṣid Sharḥ Bidāyat al-Mujtahid, 11/6229; Muḥammad Ibrāhīm b. Sarkand, al-Aḥkām al-Fiqhiyya allatī Qīla fīhā bi-l-Naskh wa-Athar Dhālika fī Ikhtilāf al-Fuqahāʾ, 4/2310; Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ithyūbī, Dhakhīrat al-ʿUqbā fī Sharḥ al-Mujtabā, 29/94; al-ʿAynī, ʿUmdat al-Qārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 20/260; Burhān al-Dīn Ibn Mufliḥ, al-Mubdiʿ Sharḥ al-Muqniʿ, 8/55; the muḥaqqiq of this copy, unnamed in it, note to Burhān al-Dīn Ibn Mufliḥ, al-Mubdiʿ Sharḥ al-Muqniʿ, 8/55; Ibn Ḍuwayyān, Manār al-Sabīl fī Sharḥ al-Dalīl, 2/226; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān, 2/24, following al-Shawkānī; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Nayl al-Marām min Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 88, following al-Shawkānī; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/90, reporting ʿAṭāʾ, against khulʿ at the husband's call; Ibn Ḥazm, Marātib al-Ijmāʿ, 74, denying that any agreement on khulʿ can be claimed. ↩
-
al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/61. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/547; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/548; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/546; al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/211; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/405; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 1/308, rejecting Bakr's claim of abrogation as weak; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/114; Ibn Juzayy, al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl, 1/184; al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Tafsīr al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, 3/1155; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 2/181, rejecting Bakr's claim of abrogation as weak; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/508; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/60; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/307; ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad, al-Kifāya fī al-Tafsīr bi-l-Maʾthūr wa-l-Dirāya, 5/30; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 1/766, reporting most scholars; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 2/1268, reporting most scholars; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 2/412, reporting the majority; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/378, reporting the careful scholars; al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn, 1/295; al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn, 1/468; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/140, relaying al-Naḥḥās; al-Suyūṭī, al-Iklīl fī Istinbāṭ al-Tanzīl, 85; Musāʿid b. Sulaymān al-Ṭayyār, muḥaqqiq's note to Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 4/195; Musāʿid b. Sulaymān al-Ṭayyār, muḥaqqiq's note to Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/183. ↩
-
al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, 2/223; Yāsir al-Najjār, Mawsūʿat al-Fiqh ʿalā al-Madhāhib al-Arbaʿa, 16/459, quoting Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 9/395–396, the source its own note names, and reporting agreement after Bakr that 4:20 is specified by 2:229 and the two other verses of al-Nisāʾ; Ibn Nūr al-Dīn, Taysīr al-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/311. ↩
Q2. What is the قِنْطَارًا, "great amount", and does the verse show that a dower has no upper limit?
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/539; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 4/31, reporting al-Rabīʿ b. Anas; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 8/263; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/13; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/159; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/483; Ibn al-Khaṭīb, Awḍaḥ al-Tafāsīr, 1/95; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 2/1267; Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh, al-Tafsīr al-Maʾmūn ʿalā Manhaj al-Tanzīl wa-l-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masnūn, 2/209; Mullā Ḥuwaysh, Bayān al-Maʿānī, 5/534; Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/389; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/189; Mawdūdī, Towards Understanding the Qurʾān, section on 4:20-21, no page number in this copy; al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 5/226; al-Suyūṭī, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, 103; al-Nakhjuwānī, al-Fawātiḥ al-Ilāhiyya wa-l-Mafātiḥ al-Ghaybiyya, 1/147; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/508; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2085; al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 4/484, reporting it; ʿAbd Allāh al-Zayd, Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-Musammā bi-Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/171; Asʿad Ḥawmad, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 513; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/782; Sayyid Quṭb, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, 67; al-Mukhtaṣar fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/81; al-Muntakhab fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 110; Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, Taysīr al-Tafsīr, 1/279; al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/769; al-Tafsīr al-Muyassar, 1/81. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 4/31; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 4/30; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/906; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/907; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/51; al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, 9/391; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 1/409, answering that the single raṭl al-Zajjāj reports is a slip for a hundred raṭl; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/471, reporting his scholars' preference for 1,200 dinars; Bakr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/343, reporting it; Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān, 1/365. ↩
-
the committee of Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya for al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr (Mukhtār Ibrāhīm al-Hāyij, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Muḥammad Nadā and Ḥasan ʿĪsā ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir), muḥaqqiq's note to al-Suyūṭī, Jamʿ al-Jawāmiʿ al-Maʿrūf bi-l-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr, 4/101, reporting the mark from al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr, no. 6195, where the report is given to Ibn Māja and Ibn Ḥibbān. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 5/261, on Anas's report giving a quantity for the qinṭār, which he would follow were its chain sound; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/907, on Abū Saʿīd's report, the version stopped at the Companion being sounder; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/472: وَقَدْ رُوِيَ بَعْضُهَا عَنْ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ وَلَا يَصِحُّ فِي هَذَا الْبَابِ شَيْء "Some of them are reported from the Prophet, and nothing on this subject is sound."; Musāʿid b. Sulaymān al-Ṭayyār, muḥaqqiq's note to Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/180, reporting al-Albānī, al-Silsila al-Ḍaʿīfa, 9/75: وضعَّفه الألبانيُّ في الضعيفة ٩/ ٧٥، وقال: «وجملة القول: أنّ الحديث لا يصِحُّ مرفوعًا إلى النبي ﷺ بأيِّ لفظ من الألفاظ المتقدمة؛ لشدة الاختلاف بينها، ووهاء أسانيدها، والاختلاف في رفعها ووقفها ووصلها وإرسالها "al-Albānī weakened it in al-Ḍaʿīfa: "In sum, the hadith is not sound as marfūʿ to the Prophet in any of these wordings, for their sharp divergence, the frailty of their chains, and the disagreement on whether they are marfūʿ or mawqūf, connected or mursal.""; al-Albānī, Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍaʿīfa wa-l-Mawḍūʿa, 9/72, grading weak the report from Abū Hurayra رضي الله عنه that the qinṭār is twelve thousand ūqiyya. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 4/30, reporting Ibn ʿAṭiyya. ↩
-
al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/491; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Laṭīf al-Mannān fī Khulāṣat Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 162; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wajīz, 258; al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 10/153; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66; Ibn Juzayy, al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl, 1/184; al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/375; Nawāl al-ʿĪd, Ḥuqūq al-Marʾa fī Ḍawʾ al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya, 606; al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, 9/391, reporting al-Rabīʿ. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 5/260, at 3:14; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-Masīr, 1/265, reporting it as al-Ṭabarī's choice; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/472: هَذِهِ الْأَقْوَالُ كُلُّهَا تَحَكُّمٌ فِي الْأَكْثَر "These views are all, for the most part, arbitrary.": وَاَلَّذِي يَصِحُّ فِي ذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ الْمَالُ الْكَثِيرُ الْوَزْنِ، هَذَا عُرْفٌ عَرَبِي "What is sound is that it is wealth of great weight; this is Arab usage."; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 3/85; ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Darj al-Durar fī Tafsīr al-Āy wa-l-Suwar, 1/475; Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya, 8/459. ↩
-
al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt, 677. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/99: دَلِيلٌ عَلَى جَوَازِ الْمُغَالَاةِ فِي الْمُهُورِ، لِأَنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى لَا يُمَثِّلُ إِلَّا بِمُبَاحٍ. ""And you have given one of them a qinṭār" is proof that large dowers are permitted, because Allah gives as an example only what is permitted."; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/469; Abū Bakr al-Jazāʾirī, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 1/455; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/45; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/114, reporting it; Ibn ʿArafa, Tafsīr Ibn ʿArafa, 2/18, reporting it; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis, Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 246, reporting it; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/404; al-Fīrūzābādī, Tanwīr al-Miqbās, al-Kalbī's recension, 67; al-Baghawī, Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/597; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/479, reporting it; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl, 1/357; al-Luhaymīd, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 4/388; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/216, reporting it; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/57; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/290; al-Samʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/410; al-Suyūṭī, al-Iklīl fī Istinbāṭ al-Tanzīl, 85; al-Thaʿālibī, al-Jawāhir al-Ḥisān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/196, reporting it; al-Ījī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/342; al-ʿUlaymī, Fatḥ al-Raḥmān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/112; ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad, al-Kifāya fī al-Tafsīr bi-l-Maʾthūr wa-l-Dirāya, 7/84; ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/699; Muḥammad Maḥmūd Ḥijāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Wāḍiḥ, 1/353; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān, 3/63; al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, 7/20. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/561; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/562. ↩
-
al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 2/207, for a least dower of ten dirhams. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/561; al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 10/155; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/400; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/469; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/99; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/45; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/46; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/316; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/45; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/51; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Laṭīf al-Mannān fī Khulāṣat Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 162; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, 173; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1625; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/162; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/97; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/306; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/452; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/29; Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Iqnāʿ, 1/300; al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, 9/396; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, 2/186; Ibn Qudāma, al-Kāfī fī Fiqh al-Imām Aḥmad, 3/57; Aḥmad b. Nāṣir al-Ṭayyār, Taqrīb Fatāwā Ibn Taymiyya, 4/576. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/13; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/184; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/377, as a possibility; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/453, reporting the answer given to the first view; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/378; Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth, 8/60; ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Dihlawī, Lamaʿāt al-Tanqīḥ fī Sharḥ Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, 6/85; Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ithyūbī, Dhakhīrat al-ʿUqbā fī Sharḥ al-Mujtabā, 28/49; ʿAbd Allāh al-Fawzān, Minḥat al-ʿAllām fī Sharḥ Bulūgh al-Marām, 7/395. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/29, reporting it; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/100, reporting it; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/306, reporting it; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/307. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/13; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/184; citing al-Rāzī; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/571, reporting al-Rāzī; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/265, reporting al-Rāzī; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/266. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/378; Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth, 8/60; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/453, reporting the answer given to the first view. ↩
