Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, Verse 3

Qurʾān 4:3. The English translation is adapted from Saheeh International. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 7/8, no. 5092, “The suitability of spouses in wealth and the marriage of a poor man to a wealthy woman.” ʿUrwah reports ʿĀʾishah’s explanation through al-Zuhrī, ʿUqayl and al-Layth. She explains that the guardian desired the orphan girl’s beauty and wealth but wanted to reduce her dowry. Such guardians were forbidden to marry their wards unless they gave them complete justice, and they were directed to marry other women. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/367. He records ʿĀʾishah’s explanation through Hishām ibn ʿUrwah from his father. Her report concerns an orphan girl whose guardian wished to marry her for her property and might then harm her or treat her badly. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/223. He describes ʿĀʾishah’s account as ⁧أَحْسَنُ تَفْسِيرٍ لِهَذِهِ الْآيَةِ⁩, “the best interpretation of this verse.” He explains that she spoke from direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding its revelation. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/358. When introducing the orphan-girl interpretation, al-Ṭabarī paraphrases the address as directed to “the guardians of the orphan girls” who fear failing to give them just dowries. This is his presentation of that position, although he ultimately prefers another interpretation. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/17. He rejects interpreting “two, three and four” as nine or eighteen and calls such readings contrary to Arabic, the Sunnah and إِجْمَاعِ الْأُمَّةِ, “the consensus of the Ummah.” He adds that no Companion or Successor was known to have kept more than four wives at one time. He separately identifies the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four as a ruling particular to him. Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He explains that the conjunction وَ allows different men to choose different permitted numbers, or the same number, while everything beyond four remains prohibited. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/367. He prefers the interpretation that compares fear of injustice toward orphans with fear of injustice toward women. A man should marry only the number of women, from one to four, whom he does not fear wronging. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/489. He explains the accusative فَوَاحِدَةً through an omitted command: “then keep to one” or “choose one.” He explains the nominative reading as “then one is sufficient” or “one is enough for you.” Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/376. He explains أَلَّا تَعُولُوا as أَلَّا تَجُورُوا وَلَا تَمِيلُوا, “that you do not act unjustly and do not incline.” He also distinguishes this from عَالَ يَعِيلُ, which means to become poor. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 7/8, no. 5092, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/223. He describes ʿĀʾishah’s account as ⁧أَحْسَنُ تَفْسِيرٍ لِهَذِهِ الْآيَةِ⁩, “the best interpretation of this verse.” He explains that she spoke from direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding its revelation. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/365. He records from Ibn ʿAbbās that men in the Jāhiliyya married as many as ten women while showing great caution concerning the property of orphans. The route is al-Muthannā, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ, from Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, from Ibn ʿAbbās. Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn grades the two isnāds recorded by al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim through ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah as ḥasan (al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 2/6). This judgment concerns that explanation and those isnāds. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/365. Al-Ḍaḥḥāk says that people in the Jāhiliyya avoided taking an orphan’s property, yet married as many as ten women and also married women who had been their fathers’ wives. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/223. He records from Ibn ʿAbbās, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, al-Suddī and Qatādah that the Arabs were cautious about the property of orphans but did not show the same caution about justice between wives. He also records ʿIkrimah’s explanation that a man might marry many women, exhaust his wealth and then take the property of an orphan under his care. Ibn ʿĀshūr says that this explanation illustrates سَدُّ الذَّرَائِع (sadd al-dharāʾiʿ), blocking the means that are likely to lead to wrongdoing. ↩

Ibn Mājah, Sunan Ibn Mājah, 1/628, no. 1953, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, from Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما: Ghaylān ibn Salamah entered Islam with ten wives and was told, ⁧خُذْ مِنْهُنَّ أَرْبَعًا⁩, “Keep four of them.” The isnād is Yaḥyā ibn Ḥakīm, Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar, Maʿmar, al-Zuhrī, Sālim and Ibn ʿUmar. Al-Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʿ, 2/421–423, no. 1128, ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, records al-Bukhārī’s judgment that this connected form is ghayr maḥfūẓ. Al-Bukhārī preferred al-Zuhrī’s account introduced with “I was told about Muḥammad ibn Suwayd al-Thaqafī”; he identified the connected Sālim–Ibn ʿUmar account as ʿUmar’s later warning to Ghaylān after he divorced his wives. Abū Zurʿah preferred the mursal form, and Abū Ḥātim called Maʿmar’s connected form a mistake (Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-ʿIlal, 3/706–710, nos. 1199–1200, ed. Saʿd ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥumayyid and Khālid ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Juraysī). Ibn Kathīr questions al-Bukhārī’s explanation because Aḥmad records the Prophet’s ﷺ instruction and ʿUmar’s warning together; he calls the narrators of Aḥmad’s cited isnād trustworthy according to the conditions of the two Ṣaḥīḥ collections. He also records an independent isnād through Sarār ibn Mujashshir, Ayyūb, Nāfiʿ and Sālim, and Ibn al-Sakan’s and Ibn Maʿīn’s judgments that Sarār is trustworthy (Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 2/210–211, ed. Sāmī ibn Muḥammad Salāmah). Yāsīn prints the name as Marrār ibn Mujashshir and attributes the first judgment to Abū ʿAlī ibn al-Sakan (al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 2/6–7). Ibn Ḥajar calls the narrators of the Sarār isnād trustworthy and considers Aḥmad’s combined account supportive of Ibn al-Qaṭṭān’s defence of Maʿmar; he nevertheless distinguishes al-Bukhārī’s acceptance of the mawqūf account from his rejection of the opening marfūʿ account (al-Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah printing, 3/367–369, no. 1527). Al-Albānī grades the hadith ṣaḥīḥ through the combined strength of the two isnāds through Sālim. His answer is that Maʿmar is not alone in connecting it: the Sarār–Ayyūb isnād provides independent support, and Aḥmad records both events rather than replacing one with the other (Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl, second al-Maktab al-Islāmī printing, 6/291–295, no. 1883). Al-Tirmidhī also records that al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad and Isḥāq acted upon the hadith. Ibn Mājah, Sunan Ibn Mājah, 1/628, no. 1952, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, records Qays ibn al-Ḥārith’s account of entering Islam with eight wives and being told, ⁧اخْتَرْ مِنْهُنَّ أَرْبَعًا⁩, “Choose four of them.” Abū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 2/272, nos. 2241–2242, ed. Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, records the name as al-Ḥārith ibn Qays and quotes Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm’s correction to Qays ibn al-Ḥārith. Al-Qurṭubī prefers al-Ḥārith ibn Qays al-Asadī, the name he says Abū Dāwūd, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan in al-Siyar al-Kabīr and the jurists recognize (al-Jāmiʿ, 5/17). Ibn Kathīr grades this isnād ḥasan and says the name variation does not harm it in view of its supporting witnesses (Tafsīr, 2/211, ed. Sāmī ibn Muḥammad Salāmah). Al-Albānī grades the hadith ḥasan through its combined isnāds; he records al-Bayhaqī’s preference for al-Ḥārith ibn Qays and notes weakness in the additional isnāds used for that preference (Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl, second al-Maktab al-Islāmī printing, 6/295–296, no. 1885). ↩

Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/9. He explains that a guardian who fears that he will not give an orphan girl the dowry received by women of similar standing must turn to other women, since Allah has not restricted him to marrying her. Al-Shanqīṭī, Aḍwāʾ al-Bayān, 1/358. He uses Qurʾān 4:127, especially يَتَامَى النِّسَاءِ, “the orphan girls among women,” to establish which orphans are intended in 4:3. Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/26. He distinguishes between 4:2, which concerns the property of orphans, and 4:3, which concerns marriage to orphan girls. He identifies four forms of injustice: marrying her against her will, giving her no dowry, giving her an inadequate dowry, or marrying her while disliking her in order to prevent her from marrying someone else. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 7/8, no. 5092, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها. Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/26. He distinguishes between 4:2, which concerns the property of orphans, and 4:3, which concerns marriage to orphan girls. He identifies four forms of injustice: marrying her against her will, giving her no dowry, giving her an inadequate dowry, or marrying her while disliking her in order to prevent her from marrying someone else. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/559. He retains the ordinary meaning of الْخَوْف, fear or caution. Abū ʿUbaydah interprets it as certainty and cites a line of poetry, but al-Samīn refers to his earlier rejection of that interpretation at Qurʾān 2:229. Ibn ʿĀdil, al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb, 6/156. He gives two possible answers to the conditional sentence. The first makes فَانْكِحُوا, “then marry,” its answer. The second makes the later command to marry one its answer. His discussion reproduces al-Samīn’s analysis in al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/558–559. Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/558–559. He gives two analyses of the answer to the opening condition. The first makes فَانْكِحُوا, “then marry,” its answer. The second makes فَوَاحِدَةً, “then one,” its answer. He rejects the attempted defense of the second analysis with وَفِيهِ نَظَرٌ لَا يَخْفَى عَلَى مُتَأَمِّلِهِ, “It contains a problem that will be clear to anyone who considers it.” ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/382. He connects the men commanded to marry in 4:3 with the men commanded to give women their dowries in 4:4. His grammatical evidence is that the verse says فَانْكِحُوا, “then marry,” not فَأَنْكِحُوا, “then marry them to others.” Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/351. In his explanation of 4:2, he addresses the command to the guardians responsible for orphans and their property. He says that the property must be delivered when the orphan reaches maturity and demonstrates sound judgment. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/17. He rejects interpreting “two, three and four” as nine or eighteen and calls such readings contrary to Arabic, the Sunnah and إِجْمَاعِ الْأُمَّةِ, “the consensus of the Ummah.” He adds that no Companion or Successor was known to have kept more than four wives at one time. He separately identifies the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four as a ruling particular to him. Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He explains that the conjunction وَ allows different men to choose different permitted numbers, or the same number, while everything beyond four remains prohibited. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/487–489. He presents the claims of nine and eighteen as arguments made by unnamed opponents and then rejects them. He reports the agreement of the jurists of the major Muslim regions that a man may not have more than four wives and calls this the relied-upon proof. He also records that Nawfal ibn Muʿāwiyah entered Islam with five wives and was told to retain four. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/17. He rejects interpreting “two, three and four” as nine or eighteen and calls such readings contrary to Arabic, the Sunnah and إِجْمَاعِ الْأُمَّةِ, “the consensus of the Ummah.” He adds that no Companion or Successor was known to have kept more than four wives at one time. He separately identifies the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four as a ruling particular to him. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/487–489. He presents the claims of nine and eighteen as arguments made by unnamed opponents and then rejects them. He reports the agreement of the jurists of the major Muslim regions that a man may not have more than four wives and calls this the relied-upon proof. He also records that Nawfal ibn Muʿāwiyah entered Islam with five wives and was told to retain four. ↩