-
ʿAbd Allāh al-Fawzān, Minḥat al-ʿAllām fī Sharḥ Bulūgh al-Marām, 7/395; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/378. ↩
-
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Ishrāf ʿalā Madhāhib al-ʿUlamāʾ, 5/34: قال أبو بكر: النكاح بكل ما ذكرناه جائز، لا اختلاف أعلمه، ولا حد لأكثر الصداق لا يتجاوز ذلك، وإنما تكلم أهل العلم في أدنى الصداق "Abū Bakr (Ibn al-Mundhir) said: marriage on everything we have mentioned is permitted; I know of no difference on it. There is no limit to the largest dower that may not be passed; the scholars spoke only about the least dower."; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/408; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/24, at 4:4; Zarrūq, Sharḥ Zarrūq ʿalā Matn al-Risāla, 2/637; Kamāl b. al-Sayyid Sālim, Ṣaḥīḥ Fiqh al-Sunna wa-Adillatuh wa-Tawḍīḥ Madhāhib al-Aʾimma, 3/162; Mawsūʿat al-Ijmāʿ fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī, 3/350; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/51, citing the agreement with no witness; Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/211, relaying Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr; ʿAbd Allāh al-Fawzān, Minḥat al-ʿAllām fī Sharḥ Bulūgh al-Marām, 7/395, relaying Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/452, relaying al-Qurṭubī; Muḥammad al-Wāʾilī, Bughyat al-Muqtaṣid Sharḥ Bidāyat al-Mujtahid, 9/5661, quoting Ibn Rushd's Bidāyat al-Mujtahid, which reports the agreement and names no verse: قوله: (الْمَسْأَلَةُ الثَّانِيَةُ: وَأَمَّا قَدْرُهُ فَإِنَّهُمُ اتَّفَقُوا عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ لِأَكثَرِهِ حَد "Ibn Rushd: The second question: as for its amount, they agreed that there is no limit to its greatest.". ↩
-
al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, 9/396: فَأَمَّا أَكْثَرُهُ فَلَا خِلَافَ بَيْنَ الْفُقَهَاءِ أَنَّهُ لَا حَدَّ لَهُ لِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: ﴿وَآتَيْتُمْ إحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارا "As for its largest amount, there is no difference among the jurists that it has no limit, because of His words "and you have given one of them a qinṭār"."; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, 2/186: وَأَجْمَعَ الْعُلَمَاءُ عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَا تَحْدِيدَ فِي أَكْثَرِ الصَّدَاقِ لِقَوْلِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا "The scholars agree that there is no limit on the greatest amount of the dower, because of Allah's words, "and you have given one of them a qinṭār""; al-ʿImrānī, al-Bayān fī Madhhab al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 9/370, grounding it on this verse in the same sentence; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101: وَقَدْ أَجْمَعَ الْعُلَمَاءُ عَلَى أَلَّا تَحْدِيدَ فِي أَكْثَرِ الصَّدَاقِ، لِقَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: (وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْداهُنَّ قِنْطاراً) وَاخْتَلَفُوا فِي أَقَلِّه "The scholars agree that there is no limit on the greatest dower, by His word "and you have given one of them a qinṭār", and they differ over its least."; al-Raymī, al-Maʿānī al-Badīʿa fī Maʿrifat Ikhtilāf Ahl al-Sharīʿa, 2/222; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/307, citing the agreement with no witness; ʿUmar ʿAlī Abū Bakr Zāriyā, muḥaqqiq's note to Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, al-Mukhtaṣar al-Ṣaghīr: Khilāfiyyāt fī al-Fiqh, 344, relaying Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr; Nawāl al-ʿĪd, Ḥuqūq al-Marʾa fī Ḍawʾ al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya, 578, relaying Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr. ↩
-
al-Raymī, al-Maʿānī al-Badīʿa fī Maʿrifat Ikhtilāf Ahl al-Sharīʿa, 2/222, reporting the cap as the Imāmīs'; Mawsūʿat Jamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī, 8/227, reporting al-Murtaḍā. ↩
-
Mawsūʿat Jamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī, 8/227, reporting from al-Rawḍa al-Bahiyya the Imāmīs' well-known view that a dower has no upper limit, then al-Murtaḍā's cap and the answer given there. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/46; Abū Bakr al-Ḥaddād, Kashf al-Tanzīl fī Taḥqīq al-Mabāḥith wa-l-Taʾwīl, 2/211, reporting it. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/162. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/99; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/97, stating the objection of hyperbole: والذي نراه ان الآية الكريمة وإن كانت تفيد جواز الإصداق بالمال الجزيل، إلا ان الأفضل عدم المغالاة في ذلك، مع مراعاة أحوال الناس من حيث الغنى والفقر وغيرهما. "What we hold is that the verse, though it shows a large dower is permitted, the better course is not to set dowers high, with regard to people's circumstances of wealth, poverty and the like.". ↩
-
al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/51: والمستحب اجماعا ان لا يغالى فيه "What is recommended, by consensus, is not to set it high"; Mawqiʿ al-Islām Suʾāl wa-Jawāb, 6/578, quoting Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm. ↩
-
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/469; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, 173: وفي هذه الآية دلالة على عدم تحريم كثرة المهر، مع أن الأفضل واللائق الاقتداءُ بالنبي ﷺ في تخفيف المهر "This verse shows that a large dower is not forbidden, although the better and fitting course is to follow the Prophet in keeping the dower light"; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/97. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/163. ↩
-
Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth, 8/60. ↩
-
Mawqiʿ al-Islām Suʾāl wa-Jawāb, 6/578, quoting Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/29; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101, relaying it. ↩
-
al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, 173. ↩
-
al-Tirmidhī, Sunan al-Tirmidhī, Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf's edition, 2/407, no. 1114, ʿUmar رضي الله عنه by Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ; al-Tirmidhī, Sunan al-Tirmidhī, Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf's edition, 2/408, al-Tirmidhī's own grade: هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ. "This is a ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ hadith."; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, ed. Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, 2/235, no. 2106 (al-Albānī): حسن صحيح "Ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ."; Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, muḥaqqiq's note to Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, al-Musnad, Shākir's edition, 1/287, no. 287: (٢٨٧) إسناده صحيح، وهو مكرر ٢٨٥ وسبق الكلام عليه مفصلا "Its isnād is sound; it repeats no. 285, and it was discussed in detail there."; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn, the al-Risāla printing, 3/589–590, no. 2759: هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد، ولم يُخرجاه. "This is a hadith with a ṣaḥīḥ isnād, and the two [al-Bukhārī and Muslim] did not narrate it."; al-Albānī, Ṣaḥīḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 6/336, on Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ, whom Ibn Maʿīn, Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Dāraquṭnī declared trustworthy, while al-Bukhārī said "his hadith needs examination" and Abū Aḥmad al-Ḥākim said "his hadith does not stand firm", and he grades its isnād ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ, Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ being supported; al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth Manār al-Sabīl, 6/347, where al-Albānī sets aside al-Ḥāfiẓ (Ibn Ḥajar) calling him maqbūl, which he explains as weak when he narrates alone, since Ibn Maʿīn and al-Dāraquṭnī declared him trustworthy and a group of trustworthy narrators relate from him, al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī naming two more routes from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه of similar wording, and grades the hadith ṣaḥīḥ; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/45, reporting al-Tirmidhī's grade; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/100, explaining ʿalaq al-qirba in the sermon's longer wording; al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-Munīr, 1/291, reporting it. ↩
-
ʿAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, 6/250, Nāfiʿ's report. ↩
-
al-Dāraquṭnī, al-ʿIlal, 2/238, calling mursal the report that Ibn Abī Rawwād relates from Nāfiʿ, ʿAbd al-Razzāq's source for it. ↩
-
al-Albānī, Jāmiʿ Turāth al-ʿAllāma al-Albānī fī al-Fiqh, 12/138, on the ban above four hundred dirhams: أما الأمر الأول فلا شك في صحته عن عمر ﵁، لوروده عنه من طريق "As for the first matter (ʿUmar's ban on giving more than four hundred dirhams), there is no doubt of its soundness from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, since it comes from him by (several) routes.". ↩
-
al-Haythamī, al-Maqṣad al-ʿAlī fī Zawāʾid Abī Yaʿlā al-Mawṣilī, 2/335, Abū Yaʿlā's route, by Mujālid from al-Shaʿbī from Masrūq; al-Haythamī, Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid wa-Manbaʿ al-Fawāʾid, 4/284; al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 14/479, Saʿīd b. Manṣūr's route, by Mujālid from al-Shaʿbī; Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/615, reporting it; Ibn ʿAjība, al-Baḥr al-Madīd fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 5/433, quoting al-Qushayrī, who gives only ʿUmar's words that everyone is more learned than ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, even the women; al-Sakhāwī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 1/172, reporting it; al-Shanqīṭī, Aḍwāʾ al-Bayān, 4/823, giving it in Ibn al-Qayyim's words from Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn. ↩
-
al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 14/479, Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī's report. ↩
-
al-Dāraquṭnī, al-ʿIlal, 2/238: وَخَالَفَهُ مُجَالِدٌ، فَرَوَاهُ عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، عَنْ مَسْرُوقٍ، عَنْ عُمَرَ وَزَادَ فِيهِ أَلْفَاظًا لَمْ يَاْتِ بِهَا غَيْرُه "Mujālid differed from him, narrating it from al-Shaʿbī, from Masrūq, from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, and added words to it that no one else brought."; al-Dāraquṭnī, al-ʿIlal, 2/239; al-Haythamī, Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid wa-Manbaʿ al-Fawāʾid, 4/284: رَوَاهُ أَبُو يَعْلَى فِي الْكَبِيرِ، وَفِيهِ مُجَالِدُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، وَفِيهِ ضَعْفٌ، وَقَدْ وُثِّقَ. "Abū Yaʿlā related it in al-Kabīr; in it is Mujālid b. Saʿīd, who has weakness, and has been declared reliable.". ↩
-
Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/46, on Abū Yaʿlā's route: إسناده جيد قوي "Its chain is good and strong."; Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, muḥaqqiq's note to Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/46, noting that al-Sakhāwī and al-Suyūṭī followed this grade and that the sound report is Abū al-ʿAjfāʾ's; al-Albānī, Jāmiʿ Turāth al-ʿAllāma al-Albānī fī al-Fiqh, 12/138, answering Ibn Kathīr's grade. ↩
-
al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth Manār al-Sabīl, 6/348, reporting al-Bayhaqī's verdict on his own route: أخرجه البيهقى (٧/٢٣٣) وقال: " هذا منقطع "al-Bayhaqī (7/233) collected it and said: This is broken.": فهو ضعيف منكر يرويه مجالد عن الشعبى عن عمر. "It is weak and munkar; Mujālid reports it from al-Shaʿbī from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه."; al-Albānī, Jāmiʿ Turāth al-ʿAllāma al-Albānī fī al-Fiqh, 12/138: وهذه الطرق جميعها ليس فيها قصة المرأة ومعارضتها لعمر، وفي ذلك تنبيه لأهل العلم إلى احتمال ضعفها لشذوذ أو نكارة "None of these routes contains the story of the woman and her objection to ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, which alerts scholars to the possibility of its weakness through shudhūdh or nakāra."; al-Albānī, Jāmiʿ Turāth al-ʿAllāma al-Albānī fī al-Fiqh, 12/139: وإذا تبين هذا التحقيق للقارئ الكريم، وتذكر أن خطبة عمر هذه وردت عنه من خمسة طرق ليس فيها قصة المرأة، عرف حينئذ أنها ضعيفة منكرة لا تصح. "When this examination is clear to the reader, and he recalls that ʿUmar's sermon comes from five routes without the woman's story, he knows that it is weak and munkar and not sound."; Imām b. ʿAlī b. Imām, muḥaqqiq's note to Ibn Kathīr, Musnad al-Fārūq, 2/500; quoting al-Albānī: فهذان مرسَلان لا يصحَّان لإرسالهما، وللتعارض الذي بينهما، ومخالفتهما لسائر طرق الحديث عن عمرَ التي أَطَبقت على أنَّ عمرَ نهى عن التَّغالي في المهور، ولم تذكر أنه رجع عن ذلك "Both are mursal and not sound, for their irsāl, for the contradiction between them, and for going against the other routes from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, which agree that he forbade excess in dowers and do not mention a retraction."; Mawqiʿ al-Islām Suʾāl wa-Jawāb, 6/578, quoting Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm; Muḥammad Bāmūsā, Isʿāf al-Akhyār bi-mā Ishtahara wa-lam Yaṣiḥḥ min al-Aḥādīth wa-l-Āthār wa-l-Qiṣaṣ wa-l-Ashʿār, 2/342: فقد ثبت عن عمر ﵁ أنه لم يرجع عن قوله "It is established from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه that he did not go back on his word."; Shams al-Dīn al-Sakhāwī, al-Maqāṣid al-Ḥasana fī Bayān Kathīr min al-Aḥādīth al-Mushtahira ʿalā al-Alsina, 1/321, reporting al-Bayhaqī's verdict that his route is broken; Imām b. ʿAlī b. Imām, muḥaqqiq's note to Ibn Kathīr, Musnad al-Fārūq, 2/499, quoting al-Albānī on Bakr's report; al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth Manār al-Sabīl, 6/348, giving the second route, by Qays b. al-Rabīʿ from Abū Ḥaṣīn from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī. ↩
-
Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10: وحادثة عمر في هذا الباب مختصرة لها طرق تصح بمجموعها "The incident of ʿUmar رضي الله عنه in this matter, in brief, has routes that are sound taken together."; the account: أنه خرج لينصح الناس بعدم المغالاة في المهور قال: (فعرض لي قوله تعالى: ﴿وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنطَارًا﴾ [النساء:٢٠] فأمسكت "That he went out to advise people not to exaggerate in dowers; he said: "Then His saying 'and you have given one of them a qinṭār' came to me, and I held back."": أخرجه عبد الرزاق بإسناد مرسل قوي "ʿAbd al-Razzāq recorded it with a strong mursal chain.": ويشهد لأصل القصة قصة المرأة التي راجعته "The story of the woman who answered him back is a witness for the core of the story."; Muḥammad b. Mubārak Ḥakīmī, al-ʿAtīq: Muṣannaf Jāmiʿ li-Fatāwā Aṣḥāb al-Nabī, 21/145, giving the same account by Ḥumayd from Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh, in Saʿīd b. Manṣūr and ʿAbd b. Ḥumayd: نا خالد بن عبد الله عن حميد الطويل عن بكر بن عبد الله قال: قال عمر بن الخطاب: خرجت وأنا أريد أن أنهاكم عن كثرة الصداق، حتى عرضت لي هذه الآية "Khālid b. ʿAbd Allāh told us, from Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl, from Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh, who said: ʿUmar رضي الله عنه b. al-Khaṭṭāb said: I went out meaning to forbid you large dowers, until this verse came to me". ↩
-
Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth, 8/59. ↩
-
al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 14/479: هَذا مُرسَلٌ جَيِّدٌ. "This is a good mursal.". ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/162: فعدل عن قوله: فإن صحت هذه القصة فإن قوله: ﴿قِنْطَارًا﴾ لا يراد به المبالغة التي لا حقيقة لها، وإنما يراد به الكثرة الحقيقية "He withdrew his word; so if this account is sound, "a qinṭār" is not hyperbole without substance but real abundance.". ↩
-
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/470; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1028; ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Dihlawī, Lamaʿāt al-Tanqīḥ fī Sharḥ Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, 6/85. ↩
-
al-Albānī, Jāmiʿ Turāth al-ʿAllāma al-Albānī fī al-Fiqh, 12/139; answering for ʿUmar رضي الله عنه: الأول: أن نهيي موافق للسنة، وليس هو من باب التحريم، بل التنزيه. "First: my ban agrees with the Sunna, and is not a prohibition but a dislike.". ↩
-
al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/51, his own margin: قلت هذان الحديثان يدلان على رجوع عمر عن النهى عن المغالات فى المهر والصحيح عندى ان عمر رضى الله عنه نهى عن المغالات على سبيل التنزيه دون التحريم ورجع عن النهى التحريمي "I say: these two reports show ʿUmar رضي الله عنه retracted the ban on high dowers; the sound view with me is that ʿUmar رضي الله عنه forbade them as a matter of dislike, not prohibition, and retracted a prohibitive ban". ↩
-
al-Haythamī, al-Maqṣad al-ʿAlī fī Zawāʾid Abī Yaʿlā al-Mawṣilī, 2/335, Abū Yaʿlā's route, by Mujālid from al-Shaʿbī from Masrūq. ↩
-
Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1625. ↩
Q3. Why is taking back the dower called بُهْتَانًا, "injustice", and what does the question "Would you take it" add?
-
al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/401; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376; al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt, 148; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1624; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/183; Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/389; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/445; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/404; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1025; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/489; Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya, 9/296; Asʿad Ḥawmad, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 513; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 2/1267. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis, Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 248. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48. ↩
-
al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Tafsīr al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, 3/1154. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/540; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ, 2/30; Ibn Rajab, Tafsīr Ibn Rajab, 2/410; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66, reporting it in the passive, his own explanation being false charging; al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Tafsīr al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, 3/1154, reporting Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-Masīr, 1/386, reporting Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/290; Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAzīz, 1/356; al-Samʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/410; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl, 1/357; al-Fīrūzābādī, Tanwīr al-Miqbās, al-Kalbī's recension, 67; al-Suyūṭī, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, 103; al-Ījī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/342; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/52; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/159; al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 4/486, giving his own explanation, not false accusation of the innocent; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/189; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/782; Ibn al-Khaṭīb, Awḍaḥ al-Tafāsīr, 1/95; Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, Taysīr al-Tafsīr, 1/279; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/401, reporting it; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 3/86, reporting it; Bayān al-Ḥaqq al-Nīsābūrī, Ījāz al-Bayān ʿan Maʿānī al-Qurʾān, 1/232; Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/616, reporting it; Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh, al-Tafsīr al-Maʾmūn ʿalā Manhaj al-Tanzīl wa-l-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masnūn, 2/209; Mullā Ḥuwaysh, Bayān al-Maʿānī, 5/534; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10; al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-Munīr, 1/291; al-Muntakhab fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 110; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/27; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/57; ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad, al-Kifāya fī al-Tafsīr bi-l-Maʾthūr wa-l-Dirāya, 7/84, reporting it; ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/731. ↩
-
al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/491; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 5/227; ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Darj al-Durar fī Tafsīr al-Āy wa-l-Suwar, 1/475; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/377; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/46; Ibn ʿArafa, Tafsīr Ibn ʿArafa, 2/18; al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 4/485, explaining al-Zamakhsharī's wording; al-ʿUlaymī, Fatḥ al-Raḥmān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/104; al-Nakhjuwānī, al-Fawātiḥ al-Ilāhiyya wa-l-Mafātiḥ al-Ghaybiyya, 1/147; al-Luhaymīd, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 4/387; Mawdūdī, Towards Understanding the Qurʾān, section on 4:20-21, no page number in this copy; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 3/86, reporting it; al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn, 1/466, reporting it; al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn, 1/467, reporting it; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573, reporting it; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/452, reporting it; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/52, reporting it; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/215, reporting it; Muḥammad Maḥmūd Ḥijāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Wāḍiḥ, 1/351, reporting it; Ibn ʿAjība, al-Baḥr al-Madīd fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/483, reporting it; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/189, reporting it; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/95, reporting it; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/784, reporting it; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/160; al-Mukhtaṣar fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/81; al-Tafsīr al-Muyassar, 1/81. ↩
-
Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/483. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/377; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573, reporting it. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/491; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 5/226; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/378; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/189; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/304; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis, Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 248, reporting it. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/378, reporting it. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 5/227. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/378; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/189; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/304; Abū Bakr al-Jazāʾirī, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 1/453; Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth, 8/55; al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/769; Ṣuhayb ʿAbd al-Jabbār, al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ li-l-Sunan wa-l-Masānīd, 5/332. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/540; Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān, 1/365; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/908, reporting Saʿīd b. Jubayr; Sayyid Quṭb, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, 67; al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-Manthūr, 2/467, reporting it; Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/181, reporting it; Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 1/344, reporting it. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/45; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/483; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1624; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ, 2/30; al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 10/153; al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 10/154; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 2/1267; al-Baghawī, Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/588; Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 281; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Laṭīf al-Mannān fī Khulāṣat Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 162; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2086; ʿAbd Allāh al-Zayd, Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-Musammā bi-Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/171. ↩
-
Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/783; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/508; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān, 3/64. ↩
-
al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/290. ↩
-
Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/45; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl, 1/357; al-Suyūṭī, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, 103; al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/233; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/634; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267; al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/492, giving the ḥāl first of two analyses, the other a mafʿūl lahu; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102, making both words maṣdars in the place of a ḥāl without saying whose; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/29, also makes buhtān a maṣdar in the place of a ḥāl, but explains it in the singular, "bewildering, for its ugliness and the ugliness of what is said and done"; al-Thaʿālibī, al-Jawāhir al-Ḥisān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/196, likewise in the singular, "stunning": the words al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī gives for the other analysis, which makes the words describe the dower taken and not the takers. ↩
Q4. What does أَفْضَى بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ, "you have gone in unto each other", mean, and is the whole dower due after a valid khalwa?