Sayyid Quṭb, Fī Ẓilāl al-Qurʾān, English commentary on 4:3. He explains that plural marriage is not desired for its own sake. The verse grants a regulated permission connected to particular needs and limited by the requirement of justice. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/486. He reports that the Ahl al-Ẓāhir used the command in 4:3 as evidence that marriage is obligatory. He then gives al-Shāfiʿī’s response from 4:25: Allah permits a certain marriage there but says that remaining patient is better. Marriage therefore cannot be obligatory in every situation. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/224. He explains that 4:3 did not first establish the lawfulness of marriage. Its command is connected to a particular fear of injustice toward orphan girls and therefore provides guidance toward another lawful course. The verse also excludes forms of marriage prohibited by Islamic law, including marriage to more than four women. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/489. In an argument supporting al-Shāfiʿī’s position, he says that the alternatives presented in the verse need not be superior to other lawful choices. He then argues that voluntary acts of worship may be better than marriage in the situation under discussion. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/489. He explains the accusative فَوَاحِدَةً through an omitted command: “then keep to one” or “choose one.” He explains the nominative reading as “then one is sufficient” or “one is enough for you.” ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 7/567, and al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/407, on Qurʾān 4:129. Complete equality in affection is beyond a husband’s control; he remains responsible for time, maintenance and good treatment. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/20. He explains that the classical rules governing intimacy and the division of nights were not identical for wives and female slaves. He immediately qualifies this by requiring حُسْنِ الْمَلَكَةِ وَالرِّفْقِ بِالرَّقِيقِ, good treatment and gentleness toward slaves. He also explains that the right hand is mentioned because Arabic associates it with honorable actions. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/368. He explains that the legal rights owed to bondwomen were not identical to those owed to free wives. This distinction supplies the legal basis for treating the two alternatives differently in the verse. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/222. The repeated word “orphans” connects 4:3 with 4:2. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 7/8, no. 5092, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/353. Ibn Zayd says that the people of the Jāhiliyya did not give inheritance to women or young children. The eldest male took the property. He connects this practice with Qurʾān 4:127. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 7/567, on Qurʾān 4:129. Complete equality in the love of the heart is beyond a husband’s control. He remains responsible for the rights he can control, including the division of time, financial support and good treatment. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/407, on Qurʾān 4:129. He explains that people cannot fully control the inclination of their hearts. He records Mujāhid’s instruction that a husband must nevertheless maintain equality in the division of time and financial support because these matters are within his ability. Sayyid Quṭb, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, English translation by Adil Salahi, commentary on 4:3 and 4:129. The justice required in 4:3 concerns matters a husband can control, including treatment and financial support. The complete equality declared impossible in 4:129 concerns feelings of the heart. Quṭb therefore describes plural marriage as a restricted and conditional permission, not a command. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/486, presenting al-Shāfiʿī’s argument from Qurʾān 4:25. See its development in The Questions This Verse Raises, note 14. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/486. He explains that مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ do not take ṣarf because of two features: their forms have been altered from the ordinary numbers, and they function descriptively. He uses Qurʾān 35:1 as evidence for their descriptive function. Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/564. He records al-Zamakhsharī’s grammatical analysis of the distributive number forms and Abū Ḥayyān’s objections to it. Al-Samīn suggests that what al-Zamakhsharī describes may itself be counted as a fourth grammatical position. ↩

Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/560, quoting al-Rāghib. الْقِسْط may describe taking another person’s share, which is injustice, while الْإِقْسَاط means giving another person his proper share, which is justice. Al-Rāghib supports the distinction with Qurʾān 72:15 and 49:9. Ibn Jinnī, al-Muḥtasab, 1/180. Al-Mufaḍḍal reports the reading أَلَّا تَقْسِطُوا from al-Aʿmash, from Yaḥyā, Ibrāhīm and their companions. Ibn Mujāhid says that it has no basis, but Ibn Jinnī answers that its Arabic construction is sound. He explains قَسَطَ as acting unjustly and أَقْسَطَ as acting justly, supporting the distinction with Qurʾān 72:15. ↩

Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ li-Man Baddala Dīn al-Masīḥ, 2/407. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 6/221, on al-Māʾidah 5:48. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 8/486, on Qurʾān 5:48. He explains that the Qurʾān confirms the books Allah previously revealed to His prophets. As مُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ, it is also a witness over them, a guardian and a preserver. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 8/487, on Qurʾān 5:48. Ibn Jurayj reports from unnamed scholars that the Qurʾān serves as a trusted standard over the earlier scriptures. When their communities make a claim about their books, the Qurʾān determines whether that claim is true. This explanation is reported by Ibn Jurayj and is not stated as al-Ṭabarī’s own conclusion. ↩

Genesis 4:19. ↩

Genesis 16:3. ↩

Genesis 26:34; 28:9. ↩

Genesis 29–30. ↩

Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1. Exodus names Zipporah as Moses’s wife; Numbers mentions his marriage to a Cushite woman without stating whether she was Zipporah or another woman. ↩

Judges 8:30. ↩

1 Samuel 1:2. ↩

1 Samuel 25:39–44; 2 Samuel 3:2–5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3. The wording concerning David’s additional wives in Jerusalem follows 1 Chronicles 14:3, World English Bible Classic. ↩

1 Kings 11:1–4. ↩

2 Chronicles 11:21. ↩

2 Chronicles 13:21. ↩

Exodus 21:10. ↩

Deuteronomy 21:15–17. ↩

Deuteronomy 17:17, World English Bible Classic. The verse commands the king not to multiply wives for himself so that his heart will not turn away. It gives no numerical limit and forms part of a passage containing particular restrictions for the king. ↩

1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 4/246, under ع-د-ل. He gives the root two opposing senses. One concerns evenness, uprightness and judging fairly. The other concerns deviation or crookedness. Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 5/85–86, under ق-س-ط. He gives the root two opposing senses. الْقِسْط means justice, and the verb أَقْسَطَ means to act justly. الْقَسْط means injustice, while الْقُسُوط means turning away from the truth. He also connects الْقِسْطَاس with the balance or scale. ↩

Mufti Muḥammad Shafīʿ, Maʿāriful Qurʾān, English commentary on 4:3. He explains that the responsibility for observing this restriction is placed first upon the people themselves rather than being left only to government enforcement. The verse therefore addresses a person’s fear of Allah and honest judgment about his own ability to act justly. ↩

Al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, p. 163, on careful choice before marriage. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 7/7–8, Book of Marriage, “Suitability in religion,” no. 5090, from Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه. The hadith names wealth, family standing, beauty, and religion, then directs the believer to choose the woman of religion. ↩

Al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, p. 163. A person should avoid a permitted course when he fears that it will lead to injustice or failure in an obligation. ↩

Abū al-Suʿūd, Irshād al-ʿAql al-Salīm, 2/141. He explains that the command to marry other women gently draws guardians away from marrying orphan girls whom they might wrong. Al-Ālūsī repeats this explanation in Rūḥ al-Maʿānī, 2/401. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/370. He reads مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ as referring to the act of marrying; Mujāhid glosses it as entering a good marriage. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/361–362, ed. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Turkī, records from ʿIkrimah that a man with several wives might exhaust his own wealth and then take property belonging to an orphan under his care. One isnād passes through Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā, Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar, Shuʿbah and Simāk ibn Ḥarb; another through Hannād ibn al-Sarī, Abū al-Aḥwaṣ and Simāk. Ibn Maʿīn and Abū Ḥātim considered Simāk trustworthy. Ibn al-Madīnī and Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah identified instability specifically in his narrations from ʿIkrimah; Yaʿqūb also distinguished the sounder early narrations of Shuʿbah and Sufyān from those heard later (Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, Dār al-Maʿrifah edition, 2/428–429, no. 3071). On 6/362, al-Ṭabarī separately records Ibn ʿAbbās’s explanation that men married using orphans’ property until Allah prohibited it, through the family isnād of Muḥammad ibn Saʿd. These are early exegetical accounts, not statements attributed to the Prophet ﷺ. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 7/8, no. 5092, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 7/567, on Qurʾān 4:129. Complete equality in the love of the heart is beyond a husband’s control. He remains responsible for the rights he can control, including the division of time, financial support and good treatment. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/407, on Qurʾān 4:129. He explains that people cannot fully control the inclination of their hearts. He records Mujāhid’s instruction that a husband must nevertheless maintain equality in the division of time and financial support because these matters are within his ability. Mufti Muḥammad Shafīʿ, Maʿāriful Qurʾān, English commentary on 4:3 and 4:129. He distinguishes between justice in matters a husband can control and complete equality in feelings, which remains beyond human control. ↩

Al-Saʿdī, Taysīr al-Karīm al-Raḥmān, p. 163. See the same principle developed in Gems and Subtleties, note 5. ↩

The European Council for Fatwa and Research, Resolution 9 (4/4), “The Permission to Marry Four Women and Its Misuse”, states that Islam limited the number to four and forbids another marriage when the man cannot be confident of justice. It also requires the ability to provide maintenance and fulfill marital needs. See also Dar al-Ifta al-Miṣriyyah, Fatwa 8249, and the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, “Decisions and Recommendations of AMJA’s Fourth Annual Convention,” section “Polygamy”. ↩