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/541. ↩
-
Sayyid Sābiq, Fiqh al-Sunna, 2/581; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 15/350, quoting Sayyid Sābiq; al-Azharī, al-Zāhir fī Gharīb Alfāẓ al-Shāfiʿī, 29; Muḥammad Rawwās Qalʿajī, Muʿjam Lughat al-Fuqahāʾ, 81; Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Munʿim, Muʿjam al-Muṣṭalaḥāt wa-l-Alfāẓ al-Fiqhiyya, 1/251. ↩
-
Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/616; Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/617; al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn, 1/467; al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Tafsīr al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, 3/1156; al-Kiyā al-Harrāsī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/383; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; al-Suyūṭī, al-Iklīl fī Istinbāṭ al-Tanzīl, 85; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Ḥusn al-Uswa bi-mā Thabata min Allāh wa-Rasūlih fī al-Niswa, 76; al-Luhaymīd, Sharḥ Bulūgh al-Marām, 3/149. ↩
-
Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/908; Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 8/272; grading its isnād ṣaḥīḥ; Mujāhid, Tafsīr Mujāhid, 271; Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān, 1/365; al-Shāfiʿī, Tafsīr al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī, 2/564; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/541; Bakr b. al-ʿAlāʾ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/343; al-Qaṣṣāb, Nukat al-Qurʾān al-Dālla ʿalā al-Bayān fī Anwāʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-l-Aḥkām, 1/194; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ, 2/30; al-Samʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/410; al-Baghawī, Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/588; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/116; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; Ibn Juzayy, al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl, 1/184; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66; al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118, explaining al-Bayḍāwī; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/47; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/269; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/378; al-Suyūṭī, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, 103; al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-Munīr, 1/291; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/59; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/216; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Laṭīf al-Mannān fī Khulāṣat Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 162; al-Shanqīṭī, Aḍwāʾ al-Bayān, 1/244; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Majmūʿ Fatāwā wa-Rasāʾil al-ʿUthaymīn, 10/885; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/300; al-Albānī, Ādāb al-Zifāf fī al-Sunna al-Muṭahhara, 142; Abū Bakr al-Jazāʾirī, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 1/453; Abū Jaʿfar al-Tirmidhī, Juzʾ fīhi Tafsīr al-Qurʾān bi-Riwāyat Abī Jaʿfar al-Tirmidhī, 81, reporting it; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 2/565; Fayṣal Āl Mubārak, Tawfīq al-Raḥmān fī Durūs al-Qurʾān, 1/511, reporting it; Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAzīz, 1/356; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/47, reporting it; Ibn Nūr al-Dīn, Taysīr al-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/311; Ibn ʿAjība, al-Baḥr al-Madīd fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/484; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/30, reporting it; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/160; Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh, al-Tafsīr al-Maʾmūn ʿalā Manhaj al-Tanzīl wa-l-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masnūn, 2/209, reporting it; Mullā Ḥuwaysh, Bayān al-Maʿānī, 5/534; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/448; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/406, reporting it; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10; al-Barrāk, al-Taʿlīq wa-l-Īḍāḥ ʿalā Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, 388; al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 5/227; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/477; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl, 1/357, reporting it; al-Luhaymīd, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 4/387; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/28; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/508, reporting it; al-Tafsīr al-Muyassar, 1/81; al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 10/154; al-Thaʿālibī, al-Jawāhir al-Ḥisān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/196, reporting it; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/452, reporting it; al-Ījī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/342; al-ʿUlaymī, Fatḥ al-Raḥmān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/104; al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 3/246, reporting it; Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/182, reporting it; ʿAbd Allāh al-Zayd, Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-Musammā bi-Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/171; Asʿad Ḥawmad, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 514; Muḥammad Maḥmūd Ḥijāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Wāḍiḥ, 1/351; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān, 3/65, reporting it; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/782. ↩
-
al-Farrāʾ, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān, 1/259; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/291, reporting al-Kalbī; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 3/86; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/148; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/290; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/485; Bayān al-Ḥaqq al-Nīsābūrī, Ījāz al-Bayān ʿan Maʿānī al-Qurʾān, 1/232; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/473; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/46; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/159; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/52; al-Qudūrī, al-Tajrīd, 9/4709, citing ʿAlqama al-Faḥl's poetry for afḍā, "reached"; Ibn al-Khaṭīb, Awḍaḥ al-Tafāsīr, 1/95; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/183; Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/390; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1025; al-Fīrūzābādī, Tanwīr al-Miqbās, al-Kalbī's recension, 67; Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya, 9/297. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/148; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/290, reporting al-Farrāʾ. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/148; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/49; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/52. ↩
-
al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 2/199; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 3/86; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 8/400. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/541; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/908; Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 8/272; grading its isnād ṣaḥīḥ. ↩
-
Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/116. ↩
-
Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/116. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Majmūʿ Fatāwā wa-Rasāʾil al-ʿUthaymīn, 10/885. ↩
-
Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/116. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/269; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/378, reporting it. ↩
-
Khālid al-Mushayqiḥ, al-Mukhtaṣar fī al-Ankiḥa wa-l-Aṭʿima wa-l-Aymān wa-l-Nudhūr, 58, reporting Aḥmad. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/541; al-Samʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/410; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/116; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/269; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/59; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/378, reporting the tarjīḥ; Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal, al-Muʿjam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Muʾaṣṣal, 3/1683, deciding it from the context; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 2/1267, reporting it as the view of most scholars; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/404, reporting it from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما and most scholars; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14, reporting it as the view of most commentators. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/159; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/52; ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad, al-Kifāya fī al-Tafsīr bi-l-Maʾthūr wa-l-Dirāya, 7/84, quoting al-Qāsimī; Abū Yaʿlā, al-Taʿlīqa al-Kabīra, 3/365; al-Zarkashī al-Ḥanbalī, Sharḥ al-Zarkashī ʿalā Mukhtaṣar al-Khiraqī, 5/316; Maḥmūd Muḥammad Gharīb, al-Ṭalāq Taḥsabūnahu Hayyinan wa-Huwa ʿinda Allāh ʿAẓīm, 88; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/6440, quoting al-Saʿdī; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/7866, quoting al-Baghawī; Ḥusayn al-ʿAwāyisha, al-Mawsūʿa al-Fiqhiyya al-Muyassara fī Fiqh al-Kitāb wa-l-Sunna al-Muṭahhara, 5/154, quoting al-Saʿdī; Ibn ʿArafa, Tafsīr Ibn ʿArafa, 2/18; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290; Muḥammad Fārūq al-Zayn, Bayān al-Naẓm fī al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/323; Mawdūdī, Towards Understanding the Qurʾān, section on 4:20-21, no page number in this copy; al-Muntakhab fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 111; al-Nakhjuwānī, al-Fawātiḥ al-Ilāhiyya wa-l-Mafātiḥ al-Ghaybiyya, 1/147; Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, Taysīr al-Tafsīr, 1/279; ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/731; Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth, 8/55; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/189. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, 9/391; al-Rūyānī, Baḥr al-Madhhab, 9/378; Yāsīn Aḥmad Ibrāhīm Darādika, muḥaqqiq's note to Abū Bakr al-Shāshī, Ḥilyat al-ʿUlamāʾ fī Maʿrifat Madhāhib al-Fuqahāʾ, 6/442; Ibn ʿArafa, Tafsīr Ibn ʿArafa, 2/18. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, 5/121; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/469; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 2/357; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2085; Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 1/344, quoting al-Shanqīṭī; ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad, al-Kifāya fī al-Tafsīr bi-l-Maʾthūr wa-l-Dirāya, 7/85, quoting al-Shāfiʿī; ʿAṭiyya Sālim, Sharḥ Bulūgh al-Marām, 215/4; al-Kāsānī, Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ fī Tartīb al-Sharāʾiʿ, 2/295; Muḥammad al-Wāʾilī, Bughyat al-Muqtaṣid Sharḥ Bidāyat al-Mujtahid, 10/5706; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/5887; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/6440; Usāma Sulaymān, al-Taʿlīq ʿalā al-ʿUdda Sharḥ al-ʿUmda, 10/8; Fatāwā Dār al-Iftāʾ al-Miṣriyya, 9/483; al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/769; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 2/199; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, al-Rawḍa al-Nadiyya Sharḥ al-Durar al-Bahiyya, 2/59, quoting an unnamed source; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, al-Rawḍa al-Nadiyya, 2/268, quoting an unnamed source; Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 282; al-Mukhtaṣar fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/81; al-Shanqīṭī, Aḍwāʾ al-Bayān, 1/380; ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Darj al-Durar fī Tafsīr al-Āy wa-l-Suwar, 1/475. ↩
-
al-Qaṣṣāb, Nukat al-Qurʾān al-Dālla ʿalā al-Bayān fī Anwāʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-l-Aḥkām, 1/194. ↩
-
Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 3/48; Ibn Qāsim, Ḥāshiyat al-Rawḍ al-Murbiʿ, 6/380, relaying Ibn Rushd; al-Rajrājī, Manāhij al-Taḥṣīl wa-Natāʾij Laṭāʾif al-Taʾwīl fī Sharḥ al-Mudawwana wa-Ḥall Mushkilātihā, 3/468; Mawsūʿat al-Ijmāʿ fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī, 3/357, citing al-Nawawī, who reports agreement on consummation; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/59, reporting the agreement that intercourse settles the dower; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/98, reporting the same agreement. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/47; al-Kiyā al-Harrāsī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/383; Khālid al-Mushayqiḥ, al-Mukhtaṣar fī al-Ankiḥa wa-l-Aṭʿima wa-l-Aymān wa-l-Nudhūr, 58. ↩
-
Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, 9/351; Saʿd b. Nāṣir b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Abū Ḥabīb al-Shathrī, muḥaqqiq's note to Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, 9/351, grading it ṣaḥīḥ; al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth Manār al-Sabīl, 6/356, grading it sound from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/291, Zurāra b. Awfā's mursal report of the rightly guided caliphs; ʿUthmān al-Kummākhī, al-Muhayyaʾ fī Kashf Asrār al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, 3/24; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/433, reporting it from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه, ʿAlī رضي الله عنه, Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما, Muʿādh b. Jabal رضي الله عنه and Zayd b. Thābit رضي الله عنه; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/434; Ibn Ḥazm, al-Muḥallā bi-l-Āthār, 9/76, reporting it; al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, 2/113, reporting it; Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/249, reporting it; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/473, reporting it; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 8/400; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/148; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/473; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-Masīr, 1/386; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/52; al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, 2/112, relating Zayd b. Thābit رضي الله عنه's ruling for a khalwa after which the husband denies intercourse and she affirms it: her word is taken. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, Musnad al-Shāfiʿī, arranged by Muḥammad ʿĀbid al-Sindī, 2/9; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/437; Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/249; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/403, reporting al-Shāfiʿī; Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 3/48; Ḥusayn al-Maghribī, Qurrat al-ʿAyn bi-Fatāwā ʿUlamāʾ al-Ḥaramayn, 124; Ibn Ḥazm, al-Muḥallā bi-l-Āthār, 9/78; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/16; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/115; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 4/217; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/378; Muḥammad b. Ḥizām al-Baʿdānī, Fatḥ al-ʿAllām fī Dirāsat Aḥādīth Bulūgh al-Marām, 8/333. ↩
-
al-Shāfiʿī, Musnad al-Shāfiʿī, arranged by Muḥammad ʿĀbid al-Sindī, 2/9. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/437. ↩
-
Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 3/49. ↩
-
al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, 9/543. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 6/479; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 4/217; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/266. ↩
-
Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/115. ↩
-
Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/115. ↩
-
Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, 9/351; Saʿd b. Nāṣir b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Abū Ḥabīb al-Shathrī, muḥaqqiq's note to Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, 9/351, grading it ṣaḥīḥ; al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth Manār al-Sabīl, 6/356, grading it sound from ʿUmar رضي الله عنه and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه; Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī, Ḥadīth Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī, 64; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/291, Zurāra b. Awfā's report that the rightly guided caliphs judged the same; Abū Bakr al-Ḥaddād, Kashf al-Tanzīl fī Taḥqīq al-Mabāḥith wa-l-Taʾwīl, 2/211; al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth Manār al-Sabīl, 6/356, reporting al-Bayhaqī's verdict that it is mursal, since Zurāra did not meet them; ʿUthmān al-Kummākhī, al-Muhayyaʾ fī Kashf Asrār al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, 3/24, Zayd b. Thābit's ruling; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/434, Ibn ʿUmar's ruling. ↩
-
al-Buhūtī, Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, 3/21; al-Zaylaʿī, Tabyīn al-Ḥaqāʾiq Sharḥ Kanz al-Daqāʾiq wa-Ḥāshiyat al-Shilbī, 2/142. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/148; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/47; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/48. ↩
-
al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/52; al-ʿAynī, al-Bināya Sharḥ al-Hidāya, 5/149. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/47; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 2/199. ↩
-
al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, 2/112; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/52, relaying al-Jaṣṣāṣ; relaying al-Ṭaḥāwī; al-Zaylaʿī, Tabyīn al-Ḥaqāʾiq Sharḥ Kanz al-Daqāʾiq wa-Ḥāshiyat al-Shilbī, 2/142, relaying al-Jaṣṣāṣ; Mawsūʿat al-Ijmāʿ fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī, 3/360, citing Ibn al-Humām; Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/249; Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 3/49; Ibn al-Qaṭṭān, al-Iqnāʿ fī Masāʾil al-Ijmāʿ, 2/23, reporting the claim without naming who made it. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/437, citing Ibn Abī Shayba's report of Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه; Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/249, reporting Ibn al-Mundhir's verdict that it is munqaṭiʿ; al-Shāfiʿī, Musnad al-Shāfiʿī, arranged by Muḥammad ʿĀbid al-Sindī, 2/9; Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/249, reporting Aḥmad's criticism of its narrator Layth; Muḥammad b. Ḥizām al-Baʿdānī, Fatḥ al-ʿAllām fī Dirāsat Aḥādīth Bulūgh al-Marām, 8/333, grading it ḥasan; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/437. ↩
-
Kamāl b. al-Sayyid Sālim, Ṣaḥīḥ Fiqh al-Sunna wa-Adillatuh wa-Tawḍīḥ Madhāhib al-Aʾimma, 3/171; Kamāl b. al-Sayyid Sālim, Ṣaḥīḥ Fiqh al-Sunna wa-Adillatuh wa-Tawḍīḥ Madhāhib al-Aʾimma, 3/172. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/437. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/59. ↩
-
Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 3/48; Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, 3/49. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis, Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 248. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Istidhkār, 5/437; Muḥammad b. Ḥizām al-Baʿdānī, Fatḥ al-ʿAllām fī Dirāsat Aḥādīth Bulūgh al-Marām, 8/333; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/15, preferring the view that ifḍāʾ here is an allusion to intercourse; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/16, judging the half position the stronger from the doubt over the word in 4:21. ↩
-
Ibn Qudāma, al-Mughnī, 7/249, reporting Ibn al-Mundhir: the report from Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه is broken; reporting Aḥmad: Layth, who relates the report from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, is not strong, and Ḥanẓala, who is stronger, relates the opposite. ↩
-
Kamāl b. al-Sayyid Sālim, Ṣaḥīḥ Fiqh al-Sunna wa-Adillatuh wa-Tawḍīḥ Madhāhib al-Aʾimma, 3/172, grading Ibn Masʿūd's report broken; grading Ibn ʿAbbās's report weak, for Layth and for ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭalḥa's break; leaving open the case where the wife's own admission or a medical examination shows there was no intercourse. ↩
-
Muḥammad b. Ḥizām al-Baʿdānī, Fatḥ al-ʿAllām fī Dirāsat Aḥādīth Bulūgh al-Marām, 8/333: وهو ضعيفٌ، وله طريق أخرى عند البيهقي (٧/ ٢٥٥) من طريق علي بن أبي طلحة، عن ابن عباس، ولم يسمع منه "Layth is weak; and the report has another route in al-Bayhaqī (7/255), by way of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭalḥa from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, who did not hear from him."; the grade: وفي الإسناد إليه أبو صالح كاتب الليث، وفي ضعف، فالأثر عنه حسن "And in the isnād to him is Abū Ṣāliḥ, al-Layth's scribe, in whom there is weakness; so the report from him is ḥasan.". ↩
-
Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/473; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṭayyār, ʿAbd Allāh al-Muṭlaq and Muḥammad al-Mūsā, al-Fiqh al-Muyassar, 5/52; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/6693. ↩
-
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/148. ↩
-
al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, 9/540; al-Māwardī, al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr, 9/543, for Mālik's argument and al-Māwardī's answer. ↩
Q5. What is the مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا, "solemn covenant", and why are the wives said to take it?