The European Council for Fatwa and Research, Resolution 9 (4/4), “The Permission to Marry Four Women and Its Misuse”, states that Islam limited the number to four and forbids another marriage when the man cannot be confident of justice. It also requires the ability to provide maintenance and fulfill marital needs. See also Dar al-Ifta al-Miṣriyyah, Fatwa 8249, and the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, “Decisions and Recommendations of AMJA’s Fourth Annual Convention,” section “Polygamy”. The European Council for Fatwa and Research, Resolution 67 (1/17), “Citizenship and Its Requirements”, affirms the validity of Muslim citizenship in a non-Muslim country and includes justice, cooperation in good and lawful civic action among its duties. AMJA’s Family Code for Muslim Communities in North America, articles 31 and 39, directs Muslims to follow local marriage-documentation requirements and local restrictions on plural marriage. Kamil Mufti, “Renewing the Daʿwah Narrative,” presented at AMJA’s Thirteenth Annual Imams’ Conference in 2016, p. 17, directs imams not to conduct marriages without a state license when doing so would leave the spouses without legal protection. Dar al-Ifta al-Miṣriyyah, Fatwa 8199, “Is the Consent of the First Wife to a Second Marriage Obligatory?”. It advises Muslims to abide by the laws of their countries concerning plural marriage. ↩

The European Council for Fatwa and Research, Resolution 67 (1/17), “Citizenship and Its Requirements”, affirms the validity of Muslim citizenship in a non-Muslim country and includes justice, cooperation in good and lawful civic action among its duties. AMJA’s Family Code for Muslim Communities in North America, articles 31 and 39, directs Muslims to follow local marriage-documentation requirements and local restrictions on plural marriage. Kamil Mufti, “Renewing the Daʿwah Narrative,” presented at AMJA’s Thirteenth Annual Imams’ Conference in 2016, p. 17, directs imams not to conduct marriages without a state license when doing so would leave the spouses without legal protection. ↩

The European Council for Fatwa and Research, Resolution 9 (4/4), “The Permission to Marry Four Women and Its Misuse”, states that Islam limited the number to four and forbids another marriage when the man cannot be confident of justice. It also requires the ability to provide maintenance and fulfill marital needs. See also Dar al-Ifta al-Miṣriyyah, Fatwa 8249, and the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, “Decisions and Recommendations of AMJA’s Fourth Annual Convention,” section “Polygamy”. The European Council for Fatwa and Research, Resolution 67 (1/17), “Citizenship and Its Requirements”, affirms the validity of Muslim citizenship in a non-Muslim country and includes justice, cooperation in good and lawful civic action among its duties. AMJA’s Family Code for Muslim Communities in North America, articles 31 and 39, directs Muslims to follow local marriage-documentation requirements and local restrictions on plural marriage. Kamil Mufti, “Renewing the Daʿwah Narrative,” presented at AMJA’s Thirteenth Annual Imams’ Conference in 2016, p. 17, directs imams not to conduct marriages without a state license when doing so would leave the spouses without legal protection. ↩

Dar al-Ifta al-Miṣriyyah, “Islamic Legislation Is Clear in Prohibiting Slavery” and Fatwa 6830, “Why Didn’t Islam Abolish Slavery Immediately?”; AMJA, Eleventh Convention. ↩

Open Letter to al-Baghdadi, issued by more than 120 Muslim scholars and academics. It declares that reintroducing slavery is forbidden and that slavery was abolished by universal agreement. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/17. He rejects interpreting “two, three and four” as nine or eighteen and calls such readings contrary to Arabic, the Sunnah and إِجْمَاعِ الْأُمَّةِ, “the consensus of the Ummah.” He adds that no Companion or Successor was known to have kept more than four wives at one time. He separately identifies the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four as a ruling particular to him. Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He explains that the conjunction وَ allows different men to choose different permitted numbers, or the same number, while everything beyond four remains prohibited. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/376. He explains أَلَّا تَعُولُوا as أَلَّا تَجُورُوا وَلَا تَمِيلُوا, “that you do not act unjustly and do not incline.” He also distinguishes this from عَالَ يَعِيلُ, which means to become poor. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/487–489. He presents the claims of nine and eighteen as arguments made by unnamed opponents and then rejects them. He reports the agreement of the jurists of the major Muslim regions that a man may not have more than four wives and calls this the relied-upon proof. He also records that Nawfal ibn Muʿāwiyah entered Islam with five wives and was told to retain four. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/225. He rejects attributing the nine-wife position to Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī or his school. He notes that Ibn al-ʿArabī and Ibn al-Faras left its holders unnamed and that al-Jaṣṣāṣ recorded no opponent to the limit of four. He argues that the prohibition of more than four is established through evidence beyond the wording of this verse, although the verse supports it. He also reports the agreement that the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four were particular to him. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/489. He explains the accusative فَوَاحِدَةً through an omitted command: “then keep to one” or “choose one.” He explains the nominative reading as “then one is sufficient” or “one is enough for you.” Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/224. He explains that 4:3 did not first establish the lawfulness of marriage. Its command is connected to a particular fear of injustice toward orphan girls and therefore provides guidance toward another lawful course. The verse also excludes forms of marriage prohibited by Islamic law, including marriage to more than four women. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/374–375. He explains that the command is guidance away from an unjust marriage, not a command requiring every man to marry. Its practical force is: do not marry a number of women whom you fear you will wrong. ↩

Pew Research Center, “Polygamy Is Rare Around the World”, reports that fewer than one percent of Muslim men live with more than one wife in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Egypt. It also documents the practice among several religious communities in West and Central Africa. Pew’s larger study, “Global Household Patterns by Religion”, estimates that about five percent of Muslims in the countries studied live in polygamous households. ↩

See Genesis 4:19; 16:3; 26:34; 28:9; 29–30; Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:2; 25:39–44; 2 Samuel 3:2–5; 5:13; 1 Kings 11:1–4; 1 Chronicles 14:3; and 2 Chronicles 11:21; 13:21. Exodus names Zipporah as Moses’s wife, while Numbers mentions his marriage to a Cushite woman without stating whether she was Zipporah or another woman. Pew Research Center, “Polygamy Is Rare Around the World”, reports that fewer than one percent of Muslim men live with more than one wife in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Egypt. It also documents the practice among several religious communities in West and Central Africa. Pew’s larger study, “Global Household Patterns by Religion”, estimates that about five percent of Muslims in the countries studied live in polygamous households. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 7/567, on Qurʾān 4:129. Complete equality in the love of the heart is beyond a husband’s control. He remains responsible for the rights he can control, including the division of time, financial support and good treatment. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/407, on Qurʾān 4:129. He explains that people cannot fully control the inclination of their hearts. He records Mujāhid’s instruction that a husband must nevertheless maintain equality in the division of time and financial support because these matters are within his ability. Mufti Muḥammad Shafīʿ, Maʿāriful Qurʾān, English commentary on 4:3 and 4:129. He distinguishes between justice in matters a husband can control and complete equality in feelings, which remains beyond human control. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/19, reporting from al-Zubayr ibn Bakkār. In the account he quotes, a woman complained to ʿUmar that her husband devoted himself to worship and neglected her. Kaʿb al-Asadī ruled that the husband could devote three nights to worship but owed the fourth to his wife, reasoning from the maximum of four wives. ʿUmar was so impressed by his judgment that he appointed him judge of Basra. Aḥmad al-Bardūnī and Ibrāhīm Aṭfayyish, the editors of the cited edition, identify him in their note as Kaʿb ibn Sawwār al-Azdī. Al-Zubayr’s al-Akhbār al-Muwaffaqiyyāt, no. 432 in the electronically numbered text, records it through Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir, from Muḥammad ibn Maʿn. Its chain names no witness between Muḥammad and the event. Ibn Maʿīn considered Muḥammad acceptable, Ibn al-Madīnī and Ibn Saʿd called him trustworthy, and Abū Ḥātim called him ṣadūq (Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, Dār al-Maʿrifah edition, 5/278, no. 7449). Those assessments concern the narrator, not the completeness of this chain. Ibn Ḥajar also records the account through Ibn Sīrīn and al-Shaʿbī and calls it well known, without assigning it an isnād grade (al-Iṣābah fī Tamyīz al-Ṣaḥābah, 5/480–481, no. 7508). ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 7/567, and al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/407, on Qurʾān 4:129. See the fuller distinction in Understanding the Verse, note 10. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 7/8, no. 5092, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها. ↩

Qurʾān 4:3. The English translation is adapted from Saheeh International. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 7/8, no. 5092, and 6/43, no. 4574, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 4/2313–2314, no. 3018 (6), ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, records her explanation of both 4:3 and 4:127 through Yūnus, al-Zuhrī and ʿUrwah. Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 2/6, also reproduces al-Bukhārī’s report. ↩

Al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Basīṭ, 6/298. He reports both ʿĀʾishah’s explanation and the parallel between justice toward orphans and justice toward wives. On ʿĀʾishah’s explanation, the complete meaning is, “If you fear that you will not act justly in marrying the orphan girls.” The word “marrying” is understood from the command that follows. ↩

Al-Shanqīṭī, Aḍwāʾ al-Bayān, 1/358. He uses Qurʾān 4:127, especially يَتَامَى النِّسَاءِ, “the orphan girls among women,” to establish which orphans are intended in 4:3. Ibn ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Nisāʾ, 1/26. He distinguishes between 4:2, which concerns the property of orphans, and 4:3, which concerns marriage to orphan girls. He identifies four forms of injustice: marrying her against her will, giving her no dowry, giving her an inadequate dowry, or marrying her while disliking her in order to prevent her from marrying someone else. Sayyid Quṭb, In the Shade of the Qurʾān, English translation by Adil Salahi, commentary on 4:3. Quṭb explains that justice toward an orphan girl includes every marital right, not only her dowry. A guardian must also consider her property, age, feelings and freedom to express her wishes. If he is unsure that he can treat her fairly, he must marry someone else. ↩