-
Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān, 1/365, every ghalīẓ in the Qurʾān meaning firm; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/909, Abū Mālik; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/485; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/161. ↩
-
al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/492; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/16, reporting it as the third of three explanations; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/574, reporting al-Zamakhsharī; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/453; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/211; Ibrāhīm al-Qaṭṭān, Taysīr al-Tafsīr, 1/279; al-Makkī al-Nāṣirī, al-Taysīr fī Aḥādīth al-Tafsīr, 1/320; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/478. ↩
-
al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 2/989; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2089; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2090. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/161. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/161. ↩
-
Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/390; Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/391; al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/710. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/543; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/909; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 3/49; al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 10/154; al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʿUyūn, 1/467; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/404; al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Tafsīr al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, 3/1157; al-Baghawī, Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/589; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/30; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/103; Ibn Juzayy, al-Tashīl li-ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl, 1/184; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/574; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/47; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/269; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/378; al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-Manthūr, 2/467; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/510; Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/184; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Ḥusn al-Uswa bi-mā Thabata min Allāh wa-Rasūlih fī al-Niswa, 76; Abū Jaʿfar al-Tirmidhī, Juzʾ fīhi Tafsīr al-Qurʾān bi-Riwāyat Abī Jaʿfar al-Tirmidhī, 81; Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAzīz, 1/356; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-Masīr, 1/387; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/116; al-Sakhāwī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 1/173; al-Thaʿālibī, al-Jawāhir al-Ḥisān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/196; Fayṣal Āl Mubārak, Tawfīq al-Raḥmān fī Durūs al-Qurʾān, 1/511; Ibn al-Khaṭīb, Awḍaḥ al-Tafāsīr, 1/95; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 28/13; ʿAbd Allāh al-Zayd, Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-Musammā bi-Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/171. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 4/134, Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما by ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurāsānī; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/909, Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما by Ḥabīb b. Abī Thābit; Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/617, Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما; Ibn ʿUmar's words when he gave a woman in marriage; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/544, al-Ḥasan and Ibn Sīrīn; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/543, al-Ḍaḥḥāk; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/542, Qatāda; ʿAbd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr ʿAbd al-Razzāq, 1/444, Qatāda by Maʿmar; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/544, al-Suddī; Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān, 1/365; al-Farrāʾ, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān, 1/259; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/542; al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/291; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Hidāya ilā Bulūgh al-Nihāya, 2/1268, giving it as the view of the jurists generally; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wajīz, 258; al-Samʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/410; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/485; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66, as one of three explanations he gives; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Suyūṭī, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, 103; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/46; al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-Munīr, 1/291; al-Fīrūzābādī, Tanwīr al-Miqbās, al-Kalbī's recension, 67; Mullā Ḥuwaysh, Bayān al-Maʿānī, 5/534; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1625; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/96; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1025; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/300; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/784; Abū Bakr al-Jazāʾirī, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 1/453; Asʿad Ḥawmad, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 514; al-Tafsīr al-Muyassar, 1/81; Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 230; ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad, al-Kifāya fī al-Tafsīr bi-l-Maʾthūr wa-l-Dirāya, 7/84; Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 2/23. ↩
-
Mujāhid, Tafsīr Mujāhid, 271; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/544, Mujāhid; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/908, Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, the husband's word "malaktu"; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/545, Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al-Quraẓī; Ibn Zayd; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-Taʾwīl fī Maʿānī al-Tanzīl, 1/357; al-Suyūṭī, al-Iklīl fī Istinbāṭ al-Tanzīl, 86; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/508; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān, 3/65; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Ḥusn al-Uswa bi-mā Thabata min Allāh wa-Rasūlih fī al-Niswa, 76; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, 173; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 2/989; Sayyid Quṭb, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, 67; Mawdūdī, Towards Understanding the Qurʾān, section on 4:20-21, no page number in this copy; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/161; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/96; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 1/300; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/406; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/445; al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/710; Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/390; al-Luhaymīd, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 4/388; Mullā Ḥuwaysh, Bayān al-Maʿānī, 5/534; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 2/165; Bayān al-Ḥaqq al-Nīsābūrī, Ījāz al-Bayān ʿan Maʿānī al-Qurʾān, 1/233; Abū Bakr al-Ḥaddād, Kashf al-Tanzīl fī Taḥqīq al-Mabāḥith wa-l-Taʾwīl, 2/211; al-Muntakhab fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 111. Mujāhid’s interpretation is transmitted through Ibn Abī Najīḥ in Tafsīr Mujāhid and al-Ṭabarī; al-Ṭabarī also records it through Abū Hāshim al-Makkī and Sālim al-Afṭas (6/545). Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s isnad for Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما runs through his father, ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿImrān al-Asadī, Yaḥyā b. Yamān, Sufyān and Ḥabīb b. Abī Thābit. Al-Ṭabarī transmits Muḥammad b. Kaʿb’s explanation through Ibn Ḥumayd, Ḥakkām and ʿAnbasa, and Ibn Zayd’s through Yūnus and Ibn Wahb. No grade accompanies these asanid in the cited passages. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/546, ʿIkrima; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/909, ʿIkrima and Mujāhid; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/546, al-Rabīʿ b. Anas; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/909, al-Rabīʿ b. Anas; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ, 2/30, Abū al-ʿĀliya; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66, as one of three explanations he gives; Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh, al-Tafsīr al-Maʾmūn ʿalā Manhaj al-Tanzīl wa-l-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masnūn, 2/210; al-Mukhtaṣar fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/81. ↩
-
al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/492; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/16; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66, giving it first of the three explanations he gives; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/159; al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/183; al-ʿUlaymī, Fatḥ al-Raḥmān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/105; Muḥammad Maḥmūd Ḥijāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Wāḍiḥ, 1/353; Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya, 9/297; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/304; al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 5/227. ↩
-
al-Wāḥidī, al-Wajīz, 258. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/542. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/542; Qatāda; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ, 2/30, reporting the words at the contract as the view of most commentators. ↩
-
Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/617; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Ḥusn al-Uswa bi-mā Thabata min Allāh wa-Rasūlih fī al-Niswa, 76. ↩
-
Mujāhid, Tafsīr Mujāhid, 271; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/544; Mujāhid; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/545, Mujāhid, the groom's word "nakaḥtu". ↩
-
al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Laṭīf al-Mannān fī Khulāṣat Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 162; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/96; Ḥusayn al-ʿAwāyisha, al-Mawsūʿa al-Fiqhiyya al-Muyassara fī Fiqh al-Kitāb wa-l-Sunna al-Muṭahhara, 5/154, quoting al-Saʿdī. ↩
-
al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/291; Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290; Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1025; Abū Bakr al-Jazāʾirī, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 1/454; Fatāwā al-Shabaka al-Islāmiyya, 13/12172, which has each spouse take the covenant from the other by the contract; al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Tafsīr al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, 3/1158, allowing that every one of these explanations is meant; al-Ījī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/342; Ibn ʿAjība, al-Baḥr al-Madīd fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/484. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/545; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/546, ʿIkrima; al-Rabīʿ b. Anas; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/909, ʿIkrima and Mujāhid; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ, 2/30, Abū al-ʿĀliya. ↩
-
Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, 2/886–889, Jābir رضي الله عنه, no. 1218, in the hadith of the Prophet's ﷺ pilgrimage; Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh, al-Tafsīr al-Maʾmūn ʿalā Manhaj al-Tanzīl wa-l-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masnūn, 2/210, grading it ṣaḥīḥ; Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1/473, who calls it established from Jābir رضي الله عنه. ↩
-
al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 8/183; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, ed. Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, 2/182–185, with the wording "Allah's trust", no. 1905. ↩
-
al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 8/183, naming al-Khaṭṭābī and al-Harawī; al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, Ikmāl al-Muʿlim bi-Fawāʾid Muslim, 4/277, reporting al-Māzarī. ↩
-
al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118; al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 8/183; Nāṣiḥ al-Dīn Ibn al-Ḥanbalī, Istikhrāj al-Jidāl min al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 117; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/448. ↩
-
al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, Ikmāl al-Muʿlim bi-Fawāʾid Muslim, 4/277, reporting al-Māzarī; al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 8/183. ↩
-
al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, Ikmāl al-Muʿlim bi-Fawāʾid Muslim, 4/277, reporting Bakr al-Qushayrī; al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 8/183. ↩
-
al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/492; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/574; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/270; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/451; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/28; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/16, giving the taking by the going in as one of three explanations, without the wording of companionship. ↩
-
al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/492; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/574, reporting al-Zamakhsharī; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/57, quoting al-Zamakhsharī. ↩
-
al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/451, quoting al-Khafājī; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/57, quoting al-Khafājī. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/546; Musāʿid b. Sulaymān al-Ṭayyār, muḥaqqiq's note to Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/187, reporting that his preference is based on the literal sense of the Qurʾān. ↩
-
al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/492; al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118, giving the covenant as a figure for that right, and the taking as a figure on the pledge explanation. ↩
-
Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh, al-Tafsīr al-Maʾmūn ʿalā Manhaj al-Tanzīl wa-l-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masnūn, 2/210. ↩
-
al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 8/183. ↩
-
al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118, explaining "Allah's trust" in the hadith. ↩
-
al-Zajjāj, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān wa-Iʿrābuh, 2/32; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/405, reporting al-Zajjāj; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/16; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/378; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/96; Majmaʿ al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyya, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ li-l-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 2/784; Abū Bakr al-Jazāʾirī, Aysar al-Tafāsīr, 1/454. ↩
-
Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 282; al-Qushayrī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt, 1/323; Ibn ʿArafa, Tafsīr Ibn ʿArafa, 2/18; Darwaza, al-Tafsīr al-Ḥadīth, 8/55; al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2087, grounding the ban in the intimacy, whose price the dower is, while the covenant obliges kindness. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/160; raising the plural pronoun after "a wife" and "one of them"; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/161, answering that it is plural because a kind is meant. ↩
-
Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/485; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/46; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/53; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis, Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 248. ↩
-
Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān, 3/65; Nawawī al-Jāwī, Marāḥ Labīd li-Kashf Maʿnā al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/190; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/96, reporting it from an unnamed scholar; naming al-Jamal's Ḥāshiya on al-Jalālayn as its source. ↩
-
al-Samarqandī, Baḥr al-ʿUlūm, 1/291. ↩
-
al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/710. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/377, reporting ʿAbduh; Mawdūdī, Towards Understanding the Qurʾān, section on 4:20-21, no page number in this copy. ↩
-
al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118, explaining the covenant as a figure on the companionship explanation; explaining why the taking is ascribed to the wives. ↩
-
ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/731. ↩
How the Commentators Read This Verse
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Ṣafwat al-Tafāsīr, 1/243. ↩
-