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/343. He says the verse can include both the explanation of ʿĀʾishah and that of Ibn ʿAbbās because the two meanings do not contradict each other. He nevertheless gives priority to ʿĀʾishah’s explanation because it describes the circumstances in which the verse was revealed. He also concludes that a paternal cousin may marry an orphan girl under his guardianship if he protects all her rights. ↩

Al-Wāḥidī, al-Tafsīr al-Wasīṭ, 2/8. He attributes the parallel interpretation to most commentators and names Ibn ʿAbbās, ʿAṭāʾ, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Qatādah, al-Rabīʿ, al-Ḍaḥḥāk and al-Suddī. They explain that people who feared injustice toward orphans must show the same fear of injustice toward women and marry only the number whose rights they could maintain. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/367. He prefers the interpretation that compares fear of injustice toward orphans with fear of injustice toward women. A man should marry only the number of women, from one to four, whom he does not fear wronging. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/368–369. Under his preferred interpretation, the wording contains an understood comparison: just as you fear failing to act justly toward orphans, fear failing to act justly toward women. The second condition concerning justice makes this omitted clause clear. Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 2/6. Yāsīn grades the two routes recorded by al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah, from Ibn ʿAbbās, as ḥasan, “good.” Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/362. Ibn ʿAbbās says, قُصِرَ الرِّجَالُ عَلَى أَرْبَعٍ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَمْوَالِ الْيَتَامَى, “Men were limited to four because of the property of orphans.” The report passes through Sufyān ibn Wakīʿ, his father, Sufyān, Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit and Ṭāwūs. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/369. Under his preferred interpretation, he says that الْيَتَامَىٰ in this verse includes both male and female orphans. This belongs specifically to his interpretation comparing justice toward orphans generally with justice toward wives. It does not belong to the interpretation of ʿĀʾishah, which concerns orphan girls whom their guardians might marry. ↩

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 2/343. He says the verse can include both the explanation of ʿĀʾishah and that of Ibn ʿAbbās because the two meanings do not contradict each other. He nevertheless gives priority to ʿĀʾishah’s explanation because it describes the circumstances in which the verse was revealed. He also concludes that a paternal cousin may marry an orphan girl under his guardianship if he protects all her rights. Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, 4/285. Riḍā prefers al-Ṭabarī’s explanation that the verse compares justice toward orphans with justice toward wives. He records that Muḥammad ʿAbduh preferred ʿĀʾishah’s explanation, and he calls al-Rāzī’s financial explanation the weakest of the principal positions. Riḍā nevertheless allows the verse to include all the compatible meanings. In a separately identified passage, ʿAbduh explains that a man should marry more than one wife only when he is confident that he can maintain justice. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/223. He records from Ibn ʿAbbās, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, al-Suddī and Qatādah that the Arabs were cautious about the property of orphans but did not show the same caution about justice between wives. He also records ʿIkrimah’s explanation that a man might marry many women, exhaust his wealth and then take the property of an orphan under his care. Ibn ʿĀshūr says that this explanation illustrates سَدُّ الذَّرَائِع (sadd al-dharāʾiʿ), blocking the means that are likely to lead to wrongdoing. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/486. He prefers the explanation that numerous marriages could increase a guardian’s expenses and lead him to trespass upon an orphan’s property. This financial process supplies the connection between the condition concerning orphans and the command regulating marriage. ↩

Al-Thaʿlabī, al-Kashf wa-l-Bayān, 10/25. He reports from al-Ḥasan that people became cautious about marrying orphan girls just as they had become cautious about their property. The verse permitted guardians to marry them when they could treat them justly and remain within a number that allowed justice. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/366–367. He reports from al-Ḥasan that a guardian should not marry an orphan girl whom he fears he will wrong, but may marry another orphan girl from among his relatives whom he can treat justly. The words مِنْ يَتَامَاكُمْ in the cited edition were restored by its editor from the manuscript evidence. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/359. Rabīʿah interprets the verse as directing guardians to leave the orphan girls whom they fear wronging because Allah has made other women lawful for them, up to four. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/223. He reports Mujāhid’s interpretation that the verse warns against fornication, but says that this interpretation weakens the connection between the condition and its answer. He describes the remaining unlisted explanations as still weaker. ↩

Abul Aʿlā Mawdūdī, Tafhīm al-Qurʾān, on 4:3. He presents as an additional possible frame that a person unable to care for orphans fairly might marry women who are looking after those orphans. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/224. He explains that 4:3 did not first establish the lawfulness of marriage. Its command is connected to a particular fear of injustice toward orphan girls and therefore provides guidance toward another lawful course. The verse also excludes forms of marriage prohibited by Islamic law, including marriage to more than four women. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/374–375. He explains that the command is guidance away from an unjust marriage, not a command requiring every man to marry. Its practical force is: do not marry a number of women whom you fear you will wrong. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/486. He reports that the Ahl al-Ẓāhir treated the command in 4:3 as proof that marriage is obligatory. Al-Shāfiʿī answers from 4:25: Allah permits a particular marriage there but says that remaining patient is better, so marriage cannot be obligatory in every situation. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/486. He reports that al-Wāḥidī and al-Zamakhsharī interpret مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ as “what is lawful for you,” but questions that interpretation. His discussion concludes with the principle that when one interpretation removes uncertainty while another narrows a general expression, removing the uncertainty takes priority. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/224. He explains مَا طَابَ as those who are good and suitable; the legislative context restricts the choice to women lawful in marriage. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/224. He explains that مَا directs attention to qualities, whereas مَنْ would point more directly to personal identities. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/370, on the verbal-noun sense of مَا and Mujāhid’s gloss. See Gems and Subtleties, note 7. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/486. He gives four explanations for the use of مَا rather than مَنْ: it may refer to the class of women, form a verbal noun referring to marriage, overlap with مَنْ in Arabic usage, or treat women grammatically like beings without reason. The fourth is a reported explanation and is not presented as al-Rāzī’s preferred view. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/561. He records four grammatical analyses of مَا and considers the relative-pronoun analysis the clearest. He also gives two explanations of مِنَ النِّسَاءِ: it may explain the class intended or indicate a part of that class. He adds that the altered numerical forms cannot directly serve as the object of انْكِحُوا because forms of this kind do not immediately follow grammatical operators. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/561. He records four grammatical analyses of مَا and considers the relative-pronoun analysis the clearest. He also gives two explanations of مِنَ النِّسَاءِ: it may explain the class intended or indicate a part of that class. He adds that the altered numerical forms cannot directly serve as the object of انْكِحُوا because forms of this kind do not immediately follow grammatical operators. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/370. He interprets مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ as referring to the act of marrying rather than to the individual women. Mujāhid explains it as entering a good marriage. Al-Ṭabarī supports this analysis with an ordinary Arabic expression in which مَا refers to an intended action. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/18. He explains that the altered Arabic number forms add a distributive meaning absent from the ordinary numbers. Thus, مَثْنَىٰ means “two at a time,” as when the Arabs say that horses arrived in pairs. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/373–374. He answers the claim that “two, three and four” should be added to make nine. The numbers present separate alternatives. A man may marry two, three or four according to his ability to maintain justice. Al-Ṭabarī supports this interpretation with the following command to marry only one when injustice is feared. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/371, compares the distributive force with Qurʾān 24:4: a command addressed to a group applies separately to each person included in it. ↩

Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He explains that the distributive numbers are repeated because the command addresses a group. Each man may choose the number permitted to him, just as money may be divided among a group two each, three each or four each. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/487–489. He presents the claims of nine and eighteen as arguments made by unnamed opponents and then rejects them. He reports the agreement of the jurists of the major Muslim regions that a man may not have more than four wives and calls this the relied-upon proof. He also records that Nawfal ibn Muʿāwiyah entered Islam with five wives and was told to retain four. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/225. He rejects attributing the nine-wife position to Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī or his school. He notes that Ibn al-ʿArabī and Ibn al-Faras left its holders unnamed and that al-Jaṣṣāṣ recorded no opponent to the limit of four. He argues that the prohibition of more than four is established through evidence beyond the wording of this verse, although the verse supports it. He also reports the agreement that the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four were particular to him. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/17. He interprets the conjunction و as allowing substitution: three instead of two, or four instead of three. In his analysis, the wording allows a person to move from one permitted number to another without adding the numbers together. Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He explains that the conjunction وَ allows different men to choose different permitted numbers, or the same number, while everything beyond four remains prohibited. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/373–374. He answers the claim that “two, three and four” should be added to make nine. The numbers present separate alternatives. A man may marry two, three or four according to his ability to maintain justice. Al-Ṭabarī supports this interpretation with the following command to marry only one when injustice is feared. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/487–488. He introduces the unrestricted-number position as the view of unnamed people whom he condemns. Their claims of nine and eighteen form the third of three arguments that he reports from them before answering their position. They are not al-Rāzī’s own interpretations of the verse. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/225. He rejects attributing the nine-wife position to Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī or his school. He notes that Ibn al-ʿArabī and Ibn al-Faras left its holders unnamed and that al-Jaṣṣāṣ recorded no opponent to the limit of four. He argues that the prohibition of more than four is established through evidence beyond the wording of this verse, although the verse supports it. He also reports the agreement that the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four were particular to him. ↩

Ibn Mājah, Sunan Ibn Mājah, 1/628, no. 1953, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, from Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ, 5/17, also names Mālik, al-Nasāʾī and al-Dāraquṭnī among the collectors of the Ghaylān hadith. ↩

Ibn Mājah, Sunan Ibn Mājah, 1/628, no. 1952, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, from Qays ibn al-Ḥārith رضي الله عنه; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 2/272, nos. 2241–2242, ed. Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, records the name as al-Ḥārith ibn Qays and quotes Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm’s correction to Qays ibn al-Ḥārith. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/17. He says that Muqātil reversed the name as Qays ibn al-Ḥārith. According to al-Qurṭubī, the correct name is al-Ḥārith ibn Qays al-Asadī, as recorded by Abū Dāwūd and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan in al-Siyar al-Kabīr. He adds that this is the name recognized by the jurists. ↩