al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/218. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/30; Ibn al-Faras, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/117, reporting it with no one named; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/103, reporting it with no one named; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 1/508; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān, 3/65; Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Ḥusn al-Uswa bi-mā Thabata min Allāh wa-Rasūlih fī al-Niswa, 76; al-Luhaymīd, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 4/388, reporting it from al-Qurṭubī. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/574. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 25/159. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 25/159. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376, asking whether the one who gave may cut that tie. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376, citing the poetry of an unnamed poet. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/377, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/216, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh; Muḥammad al-Wāʾilī, Bughyat al-Muqtaṣid Sharḥ Bidāyat al-Mujtahid, 10/5707, joining 4:21 to 30:21. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/377, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh. ↩
-
al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/216, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/478, quoting al-Marāghī. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/377, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/479, quoting al-Marāghī. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/377, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr al-Marāghī, 4/216, reporting Muḥammad ʿAbduh. ↩
-
al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/478, reporting the view that the covenant is the affection and mercy of 30:21. ↩
-
ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/731; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/377, reporting the same explanation with no one named. ↩
-
ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī li-l-Qurʾān, 2/731. ↩
-
Saʿīd Ḥawwā, al-Asās fī al-Tafsīr, 2/1265. ↩
Iʿrāb: Grammatical Analysis
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/472, for the first three words, whose analysis in Dār al-Ṣaḥāba is lost between 1/376 and 1/377, where 1/377 refers back to it; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189; Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/472; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/486. ↩
-
Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1623; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/94. ↩
-
Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/389. ↩
-
Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān li-l-Daʿʿās, 1/190; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/487. ↩
-
Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/487. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Kharrāṭ, al-Mujtabā min Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/169; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/472; Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān li-l-Daʿʿās, 1/190; al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/341; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/632. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/472; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/472; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/159. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/472; Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/389. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/159. ↩
-
al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/233; al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/234; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377. ↩
-
al-Naḥḥās, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/206; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/406; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189, taking the wāw as a conjunction; Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān li-l-Daʿʿās, 1/190; Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Kharrāṭ, al-Mujtabā min Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/169; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/30. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/342; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/487. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473; Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/390. ↩
-
al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/234; Muḥammad Niẓām al-Dīn al-Futayyiḥ, muḥaqqiq's note to al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/234. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; al-Wāḥidī, al-Wajīz, 258; al-Ījī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/342. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/406; Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/390. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/474. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377. ↩
-
Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/487. ↩
-
Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān li-l-Daʿʿās, 1/190. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/487. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473; Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān li-l-Daʿʿās, 1/190; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473; Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Kharrāṭ, al-Mujtabā min Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/169. ↩
-
Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Kharrāṭ, al-Mujtabā min Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/169; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/488. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/474; Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān li-l-Daʿʿās, 1/190; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/488; al-Naḥḥās, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/206; al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/342. ↩
-
Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Kharrāṭ, al-Mujtabā min Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/170; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/406; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/452; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/159; al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/234. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/634; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/268. ↩
-
Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/46. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/474; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/488; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/477. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/635; al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/234; al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/343. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/574. ↩
-
al-Naḥḥās, al-Qaṭʿ wa-l-Iʾtināf, 163; Ibn al-Anbārī, Īḍāḥ al-Waqf wa-l-Ibtidāʾ, 2/595; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/361. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/571. ↩
-
al-Suyūṭī, ʿUqūd al-Zabarjad ʿalā Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad, 1/194. ↩
-
Ibn ʿArafa, Tafsīr Ibn ʿArafa, 2/17; al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118, naming the word the pronoun returns to. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/632; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/263; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/571; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/452; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/158; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/183; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/57; Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/45; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/50; al-Biqāʿī, Naẓm al-Durar, 5/226; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/94; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/27. ↩
-
al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118. ↩
-
al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/342; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/633; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/264. ↩
-
al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/342; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/634; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/264. ↩
-
al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/342; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/634; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/264. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/633; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/634; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/264. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/632; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/633; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/263; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/633. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/50; al-Nakhjuwānī, al-Fawātiḥ al-Ilāhiyya wa-l-Mafātiḥ al-Ghaybiyya, 1/147; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/632. ↩
-
al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Laṭīf al-Mannān fī Khulāṣat Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 162; al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, 173. ↩
-
al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 4/484, quoting Ibn al-Munayyir's al-Intiṣāf; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 3/59, quoting al-Intiṣāf. ↩
-
al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/452; Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/159; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/95; al-Suyūṭī, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, 103; Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Kharrāṭ, al-Mujtabā min Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/169; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/377. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/571. ↩
-
Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān li-l-Daʿʿās, 1/190. ↩
-
Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-Bayān fī Maqāṣid al-Qurʾān, 3/63. ↩
-
Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/94. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/159. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/159. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/159. ↩
-
al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/487; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/633; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/263; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572; al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/233; ʿAbd Allāh al-Zayd, Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-Musammā bi-Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/171; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66; al-Nasafī, Madārik al-Tanzīl wa-Ḥaqāʾiq al-Taʾwīl, 1/344; al-Ījī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/342. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; al-Zajjāj, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān wa-Iʿrābuh, 2/31; al-Naḥḥās, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/206; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/492; Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAzīz, 1/356; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/401; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-Masīr, 1/386; Makkī b. Abī Ṭālib, Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/194; al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/342; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/377; al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 4/485; Ibn ʿAjība, al-Baḥr al-Madīd fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 1/483; Ismāʿīl Ḥaqqī, Rūḥ al-Bayān, 2/183; Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya, 9/296; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/299; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/487; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/472; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189; Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān li-l-Daʿʿās, 1/190. ↩
-
Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Kharrāṭ, al-Mujtabā min Mushkil Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/169; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/487; al-Maẓharī, al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī, 2ق2/52; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/377; al-Baghawī, Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/588; Abū Ḥafṣ al-Nasafī, al-Taysīr fī l-Tafsīr, 4/483. ↩
-
al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharāʾib al-Qurʾān wa-Raghāʾib al-Furqān, 2/377; al-ʿUlaymī, Fatḥ al-Raḥmān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 2/104; ʿAbd Allāh al-Zayd, Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-Musammā bi-Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/171. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/634; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/634; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/29; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573. ↩
-
Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/95; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1624; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/452; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/450. ↩
-
al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/492; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/634; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/267; al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 10/14; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-Tanzīl wa-Asrār al-Taʾwīl, 2/66. ↩
-
Ibn Kamāl Pāshā, Tafsīr Ibn Kamāl Bāshā, 3/46. ↩
-
al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/233; al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/234. ↩
-
al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/452. ↩
-
Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/95; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1624. ↩
-
al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/452. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/635; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/269. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/635; al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/343; al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/234; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/406. ↩
Ṣarf: Roots and Morphology
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473; Aḥmad Mukhtār ʿUmar, Muʿjam al-Lugha al-ʿArabiyya al-Muʿāṣira, 1/172. ↩
-
Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/389. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473. ↩
-
al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, ʿUmdat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 1/70. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/473; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/634; al-ʿUkbarī, al-Tibyān fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 1/342. ↩
-
Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/474; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/635; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/553. ↩
-
Aḥmad Mukhtār ʿUmar, Muʿjam al-Lugha al-ʿArabiyya al-Muʿāṣira, 3. ↩
-
ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm al-Maṭʿanī, Khaṣāʾiṣ al-Taʿbīr al-Qurʾānī wa-Simātuh al-Balāghiyya, 2/352. ↩
-
Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/618; Abū ʿUbayda, Majāz al-Qurʾān, 1/120. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290; Aḥmad Mukhtār ʿUmar, Muʿjam al-Lugha al-ʿArabiyya al-Muʿāṣira, 2/1634; al-Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir Dhawī al-Tamyīz, 4/146. ↩
-
Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 1/210. ↩
-
Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 1/210; ʿAbd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn, muḥaqqiq's note to Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 1/210. ↩
-
Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī, al-Ḥujja li-l-Qurrāʾ al-Sabʿa, 5/164; Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī, al-Ḥujja li-l-Qurrāʾ al-Sabʿa, 5/165. ↩
-
Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī, al-Ḥujja li-l-Qurrāʾ al-Sabʿa, 5/165; Badr al-Dīn Qahwajī and Bashīr Juwayjābī, muḥaqqiq's note to Abū ʿAlī al-Fārisī, al-Ḥujja li-l-Qurrāʾ al-Sabʿa, 5/165. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/288. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 2/292. ↩
-
Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal, al-Muʿjam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Muʾaṣṣal, 2/878. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 2/292; Īmān Kurdī, al-Kāshif li-Daqāʾiq al-Mufradāt al-Qurʾāniyya, 165; Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Munʿim, Muʿjam al-Muṣṭalaḥāt wa-l-Alfāẓ al-Fiqhiyya, 2/217; al-Samʿānī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, 1/410. ↩
-
Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿArūs min Jawāhir al-Qāmūs, 6/21; Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿAbd al-Munʿim, Muʿjam al-Muṣṭalaḥāt wa-l-Alfāẓ al-Fiqhiyya, 2/217; al-Muṭarrizī, al-Mughrib, 1/374; ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Mukhtār and Maḥmūd Fākhūrī, muḥaqqiq's note to al-Muṭarrizī, al-Mughrib, 1/374; Abū Uways Ashraf al-Kurdī, Silsilat al-Fawāʾid al-Ḥadīthiyya wa-l-Fiqhiyya, 9/476; Maḥmūd Muḥammad Gharīb, Laṭāʾif Qurʾāniyya, 2. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 2/292; Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ithyūbī, Dhakhīrat al-ʿUqbā fī Sharḥ al-Mujtabā, 4/411. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 2/292; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/404. ↩
-
Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿArūs min Jawāhir al-Qāmūs, 6/21; al-Azharī, Tahdhīb al-Lugha, 11/104; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 2/292. ↩
-
Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿArūs min Jawāhir al-Qāmūs, 6/21; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/404. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 2/292; Murtaḍā al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʿArūs min Jawāhir al-Qāmūs, 6/21; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/404. ↩
-
Abū Uways Ashraf al-Kurdī, Silsilat al-Fawāʾid al-Ḥadīthiyya wa-l-Fiqhiyya, 9/476; Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 4/10. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/404; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 4/30; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 1/409; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1623; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/94; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/188; al-Muntajab al-Hamadhānī, al-Kitāb al-Farīd fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/233. ↩
-
Abū ʿUbayd al-Harawī, al-Gharībayn fī al-Qurʾān wa-l-Ḥadīth, 5/1587. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 4/30; al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 4/485; al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 4/484; Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1623; an unsigned note in the Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī edition of Abū Zahra, Zahrat al-Tafāsīr, 3/1623; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/491; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/188. ↩
-
al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt, 677. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 5/119; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 1/409. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 5/119. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 1/409; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 4/31; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 5/119. ↩
-
al-Shaʿrāwī, Tafsīr al-Shaʿrāwī, 4/2085; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/27. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/489. ↩
-
Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 1/307; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, ʿUmdat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 1/236; al-Khafājī, Ḥāshiyat al-Shihāb ʿalā Tafsīr al-Bayḍāwī, 3/118; al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt, 148. ↩
-
al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/489. ↩
-
Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal, al-Muʿjam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Muʾaṣṣal, 1/186; Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal, al-Muʿjam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Muʾaṣṣal, 1/185. ↩
-
Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/188. ↩
-
Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/188. ↩
-
Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 1/60. ↩
-
Ṣafwān Dāwūdī, muḥaqqiq's note to al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt, 63. ↩
-
al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt, 63. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis, Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 247; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/268; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/489; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/95. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 15/157. ↩
-
Muḥammad Rawwās Qalʿajī, Muʿjam Lughat al-Fuqahāʾ, 81. ↩
-
Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal, al-Muʿjam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Muʾaṣṣal, 3/1682. ↩
-
al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/541. ↩
-
ʿAbd Allāh Khiḍr Ḥamad, al-Kifāya fī al-Tafsīr bi-l-Maʾthūr wa-l-Dirāya, 7/85; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/541, the gap and al-Tibyān in ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Turkī's notes; al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/402; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/30. ↩
-
Muḥammad b. Ḥamad al-Muḥaymīd, muḥaqqiq's note to al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/402, citing the Dīwān, 127, and Shākir's edition of al-Ṭabarī, 8/125. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 15/157. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/102; al-Naḥḥās, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān, 2/49; Ṭanṭāwī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 3/95. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 15/157; Ibn Sīda, al-Muḥkam wa-l-Muḥīṭ al-Aʿẓam, 8/251. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 3/303; al-Ṭībī, Futūḥ al-Ghayb fī al-Kashf ʿan Qināʿ al-Rayb, 3/246, quoting al-Zamakhsharī's al-Kashshāf; al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-Taʾwīl, 2/42; Ibn Badrān, Jawāhir al-Afkār wa-Maʿādin al-Asrār al-Mustakhraja min Kalām al-ʿAzīz al-Jabbār, 514; Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, attributed to al-Bāqūlī, 2/616. ↩
-
Ibn Fāris, Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 6/85. ↩
-
al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt, 853; al-Zamakhsharī, Asās al-Balāgha, 2/319. ↩
-
Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal, al-Muʿjam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Muʾaṣṣal, 1/242; Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal, al-Muʿjam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Muʾaṣṣal, 1/243. ↩
-
Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal, al-Muʿjam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Muʾaṣṣal, 1/243. ↩
-
al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, al-Mufradāt, 853. ↩
-
Ḥasan ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Jamal, Muʿjam wa-Tafsīr Lughawī li-Kalimāt al-Qurʾān, 5/191. ↩
-
Muṣṭafā al-ʿAdawī, Silsilat al-Tafsīr, 28/13. ↩
-
Ibn Qutayba, Gharīb al-Qurʾān, 123. ↩
-
al-Zamakhsharī, Asās al-Balāgha, 2/319. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 7/449; Ibn Sīda, al-Muḥkam wa-l-Muḥīṭ al-Aʿẓam, 5/478. ↩
-
Muḥammad Ḥasan Jabal, al-Muʿjam al-Ishtiqāqī al-Muʾaṣṣal, 3/1602. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/290. ↩
Balāghah: Rhetorical Analysis
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/606; Yāsīn Jāsim al-Muḥaymīd, al-Iʿrāb al-Muḥīṭ min Tafsīr al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/257, reproducing it; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/490. ↩
-
al-Basīlī, Nukat wa-Tanbīhāt fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Majīd, 2/159. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289. ↩
-
al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/491; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/606; Yāsīn Jāsim al-Muḥaymīd, al-Iʿrāb al-Muḥīṭ min Tafsīr al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/257, reproducing it; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Ṣafwat al-Tafāsīr, 1/244, calling it hyperbole that makes the matter great; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/299, calling it hyperbole that makes the gift great, the dower being purely hers. ↩
-
al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/29; al-Muqaddim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 31/27. ↩
-
Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/289. ↩
-
Dār al-Ṣaḥāba, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 1/377; Maḥmūd Ṣāfī, al-Jadwal fī Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān, 2/472; Muḥyī al-Dīn Darwīsh, Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān wa-Bayānuh, 2/189; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Ṣafwat al-Tafāsīr, 1/244; Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 281; al-Ṭarīfī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-Bayān li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/769. ↩
-
Muḥammad al-Hilāl, al-Tharī al-Jāmiʿ, 2/390. ↩
-
Abū Bakr b. Muḥammad Fawzī, al-Ḥikam min al-Muʿāmalāt wa-l-Mawārīth wa-l-Nikāḥ wa-l-Aṭʿima fī Āyāt al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, 281; Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/160; Muḥammad ʿAlī Ṭāhā al-Durra, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm wa-Iʿrābuh wa-Bayānuh, 2/405; al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/299, calling it a question of rebuke and rejection; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sāyis, Tafsīr Āyāt al-Aḥkām, 248; Nawāl al-ʿĪd, Ḥuqūq al-Marʾa fī Ḍawʾ al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya, 572. ↩
-
ʿAbd Allāh al-Zayd, Mukhtaṣar Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-Musammā bi-Maʿālim al-Tanzīl, 1/171. ↩
-
al-ʿIzz b. ʿAbd al-Salām, al-Imām fī Bayān Adillat al-Aḥkām, 134. ↩
-
Ḥasan ʿIzz al-Dīn al-Jamal, Muʿjam wa-Tafsīr Lughawī li-Kalimāt al-Qurʾān, 4/126. ↩
-
Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/164. ↩
-
Ibn Abī al-Iṣbaʿ, Taḥrīr al-Taḥbīr, 143. ↩
-
Ibn al-Hāʾim, al-Tibyān fī Tafsīr Gharīb al-Qurʾān, 137; Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Ṣafwat al-Tafāsīr, 1/244. ↩
-
Maʾmūn Ḥammūsh, al-Tafsīr al-Maʾmūn ʿalā Manhaj al-Tanzīl wa-l-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masnūn, 2/209. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/451; Muḥammad Rawwās Qalʿajī, Muʿjam Lughat al-Fuqahāʾ, 21. ↩
-
Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Ṣābūnī, Rawāʾiʿ al-Bayān, 1/451; Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/376. ↩
-
al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 1/238; al-Nawawī, al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, 1/351; Ṣuhayb ʿAbd al-Jabbār, al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaḥīḥ li-l-Sunan wa-l-Masānīd, 1/73; Muḥammad al-Wāʾilī, Bughyat al-Muqtaṣid Sharḥ Bidāyat al-Mujtahid, 1/127. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/606; Yāsīn Jāsim al-Muḥaymīd, al-Iʿrāb al-Muḥīṭ min Tafsīr al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/257, reproducing it; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/491. ↩
-
al-Zuḥaylī, al-Tafsīr al-Munīr, 4/299; al-Naḥḥās, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān, 2/49, making the pledge to keep her or let her go, which he reports from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما and al-Ḥasan, the equal of a sworn covenant, figuratively. ↩
-
Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, 7/449. ↩
-
ʿAbd al-Salām al-Rāghib, Waẓīfat al-Ṣūra al-Fanniyya fī al-Qurʾān, 135. ↩
Qirāʾāt: Variant Readings
-
Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/248; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/249. ↩
-
al-Qāḍī, al-Budūr al-Zāhira fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr al-Mutawātira, 1/77; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/339; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/346; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/49. ↩
-
al-Qāḍī, al-Budūr al-Zāhira fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr al-Mutawātira, 1/78. ↩
-
al-Qāḍī, al-Budūr al-Zāhira fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr al-Mutawātira, 1/78; Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Sālim, Farīdat al-Dahr fī Taʾṣīl wa-Jamʿ al-Qirāʾāt, 2/477, where al-Dūrī from Abū ʿAmr has fatḥ or taqlīl. ↩
-
Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/390; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/391; Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Sālim, Farīdat al-Dahr fī Taʾṣīl wa-Jamʿ al-Qirāʾāt, 2/477, for al-Dūrī's taḥqīq or ibdāl. ↩
-
Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Sālim, Farīdat al-Dahr fī Taʾṣīl wa-Jamʿ al-Qirāʾāt, 2/478. ↩
-
al-Qāḍī, al-Budūr al-Zāhira fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr al-Mutawātira, 1/77; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/22. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/29; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/263; Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya, 5/170; Ibn Jinnī, al-Muḥtasab, 1/184; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/633. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/29; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573; Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya, 5/170; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/476; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/248. ↩
-
Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/615; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 3/85; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 2/244; al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-Manthūr, 2/466; al-Suyūṭī, al-Iklīl fī Istinbāṭ al-Tanzīl, 85; Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/180. ↩
-
Ibn al-Mundhir, Tafsīr Ibn al-Mundhir, 2/615; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 2/244; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/46; Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/180. ↩
-
Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/29; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/263, giving the qirāʾa and the like one at 74:35; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/633; Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya, 5/170, naming Ibn Muḥayṣin as its reader. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/263; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/633. ↩
-
Ibn Jinnī, al-Muḥtasab, 1/184. ↩
-
al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/101; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/29; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/572; Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/264; Ibn Jinnī, al-Muḥtasab, 1/184; al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/633. ↩
-
Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/573; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, 2/29, naming Abū al-Sammāl and Abū Jaʿfar as its readers; Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, al-Mawsūʿa al-Qurʾāniyya, 5/170; al-Hararī, Ḥadāʾiq al-Rawḥ wa-l-Rayḥān, 5/476. ↩
-
Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/248; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/249. ↩
-
Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/405. ↩
-
Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/413. ↩
-
Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/433; Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Sālim, Farīdat al-Dahr fī Taʾṣīl wa-Jamʿ al-Qirāʾāt, 2/477. ↩
-
Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/46; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 2/244; al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-Manthūr, 2/466; al-Māturīdī, Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunna, 3/85. ↩
-
Musāʿid b. Sulaymān al-Ṭayyār, muḥaqqiq's note to Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/180; Mawsūʿat al-Tafsīr al-Maʾthūr, 6/180. ↩
-
Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/339; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/346; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/49. ↩
-
al-Qāḍī, al-Budūr al-Zāhira fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr al-Mutawātira, 1/77; al-Qāḍī, Sharḥ al-Naẓm al-Jāmiʿ li-Qirāʾat al-Imām Nāfiʿ, 61. ↩
-
Ḥalīma Sāl, Riwāyatā Warsh wa-Ḥafṣ: Dirāsa Taḥlīliyya Muqārana, 150, citing al-Qāḍī, Sharḥ al-Naẓm al-Jāmiʿ li-Qirāʾat al-Imām Nāfiʿ, 61, and al-Miṣrī, al-Istabraq fī Riwāyat Warsh ʿan Nāfiʿ min Ṭarīq al-Azraq, 93. ↩
-
al-Qāḍī, al-Budūr al-Zāhira fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr al-Mutawātira, 1/5. ↩
-
Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Sālim, Farīdat al-Dahr fī Taʾṣīl wa-Jamʿ al-Qirāʾāt, 2/478; Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Sālim, Farīdat al-Dahr fī Taʾṣīl wa-Jamʿ al-Qirāʾāt, 1/3, where he gives his book as the ten gathered from the Ṭayyiba. ↩
-
Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 1/273; Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Sālim, Farīdat al-Dahr fī Taʾṣīl wa-Jamʿ al-Qirāʾāt, 2/478. ↩
-
al-Qāḍī, al-Budūr al-Zāhira fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr al-Mutawātira, 1/77; Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/22. ↩
-
al-Biqāʿī, Maṣāʿid al-Naẓar li-l-Ishrāf ʿalā Maqāṣid al-Suwar, 2/87; al-Qasṭallānī, Laṭāʾif al-Ishārāt li-Funūn al-Qirāʾāt, 4/6. ↩