Al-Shāfiʿī, al-Umm, Dār al-Fikr printing, 4/281; see also 5/53. The fuller isnād passes through an unnamed teacher of al-Shāfiʿī, then Ibn Abī al-Zinād, ʿAbd al-Majīd ibn Suhayl, ʿAwf ibn al-Ḥārith and Nawfal ibn Muʿāwiyah رضي الله عنه. Al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-Kubrā, 14/329–330, no. 14174, ed. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Turkī, transmits this report through al-Shāfiʿī. Al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl, second al-Maktab al-Islāmī printing, 6/295, no. 1884, grades it ḍaʿīf because al-Shāfiʿī’s teacher is unnamed. Ibn Kathīr treats these accounts as supporting witnesses for the Ghaylān hadith and attributes that assessment to al-Bayhaqī (Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 2/211–212, ed. Sāmī ibn Muḥammad Salāmah). ↩

Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 2/210–212, ed. Sāmī ibn Muḥammad Salāmah; al-Albānī, Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl, second al-Maktab al-Islāmī printing, 6/291–296, nos. 1883–1885; Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 2/6–7. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/487–489. He presents the claims of nine and eighteen as arguments made by unnamed opponents and then rejects them. He reports the agreement of the jurists of the major Muslim regions that a man may not have more than four wives and calls this the relied-upon proof. He also records that Nawfal ibn Muʿāwiyah entered Islam with five wives and was told to retain four. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/17. He rejects interpreting “two, three and four” as nine or eighteen and calls such readings contrary to Arabic, the Sunnah and إِجْمَاعِ الْأُمَّةِ, “the consensus of the Ummah.” He adds that no Companion or Successor was known to have kept more than four wives at one time. He separately identifies the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four as a ruling particular to him. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/487–489. He presents the claims of nine and eighteen as arguments made by unnamed opponents and then rejects them. He reports the agreement of the jurists of the major Muslim regions that a man may not have more than four wives and calls this the relied-upon proof. He also records that Nawfal ibn Muʿāwiyah entered Islam with five wives and was told to retain four. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/225. He rejects attributing the nine-wife position to Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī or his school. He notes that Ibn al-ʿArabī and Ibn al-Faras left its holders unnamed and that al-Jaṣṣāṣ recorded no opponent to the limit of four. He argues that the prohibition of more than four is established through evidence beyond the wording of this verse, although the verse supports it. He also reports the agreement that the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four were particular to him. Abul Aʿlā Mawdūdī, Tafhīm al-Qurʾān, on 4:3, likewise treats four as the ceiling established by the wording, not an additive total or a recommendation to seek the maximum. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/18. He records the legal disagreement concerning a man who knowingly contracts a fifth marriage. The positions he preserves involve Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Thawr, al-Zuhrī, al-Nuʿmān, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan and Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī. His account is transmitted from Ibn al-Mundhir. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/17. He rejects interpreting “two, three and four” as nine or eighteen and calls such readings contrary to Arabic, the Sunnah and إِجْمَاعِ الْأُمَّةِ, “the consensus of the Ummah.” He adds that no Companion or Successor was known to have kept more than four wives at one time. He separately identifies the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four as a ruling particular to him. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/225. He rejects attributing the nine-wife position to Dāwūd al-Ẓāhirī or his school. He notes that Ibn al-ʿArabī and Ibn al-Faras left its holders unnamed and that al-Jaṣṣāṣ recorded no opponent to the limit of four. He argues that the prohibition of more than four is established through evidence beyond the wording of this verse, although the verse supports it. He also reports the agreement that the Prophet’s ﷺ marriages beyond four were particular to him. ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, al-Risālah edition, 2:110. ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2:231–232. ↩

Forty is the commonly reported age. Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, al-Risālah edition, 2/111, records twenty-eight and also describes Khadījah رضي الله عنها as fifteen years older than the Prophet ﷺ, who married her at twenty-five. Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, the editor of volume 2, grades the particular al-Kalbī–Abū Ṣāliḥ isnād for twenty-eight as very weak. Ibn Kathīr, al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, ed. Muṣṭafā ʿAbd al-Wāḥid, 4/581, records forty, twenty-eight, and al-Wāqidī’s figure of forty-five. Thirty-five is also reported in Islamweb, fatwa 266182, citing al-Bayhaqī and al-Ḥākim. Al-Wāqidī’s figures are historical accounts. Al-Dhahabī records both favourable assessments, including those of Abū Bakr al-Ṣāghānī and Muṣʿab al-Zubayrī, and the criticism of Muslim and al-Nasāʾī (Siyar, 9/457, 461). His conclusion is that al-Wāqidī is weak: his reports are needed in military history and biography and may be recorded, but are not proof. Al-Dhahabī does not accuse him of fabrication, while rejecting reliance on his narrations (Siyar, 9/469). ↩

Muḥammad Abū Zahrah, Khātam al-Nabiyyīn, 3/1097, estimates approximately sixty-six. Al-Dhahabī, Siyar, 2/265–269, describes her marriage and later life without specifying her age at marriage. ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2:265. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 7/17, no. 5133, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها, gives six at the marriage contract and nine at consummation. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 2/1039, no. 1422 (71), ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, records her account giving seven at the contract and nine at consummation. ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2:227. ↩

Approximately twenty-one; the recorded chronology allows an estimate of twenty to twenty-one. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, Dār Ṣādir edition, 8/81, records through al-Wāqidī that Ḥafṣah رضي الله عنها was born when Quraysh rebuilt the Kaʿbah, five years before the beginning of revelation. Al-Dhahabī, Siyar, 2/230, records this birth chronology and her marriage in Shaʿbān, 3 AH. Al-Dhahabī records al-Wāqidī’s historical reports without treating them as proof (Siyar, 9/469). ↩

Approximately thirty. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8/115–116, records her marriage in Ramaḍān, thirty-one months after the Hijrah, and her death eight months later. Al-Wāqidī asks ʿAbd Allāh ibn Jaʿfar her age at death; he answers, “Thirty years or thereabouts.” Al-Dhahabī also gives approximately thirty at death in the Sīrah portion of Siyar, 1/465. Al-Dhahabī records al-Wāqidī’s historical reports without treating them as proof (Siyar, 9/469). ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2:218. ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2:202. ↩

Approximately thirty-three, calculated from the chronology in al-Dhahabī, Siyar, 2/202, 210: a lifespan of approximately ninety years, death in 61 AH, and marriage in 4 AH. Al-ʿIṣāmī, Simṭ al-Nujūm al-ʿAwālī, 1/459, gives eighty-four at death in 61 AH, yielding the alternative estimate of approximately twenty-seven at marriage. ↩

Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8/114, records through al-Wāqidī that she married in Dhū al-Qaʿdah, 5 AH, aged thirty-five. This explicit marriage-age account is followed in the table. On 8/115, another account places her death in 20 AH at fifty-three, yielding approximately thirty-eight at marriage. Al-Dhahabī, Siyar, 2/217, also records twenty-five with the introductory wording “it is said.” Al-Dhahabī records al-Wāqidī’s historical reports without treating them as proof (Siyar, 9/469). ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2:211. ↩

Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8/120, records through al-Wāqidī, from Muḥammad ibn Yazīd, from his grandmother, a freedwoman of Juwayriyyah رضي الله عنها, her statement that she married at twenty. Al-Dhahabī reproduces this age in Siyar, 2/263. Ibn Saʿd’s same account places her death in 50 AH at sixty-five. Al-Dhahabī records al-Wāqidī’s historical reports without treating them as proof (Siyar, 9/469). ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2:262. ↩

Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8/99, records through al-Wāqidī that she arrived in Madinah in 7 AH aged biḍʿ wa-thalāthūn, meaning thirty-something. This gives an approximate age near the time of her marriage, rather than an exact age at the contract. The alternative estimate of forty-two appears in Islamweb, fatwa 266182, calculated from a reported birth thirty-five years before the Hijrah. Al-Dhahabī records al-Wāqidī’s historical reports without treating them as proof (Siyar, 9/469). ↩

Approximately seventeen. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8/129, records through al-Wāqidī, from Muḥammad ibn Mūsā, from ʿUmārah ibn al-Muhājir, from Āminah bint Abī Qays al-Ghifāriyyah, that Ṣafiyyah رضي الله عنها said she had not reached seventeen when she entered the Prophet’s ﷺ household. A wording in al-Ḥākim’s al-Mustadrak, 4/31, allows “at most seventeen.” Al-Dhahabī records al-Wāqidī’s historical reports without treating them as proof (Siyar, 9/469). ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2:239. ↩

Estimates of twenty-six to twenty-seven and thirty-six depend on different death chronologies. Ibn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt, 8/140, records al-Wāqidī’s chronology: death in 61 AH, aged eighty or eighty-one. Marriage in 7 AH would yield approximately twenty-six or twenty-seven. Al-Dhahabī, Siyar, 2/245, rejects death in 61 AH because she died before ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها, and records Khalīfah’s date of 51 AH. Thirty-six results from combining the earlier death date with a lifespan of eighty years. Neither passage directly establishes that age at marriage. Al-Dhahabī records al-Wāqidī’s historical reports without treating them as proof (Siyar, 9/469). ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2:239. ↩

Qurʾān 33:32–34 addresses the Prophet’s wives directly. Verse 33:34 commands them to remember and preserve what was recited in their homes of Allah’s verses and wisdom. ↩

Al-Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʿ, 6/182–183, no. 3883, ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf, from Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī رضي الله عنه. Al-Tirmidhī grades the athar ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ gharīb. ↩

Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 1/261–262, no. 332 (61), ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها, records Asmāʾ’s question about purification and ʿĀʾishah’s praise of the Anṣār women for learning despite their modesty. ↩

Al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 2/203, counts Umm Salamah among the female jurists of the Companions. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 3/193–197, nos. 2731–2732, from al-Miswar ibn Makhramah and Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam. Umm Salamah’s advice and the Companions’ response are on 3/196. ↩

Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 6/183–184, nos. 4986–4987, from Zayd ibn Thābit and Anas ibn Mālik رضي الله عنهما respectively. ↩

Qurʾān 33:37 states the purpose of the Prophet’s ﷺ marriage to Zaynab bint Jaḥsh: believers were to know that there was no blame in marrying the former wives of adopted sons after those marriages had ended. ↩

Abū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, 4/22, no. 3931, ed. Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها. Al-Albānī grades the isnād recorded by Aḥmad ḥasan, noting Ibn Isḥāq’s explicit statement that he heard from Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar (Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl, second al-Maktab al-Islāmī printing, 5/37–38, no. 1212). ↩

Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, 4/1907, no. 2452 (101), ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها, explicitly names Zaynab as the wife whose work and charity fulfilled the description. Al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, al-Sulṭāniyyah printing, 2/110, no. 1420, records the initial measurement of Sawdah’s arm. Ibn Ḥajar identifies an error in the naming in Abū ʿAwānah’s account, rejects interpreting it to make Sawdah the first wife to die after the Prophet ﷺ, and prefers the accounts identifying Zaynab (Fatḥ al-Bārī, al-Salafiyyah printing, 3/286–288). ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/20. He records from al-Ḍaḥḥāk and others that the required justice concerns inclination, love, intimacy, companionship and the division of time among wives. Al-Qurṭubī concludes that Allah prohibits an increase that would lead to abandoning justice in the division of time and good companionship, showing that these outward rights are obligatory. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 7/567, on Qurʾān 4:129. Complete equality in the love of the heart is beyond a husband’s control. He remains responsible for the rights he can control, including the division of time, financial support and good treatment. Mufti Muḥammad Shafīʿ, Maʿāriful Qurʾān, English commentary on 4:3 and 4:129. He distinguishes between justice in matters a husband can control and complete equality in feelings, which remains beyond human control. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/407, on Qurʾān 4:129. He explains that people cannot fully control the inclination of their hearts. He records Mujāhid’s instruction that a husband must nevertheless maintain equality in the division of time and financial support because these matters are within his ability. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 7/568, on Qurʾān 4:129. He transmits several routes from ʿAbīdah explaining the equality that cannot be fully achieved as equality in love, affection or marital relations. He also reports from al-Ḥasan that the verse concerns love. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/20, from al-Ḍaḥḥāk and others. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/375, through Juwaybir from al-Ḍaḥḥāk. Al-Nasāʾī, ʿAlī b. al-Junayd and al-Dāraquṭnī called Juwaybir matrūk. Aḥmad considered his reports from al-Ḍaḥḥāk less objectionable than his marfūʿ hadiths, which he called munkar. Aḥmad b. Sayyār described him favourably in tafsīr but as weak in narration; Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān records that tafsīr was written down from transmitters whose hadith was not accepted. Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, Dār al-Maʿrifah edition, 1/456–457, no. 1162. Al-Qurṭubī's own conclusion concerns obligatory justice in the division of time and good companionship. ↩

Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/566, recording Abū Ḥayyān’s objection that combining this parse with 4:129 would effectively prohibit plural marriage. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/376. He explains أَلَّا تَعُولُوا as أَلَّا تَجُورُوا وَلَا تَمِيلُوا, “that you do not act unjustly and do not incline.” He also distinguishes this from عَالَ يَعِيلُ, which means to become poor. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/376–380. He records sixteen exegetical chains explaining the expression as “do not incline” and two explaining it as “do not act unjustly.” The authorities include al-Ḥasan, Mujāhid, ʿIkrimah, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, Qatādah, al-Rabīʿ ibn Anas, al-Suddī, Ibn ʿAbbās and Abū Mālik. The wording attributed to ʿUthmān’s letter appears on 6/378 through al-Muthannā, ʿAmr ibn ʿAwn, Hushaym and Abū Isḥāq al-Kūfī. Ibn Maʿīn identifies the Abū Isḥāq from whom Hushaym narrated as ʿAbd Allāh ibn Maysarah, not al-Sabīʿī. Ibn Maʿīn, al-Nasāʾī and al-Dāraquṭnī call Ibn Maysarah weak; Ibn Ḥibbān says that his narrations may not be used as proof. Abū Ḥātim considered Hushaym trustworthy, while Ibn Saʿd noted his frequent tadlīs (Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, Dār al-Maʿrifah edition, 3/266, no. 4235; 6/39–42, no. 8569). The letter is therefore retained as an attributed account, not an authenticated statement of ʿUthmān. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/378–380. Abū Mālik is reported with both expressions through different routes. Through Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Khālid, he says أَلَّا تَمِيلُوا, “that you do not incline.” Through Ḥuṣayn, he says أَلَّا تَجُورُوا, “that you do not act unjustly.” Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/489. He identifies “do not act unjustly or incline” as the interpretation preferred by most commentators. His linguistic evidence includes the expressions عَالَ الْمِيزَانُ, “the scale tilted”; أَتَعُولُ عَلَيَّ, “Will you incline against me?”; and عَالَتِ الْفَرِيضَةُ, used when inheritance shares exceed the available estate. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/20. He explains أَلَّا تَعُولُوا as “that you not incline away from the truth or act unjustly,” and attributes this meaning to Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid and others. He illustrates the root with an arrow inclining away from its target and with an uneven measure or weight. Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr min al-Tafsīr bi-l-Maʾthūr, 2/7. He cites al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim for the explanation transmitted through ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭalḥah from Ibn ʿAbbās: أَلَّا تَمِيلُوا, “that you not incline.” Yāsīn grades both chains ḥasan, “good.” ↩

Masāʾil Nāfiʿ ibn al-Azraq, p. 78, in the exchange attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما. The cited edition identifies the poet as ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Qays. The line is also cited in al-Itqān, 6/124, Sīrat Ibn Hishām, 1/354, and Asās al-Balāgha, 2/149. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/378–380, through ʿIkrimah, with variant wording; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr, 3/860. The attribution is reported as a line of Abū Ṭālib. Its evidentiary word is عَائِل, “inclining.” ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/378, ed. ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muḥsin al-Turkī, through al-Muthannā, ʿAmr ibn ʿAwn, Hushaym and Abū Isḥāq al-Kūfī. Ibn Maʿīn identifies this Abū Isḥāq as the weak narrator ʿAbd Allāh ibn Maysarah (Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, Dār al-Maʿrifah edition, 3/266, no. 4235; 6/41, no. 8569). ↩

Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm, 3/860, no. 4761, ed. Asʿad Muḥammad al-Ṭayyib, records the marfūʿ form through Muḥammad ibn ʿAwf and ʿAllān ibn al-Mughīrah, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ibrāhīm, Muḥammad ibn Shuʿayb, ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad ibn Zayd, Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, ʿUrwah and ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها. Abū Ḥātim calls this form erroneous and says the correct form is mawqūf upon ʿĀʾishah. Al-Zamakhsharī quotes it as marfūʿ in al-Kashshāf, 1/468; Ibn Ḥajar records the correction in al-Kāfī al-Shāf, printed with al-Kashshāf, 1/468, note 1, and names Ibn Ḥibbān, Ibrāhīm al-Ḥarbī, al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim among its collectors. ↩

Al-Farrāʾ, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān, 1/255; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, root عيل. The line is attributed to Uḥayḥah ibn al-Julāḥ and is cited to establish عَالَ يَعِيلُ in the sense of becoming poor. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/376. He explains أَلَّا تَعُولُوا as أَلَّا تَجُورُوا وَلَا تَمِيلُوا, “that you do not act unjustly and do not incline.” He also distinguishes this from عَالَ يَعِيلُ, which means to become poor. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/489. He reports a second explanation of the ending: “That is nearer to your not becoming poor.” This meaning comes from عَالَ يَعِيلُ, “to become poor,” rather than the canonical form عَالَ يَعُولُ. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/568. He distinguishes the similar forms belonging to ع-و-ل and ع-ي-ل. Their precise root and conjugation depend upon whether the intended meaning is inclination, numerous dependants, poverty or another related sense. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/490. He reports al-Shāfiʿī’s explanation that the phrase means, “That is nearer to your dependants not becoming numerous.” He then presents the historical and linguistic objections made against this interpretation and answers them. His evidence includes the reported reading of Ṭāwūs, أَلَّا تُعِيلُوا, “that your dependants not become numerous.” Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/568–569. He names Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, al-Zajjāj and Ṣāḥib al-Naẓm among those who objected to al-Shāfiʿī’s interpretation. He then transmits al-Zamakhsharī’s answer that al-Shāfiʿī followed the method of kināya. The objection concerning bondwomen is answered by distinguishing their legal position from that of wives and the continuing marital rights owed to wives. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/380. Ibn Zayd explains, “That is less for your expenses. One is less than two, three or four.” He then interprets أَلَّا تَعُولُوا as making the burden of dependants easier. This establishes that an explanation connected with the number and expense of dependants was transmitted before al-Shāfiʿī. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/21–22. Al-Thaʿlabī claimed that no one besides al-Shāfiʿī interpreted أَلَّا تَعُولُوا as referring to numerous dependants. Al-Qurṭubī answers that al-Dāraquṭnī transmitted this interpretation from Zayd ibn Aslam and that Jābir ibn Zayd also held it. Both preceded al-Shāfiʿī. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/569–570. He rejects the claim that al-Shāfiʿī contradicted all earlier commentators, since the interpretation is also attributed to Zayd ibn Aslam and Ibn Zayd. He cites Ibn al-Aʿrābī, al-Kisāʾī and al-Dūrī as evidence that Arabic used the verb in the sense of having numerous dependants. Al-Samīn nevertheless cautions that one cited poetic form could belong to a different verbal root. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/22. He cites al-Kisāʾī, Abū ʿUmar al-Dūrī and Ibn al-Aʿrābī for the use of عَالَ in the sense of having numerous dependants. Al-Dūrī identifies it as a dialect of Ḥimyar. Al-Qurṭubī also attributes أَلَّا تُعِيلُوا to Ṭalḥah ibn Muṣarrif and records the answer that wives possess continuing marital rights not shared by bondwomen in the same manner. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/568–569. He names Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, al-Zajjāj and Ṣāḥib al-Naẓm among those who objected to al-Shāfiʿī’s interpretation. He then transmits al-Zamakhsharī’s answer that al-Shāfiʿī followed the method of kināya. The objection concerning bondwomen is answered by distinguishing their legal position from that of wives and the continuing marital rights owed to wives. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/22. He cites al-Kisāʾī, Abū ʿUmar al-Dūrī and Ibn al-Aʿrābī for the use of عَالَ in the sense of having numerous dependants. Al-Dūrī identifies it as a dialect of Ḥimyar. Al-Qurṭubī also attributes أَلَّا تُعِيلُوا to Ṭalḥah ibn Muṣarrif and records the answer that wives possess continuing marital rights not shared by bondwomen in the same manner. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/490. He explains al-Shāfiʿī’s interpretation through كِنَايَة (kināya), an indirect expression. Numerous dependants are not identical to injustice, but the responsibilities they create may lead a person to incline and neglect rights. Al-Shāfiʿī therefore expressed the established meaning through one of its likely causes and consequences. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/570. He attributes تَعِيلُوا (taʿīlū), “that you not become poor,” to Ṭalḥah, and تُعِيلُوا (tuʿīlū), “that your dependants not become numerous,” to Ṭāwūs. He says that the reading attributed to Ṭāwūs supports al-Shāfiʿī’s interpretation in meaning. Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/469. He attributes أَلَّا تُعِيلُوا (allā tuʿīlū) to Ṭāwūs and explains it from أَعَالَ الرَّجُلُ, “the man’s dependants became numerous.” He says that this reading supports the meaning intended by al-Shāfiʿī. Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/22. He cites al-Kisāʾī, Abū ʿUmar al-Dūrī and Ibn al-Aʿrābī for the use of عَالَ in the sense of having numerous dependants. Al-Dūrī identifies it as a dialect of Ḥimyar. Al-Qurṭubī also attributes أَلَّا تُعِيلُوا to Ṭalḥah ibn Muṣarrif and records the answer that wives possess continuing marital rights not shared by bondwomen in the same manner. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/223. He describes ʿĀʾishah’s account as أَحْسَنُ تَفْسِيرٍ لِهَذِهِ الْآيَةِ, “the best interpretation of this verse.” He explains that she spoke from direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding its revelation. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/367. He prefers the interpretation that compares fear of injustice toward orphans with fear of injustice toward women. A man should marry only the number of women, from one to four, whom he does not fear wronging. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/222. He says that the word “orphans” connects 4:3 with the preceding verse. He also identifies an eloquent compression in the contrast between “orphans” in the condition and “women” in the answer. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/224. He makes مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ circumstantial descriptions of those referred to by مَا طَابَ. They cannot describe النِّسَاءِ directly because that word refers to women as an entire class. He also identifies إِدْمَاج (idmāj), the inclusion of the ruling limiting plural marriage within the ruling protecting orphan girls. ↩

Ḥikmat Bashīr Yāsīn, al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Masbūr, 2/7: al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim transmit through two ḥasan isnāds from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭalḥah, from Ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, يَعْنِي بِالنِّحْلَةِ الْمَهْرَ, ‘He means by niḥla the dowry.’ ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/382, connects the husbands commanded to marry in 4:3 with the husbands commanded to give dowries in 4:4. ↩

Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, by a group of authors, Dār al-Ṣaḥābah edition, 1/362, on وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ through طَابَ لَكُمْ. Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, by a group of authors, Dār al-Ṣaḥābah edition, 1/363, on مِنَ النِّسَاءِ through أَلَّا تَعُولُوا. ↩

Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, by a group of authors, Dār al-Ṣaḥābah edition, 1/362, on وَ as the resumptive opening. ↩

Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/566. He attributes the parenthetical analysis of فَانْكِحُوا to Abū ʿAlī but adds, وَلَعَلَّهُ لَا يَصِحُّ عَنْهُ, “Perhaps this attribution to him is not sound.” Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/566, recording Abū Ḥayyān’s objection: under this parse, the impossibility described in 4:129 would make the permission in 4:3 functionless. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/559, quoting Abū ʿUbaydah’s interpretation and poetic witness. The poet is not named. Al-Samīn retains fear or caution as the direct meaning in 4:3 and refers to his fuller discussion at 2:229. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/559–560, on whether the verbal noun formed by أَنْ لَا تُقْسِطُوا occupies نَصْب (naṣb) directly or جَرّ (jarr) after an omitted preposition. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/561. He records four grammatical analyses of مَا and considers the relative-pronoun analysis the clearest. He also gives two explanations of مِنَ النِّسَاءِ: it may explain the class intended or indicate a part of that class. He adds that the altered numerical forms cannot directly serve as the object of انْكِحُوا because forms of this kind do not immediately follow grammatical operators. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/561. He records four grammatical analyses of مَا and considers the relative-pronoun analysis the clearest. He also gives two explanations of مِنَ النِّسَاءِ: it may explain the class intended or indicate a part of that class. He adds that the altered numerical forms cannot directly serve as the object of انْكِحُوا because forms of this kind do not immediately follow grammatical operators. Iʿrāb al-Qurʾān al-Karīm, by a group of authors, Dār al-Ṣaḥābah edition, 1/363, on مِنَ النِّسَاءِ through أَلَّا تَعُولُوا. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/224. He makes مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ circumstantial descriptions of those referred to by مَا طَابَ. They cannot describe النِّسَاءِ directly because that word refers to women as an entire class. He also identifies إِدْمَاج (idmāj), the inclusion of the ruling limiting plural marriage within the ruling protecting orphan girls. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/562. He makes مَثْنَىٰ a circumstantial description of مَا طَابَ. Abū al-Baqāʾ instead connects it to النِّسَاءِ, while Abū al-Baqāʾ and Ibn ʿAṭiyyah also allow it to serve as a substitute for مَا. Al-Samīn considers both alternatives weak. The reading مَنْ طَابَ attributed to Ibn Abī ʿAbla appears in the same discussion. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/561. He records four grammatical analyses of مَا and considers the relative-pronoun analysis the clearest. He also gives two explanations of مِنَ النِّسَاءِ: it may explain the class intended or indicate a part of that class. He adds that the altered numerical forms cannot directly serve as the object of انْكِحُوا because forms of this kind do not immediately follow grammatical operators. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/562. He makes مَثْنَىٰ a circumstantial description of مَا طَابَ. Abū al-Baqāʾ instead connects it to النِّسَاءِ, while Abū al-Baqāʾ and Ibn ʿAṭiyyah also allow it to serve as a substitute for مَا. Al-Samīn considers both alternatives weak. The reading مَنْ طَابَ attributed to Ibn Abī ʿAbla appears in the same discussion. ↩

Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/566. He explains the accusative فَوَاحِدَةً through the understood command “then marry one.” He supplies a different understood verb for مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ because marriage and lawful possession are not governed by the same legal act. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/370, applying the verbal-noun analysis of مَا to the act expressed by the clause. ↩

Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/567. He records three proposed prepositions omitted before أَلَّا تَعُولُوا: إِلَى, “to”; اللَّام, “for”; and مِنْ, “than.” The third is al-Zamakhsharī’s analysis. It follows the range of prepositions used with دَنَا, “to come near.” ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 2/230, under خ-و-ف. He gives fear and alarm as the root meaning and records the forms خِفْتُ الشَّيْءَ خَوْفًا وَخِيفَةً. In خِيفَة, the yāʾ replaces the original wāw because of the preceding kasra. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 5/85–86, under ق-س-ط, distinguishing قَسَطَ, to act unjustly, from أَقْسَطَ, to act justly. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 6/154, under ي-ت-م, defining yutm among human beings as loss of the father and extending the word to something left alone. Al-Shanqīṭī, Aḍwāʾ al-Bayān, 1/359, discusses the plural الْيَتَامَى from the feminine يَتِيمَة. Because the supplied explanation of its historical formation requires qualification, the manuscript identifies it securely as a broken plural without turning an uncertain derivation into a settled rule. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 5/475, under ن-ك-ح. He connects the root with marital relations and explains that نِكَاح may also refer specifically to the marriage contract. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 3/435, under ط-ي-ب. He gives the root one central meaning: the opposite of what is bad or impure. He also uses الطَّيِّب for what is lawful and calls food and marriage الْأَطْيَبَان, “the two agreeable things.” ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 1/391, under ث-ن-ي. He gives the root meaning as repeating something twice or making it into two successive or separate things. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 1/385, under ث-ل-ث. He identifies the root with the number three and its derivatives. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 2/479, under ر-ب-ع. He gives the root three principal senses: one part of four, remaining in a place, and raising something. The numerical sense applies to رُبَاعَ in this verse. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 4/246, under ع-د-ل, giving the opposed senses of upright balance and deviation. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 6/90, under و-ح-د. He gives the central meaning as being one or alone and includes the distributive form مَوْحَدَ مَوْحَدَ, “one at a time.” ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 5/351, under م-ل-ك. He gives the root meaning as strength or firm power over something. Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 5/352, under م-ل-ك. He derives possession from the root meaning of strength: a person possesses something because his control over it is firmly established. He also explains الْمَمْلُوك as an enslaved person. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 6/158, under ي-م-ن. He connects the right hand, strength, blessing and an oath with the same root and traces these meanings to the right hand. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 2/303, under د-ن-و. He gives nearness as the root meaning. He derives both الدَّنِيّ, “near,” and the meanings “low” or “of lesser rank” from this same idea. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, ed. ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn, 4/189 and 4/198. Hārūn lists ع-و-ل among the roots omitted from the work. Ibn Fāris does include ع-ي-ل and explains عَالَ يَعِيلُ as becoming needy or poor. This is the root of the poverty interpretation, not the canonical تَعُولُوا in the verse. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 4/246, under ع-د-ل. The grammatical label maʿdūl draws on the sense of a form shifted from its ordinary pattern. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/562, on the Baṣran restriction of the number pattern to transmitted forms and the Kūfan allowance of analogy. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/373, citing al-Kumayt ibn Zayd. The witness establishes the heard distributive form عُشَار, “ten at a time.” Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/373. He says that distributive forms beyond four were not generally heard from the Arabs. He treats both خُمَاس and مَخْمَس as unattested and accepts عُشَار only because it appears in a line by al-Kumayt. Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/224. He records three positions concerning how far the distributive number patterns may extend: through four, six or ten. He considers extension through ten the strongest position and identifies it as the Kūfan view. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/565, on the absence of the feminine ة from these distributive number forms. Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/564–565, on the grammatical functions available to the distributive number forms and their resistance to direct governance. Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/371. He explains that مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ do not take ṣarf because they are altered from the ordinary forms “two, three and four.” He compares this alteration with the forms of the names ʿUmar and Zufar. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/563. He organizes the explanations for why the distributive number forms do not take ṣarf into four positions, associated with Sībawayh, al-Farrāʾ, Abū Isḥāq and a position transmitted by al-Akhfash from other grammarians. Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/564. He treats al-Zamakhsharī’s second alteration as the semantic alteration already reported from al-Akhfash. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/562, on the majority view that the distributive forms do not take ṣarf and al-Farrāʾ’s allowance of it with a preference for non-ṣarf. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/486. He explains that مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ do not take ṣarf because of two features: their forms have been altered from the ordinary numbers, and they function descriptively. He uses Qurʾān 35:1 as evidence for their descriptive function. ↩

Ibn Fāris, Muʿjam Maqāyīs al-Lugha, 5/85–86, under ق-س-ط. He connects justice with giving the rightful share and injustice with turning from what is due; compare Qurʾān 72:15 and 49:9. ↩

Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/378–380, for the line attributed through ʿIkrimah to Abū Ṭālib and its variants; al-Farrāʾ, Maʿānī al-Qurʾān, 1/255, for the line attributed to Uḥayḥah ibn al-Julāḥ. The first illustrates inclination through the wāw root; the second illustrates poverty through the yāʾ root. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/568. He distinguishes the similar forms belonging to ع-و-ل and ع-ي-ل. Their precise root and conjugation depend upon whether the intended meaning is inclination, numerous dependants, poverty or another related sense. Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He explains تَعُولُوا through the image of a scale tilting away from balance. He also cites the expressions used for a judge who acts unjustly and for a Bedouin who protested, أَتَعُولُ عَلَيَّ, “Will you incline against me?” Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/489. He identifies “do not act unjustly or incline” as the interpretation preferred by most commentators. His linguistic evidence includes the expressions عَالَ الْمِيزَانُ, “the scale tilted”; أَتَعُولُ عَلَيَّ, “Will you incline against me?”; and عَالَتِ الْفَرِيضَةُ, used when inheritance shares exceed the available estate. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/222. He calls the contrast between “orphans” in the condition and “women” in the answer إِيجَازًا بَدِيعًا, “a remarkable compression.” Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/223. He describes ʿĀʾishah’s account as أَحْسَنُ تَفْسِيرٍ لِهَذِهِ الْآيَةِ, “the best interpretation of this verse.” He explains that she spoke from direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding its revelation. ↩

Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He explains that the distributive numbers are repeated because the command addresses a group. Each man may choose the number permitted to him, just as money may be divided among a group two each, three each or four each. ↩

Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He explains that the conjunction وَ allows different men to choose different permitted numbers, or the same number, while everything beyond four remains prohibited. ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/20. He explains that the classical rules governing intimacy and the division of nights were not identical for wives and female slaves. He immediately qualifies this by requiring حُسْنِ الْمَلَكَةِ وَالرِّفْقِ بِالرَّقِيقِ, good treatment and gentleness toward slaves. He also explains that the right hand is mentioned because Arabic associates it with honorable actions. Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/566–567, explaining the right hand as the hand associated with honorable actions and banners of distinction. ↩

Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/490. He explains al-Shāfiʿī’s interpretation through كِنَايَة (kināya), an indirect expression. Numerous dependants are not identical to injustice, but the responsibilities they create may lead a person to incline and neglect rights. Al-Shāfiʿī therefore expressed the established meaning through one of its likely causes and consequences. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/568–569. He names Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, al-Zajjāj and Ṣāḥib al-Naẓm among those who objected to al-Shāfiʿī’s interpretation. He then transmits al-Zamakhsharī’s answer that al-Shāfiʿī followed the method of kināya. The objection concerning bondwomen is answered by distinguishing their legal position from that of wives and the continuing marital rights owed to wives. ↩

Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, 4/224. He makes مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ circumstantial descriptions of those referred to by مَا طَابَ. They cannot describe النِّسَاءِ directly because that word refers to women as an entire class. He also identifies إِدْمَاج (idmāj), the inclusion of the ruling limiting plural marriage within the ruling protecting orphan girls. ↩

Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/247. Abū Jaʿfar reads فَوَاحِدَةٌ in the nominative, while the other nine canonical reciters read فَوَاحِدَةً in the accusative. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/247. He records that Ḥamzah reads طَابَ with إِمَالَة (imāla). ↩

Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li-Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 5/20. He explains the accusative reading as “then marry one.” Under the nominative reading, the meaning is “then one is sufficient.” He records al-Kisāʾī’s explanation, فَوَاحِدَةٌ تُقْنِعُ, “Then one will suffice.” Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He gives three ways of completing the meaning of the nominative فَوَاحِدَةٌ: “what suffices is one,” “one is sufficient,” or “one is enough for you.” Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 6/373. While explaining the accusative فَوَاحِدَةً, he adds that a nominative form would also be grammatically possible with the meaning “then one is sufficient.” He presents this conditionally as a possible Arabic construction, not as a reading that he is transmitting. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/562. He reports that the written copy of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb had طِيب with a yāʾ. He explains that this spelling indicates the imāla recited by Ḥamzah and does not make the verb passive. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/559–560, attributes تَقْسِطُوا to Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī and Yaḥyā b. Waththāb. Ibn Jinnī, al-Muḥtasab, 1/180, transmits it through al-Mufaḍḍal from al-Aʿmash, from Yaḥyā, Ibrāhīm, and their companions. Ibn Mujāhid says it has no basis as a reading; Ibn Jinnī defends its Arabic construction. The supplied evidence therefore supports an attributed language/readings form, not a canonical assignment. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/562. He makes مَثْنَىٰ a circumstantial description of مَا طَابَ. Abū al-Baqāʾ instead connects it to النِّسَاءِ, while Abū al-Baqāʾ and Ibn ʿAṭiyyah also allow it to serve as a substitute for مَا. Al-Samīn considers both alternatives weak. The reading مَنْ طَابَ attributed to Ibn Abī ʿAbla appears in the same discussion. ↩

Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He attributes the shortened forms وَثُلَثَ وَرُبَعَ to Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/565. He explains that these distributive forms do not take the feminine ة. The same form is used with masculine and feminine nouns. He also records the shortened forms ثُلَث and رُبَع from Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī and ثُنَى through another report from him. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/565, recording ثُنَى from Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī through a separate isnād. ↩

Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/566–567. He records the nominative فَوَاحِدَةٌ from al-Ḥasan and Abū Jaʿfar and gives three grammatical analyses for it. He also explains that the right hand is mentioned because it is associated with honorable actions. He records فَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ from Abū ʿAmr and أَوْ مَنْ مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ from Ibn Abī ʿAbla. Ibn al-Jazarī, al-Nashr fī al-Qirāʾāt al-ʿAshr, 2/247. Abū Jaʿfar reads فَوَاحِدَةٌ in the nominative, while the other nine canonical reciters read فَوَاحِدَةً in the accusative. ↩

Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, 1/468. He attributes the reading مَنْ مَلَكَتْ, using مَنْ instead of مَا, to Ibn Abī ʿAbla. Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/566–567. He records the nominative فَوَاحِدَةٌ from al-Ḥasan and Abū Jaʿfar and gives three grammatical analyses for it. He also explains that the right hand is mentioned because it is associated with honorable actions. He records فَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ from Abū ʿAmr and أَوْ مَنْ مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ from Ibn Abī ʿAbla. ↩

Al-Samīn, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/566–567, records فَمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ from Abū ʿAmr. The supplied source gives no canonical riwāyah or ṭarīq for this form, so the manuscript preserves it as an isolated attribution rather than assigning it to Abū ʿAmr’s registered canonical reading. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/570, attributes تَعِيلُوا (taʿīlū), ‘that you not become poor,’ to Ṭalḥah b. Muṣarrif and تُعِيلُوا (tuʿīlū), ‘that your dependants not become numerous,’ to Ṭāwūs. No canonical route is supplied. ↩

Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/570, gives the dependants form تُعِيلُوا to Ṭāwūs; al-Qurṭubī attributes the dependants form to Ṭalḥah b. Muṣarrif. Al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, 9/490, cites the form attributed to Ṭāwūs in support of al-Shāfiʿī’s secondary implication. The source conflict over the carrier is preserved. ↩

Ibn Jinnī, al-Muḥtasab, 1/180. Al-Mufaḍḍal reports أَلَّا تَقْسِطُوا from al-Aʿmash, from Yaḥyā, Ibrāhīm and their companions. Ibn Mujāhid says that it has no basis as a reading; Ibn Jinnī answers that its Arabic construction is sound. Ibn Jinnī, al-Muḥtasab, 1/180. He explains قَسَطَ as acting unjustly and أَقْسَطَ as acting justly, and cites Qurʾān 72:15. On this analysis, لَا is additional for emphasis. Al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, 3/559–560. He records al-Zajjāj’s explanation that the three-letter قَسَطَ may carry the meaning of أَقْسَطَ, allowing لَا to retain its ordinary negative force. ↩