Al-Ahzab: (32) "O wives of the Prophet..."

(O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women)

A group of men held that the meaning is: "Not one of you is like any single person among women"—meaning, among the women of your era. That is, each one of you is superior to any one of them because you have been distinguished by the honor of being the wives of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and [being] the mothers of the believers.

The word ahad (anyone) remains in its state as a masculine noun, but the noun it describes is omitted. It is necessary to consider this omission in the part of the simile (mushabbah), as indicated. Al-Zamakhshari said: "Ahad is originally in the sense of wahd, which is the one (al-wahid). Then it was placed in general negation, with the masculine, feminine, singular, and those beyond it being equal therein." The meaning is: "You are not like one group among the groups of women." That is, if you were to scrutinize the community of women group by group, you would not find among them one single group equal to you in virtue and precedence. It has also been used in the sense of the plural in His saying: "And they do not distinguish between any one (ahad) of them," because of the word "between" (bayna), which necessitates entry upon a plural.

Applying ahad to a group—as stated in al-Kashshaf—aligns it with the subject of the simile (mushabbah). The meaning [then] is the superiority of the wives of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) over the women of others, not a consideration of the superiority of one [wife] over one [woman] from among individual women, for that is not intended by this context, nor does the apparent wording yield it.

The fact that this is more eloquent is because it necessitates the superiority of their group over every [other] group, and it does not necessitate the superiority of each one [of them] over each one of the individual women—even if that were granted, it would only be so if the wording and context supported it. Some objected to this, saying it would necessitate that each one of the wives of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) be superior to Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her), even though that is not the case.

It was answered that there is no obstacle to committing to this, except that the superiority is committed to being from the perspective of being mothers of the believers and being wives to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), not from [all] aspects. Therefore, it does not harm the claim that Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) is superior to each one of them in some other aspects; indeed, she is—from certain aspects, such as the aspect of being [his] offspring—superior to all of the four Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them all).

Yes, it was objected against what is in al-Kashshaf that ahad, when placed in general negation, has an original hamza that is not transformed from waw. Abu Ali established this, but al-Radi disagreed, transmitting that the hamza of ahad in every place is a substitute for the waw. The well-known position is to differentiate between the [instance] occurring in general negation and the [instance] occurring in affirmation: the hamza of the first is original, and the hamza of the second is transformed from waw.

In al-Aqd al-Manzum fi Alfaz al-Umum by the learned al-Qarafi, this was found problematic by many of the learned because the two expressions have the same form, and the meaning of unity applies to both, and the waw in it is original, so it would necessarily follow that the alif of ahad is absolutely transformed from it, and making the alif of one of them transformed and the other not is arbitrary. Allah the Exalted has enlightened me with the answer to this, which is that ahad, which is used only in negation, means "a human being" (insan) by the consensus of the linguists. Ahad, which is used in affirmation, means "the individual of a number." Since their referents differ, their etymologies differ, for there must be a correspondence between the word and the meaning, and one [factor] is not sufficient. If the intended meaning is "human being," it is the one used only in negation, and its hamza is original. If the intended meaning is "number," i.e., half of two, it is the one suitable for both affirmation and negation, and its alif is transformed from a waw. It is not hidden that if the aforementioned distinction is accepted, the hamza here must be original. Abu Hayyan leaned toward the view that the hamza of the [instance] occurring in negation is original, saying: "What al-Zamakhshari mentioned—that it was placed in general negation, etc.—is incorrect, because the [instance] used in general negation has a meaning different from the meaning of wahid, because wahid applies to everything described by unity, whereas ahad used in general negation is specific to those who possess intellect." The grammarians mentioned that its root is hamza-ha-dal, while the root of ahad in the sense of wahid originates from waw-ha-dal. Thus, they differ in root and meaning.

He mentioned that what is in His saying: "We make no distinction between any one (ahad) of His messengers" is likely the one for general negation, or it could be in the sense of wahid, in which case a coordinated term has been omitted—i.e., "between one and one (wahid wa wahid) of His messengers," as the poet said: "There was no gap between the two goods, had he arrived safely, Abu Hajar, save for a few nights." Al-Raghib said: "Ahad is used in two ways: in negation, for the totality of the species of those who speak, covering the few and the many, collectively and individually, such as "There is no one (ahad) in the house," meaning no one, nor two, and so on, neither collectively nor separately. This meaning is impossible in affirmation because the negation of two opposites is valid, but the affirmation of them is not. If one said, "There is one (ahad) in the house," it would be the affirmation of one individual along with the affirmation of what is above one, collectively and separately, which is clearly impossible. Because it covers what is above one, it is used in [contexts] like: "There is no one (ahad) among you who could prevent us from him." In affirmation, it has three aspects: its use for the unit added to tens, such as ahada 'ashar (eleven) and ahada wa 'ishrun (twenty-one); its use as annexed or annexing, in the sense of "the first," such as "Each of you (ahadukuma) shall serve wine," and their saying "Sunday" (yawm al-ahad); and its use as an adjective, though this is only valid in describing His Majesty, the Exalted. As for its root—i.e., wahd—it is used for other than Him, the Exalted, as al-Nabigha said: "As if my saddle, when the day had passed for us, was on a friendly, lonely (wahd) one in the desert." This is subject to the claim that its hamza is transformed from waw absolutely, or that it is transformed from it in the latter usage.

It is not hidden to the fair-minded that the meaning in the verse being what al-Zamakhshari mentioned is more apparent. The superiority of each one of his wives (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) over each individual woman does not necessarily belong to this verse; rather, it is for another proof, whether rational or textual, such as His saying: "And his wives are their mothers." It is said: It is permissible that it belongs to it, for it indicates—according to the customs of usage—the superiority of each of them over other women, because the superiority of a group over a group is often due to the superiority of each one of them.

(If you are God-fearing) is a condition for the negation of equality and their superiority over [other] women, and its apodosis is omitted, indicated by what is mentioned. Taqwa (being God-fearing) is in its known meaning in the language of the Sharia. The object is omitted—i.e., "If you are God-fearing regarding disobeying the command of Allah the Exalted and the pleasure of His Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)." The intent is "if you remain in the state of fearing that." This is common, or it is to be taken literally, and the intent is agitation, by making the seeking of the world and the inclination toward what women incline toward—due to its distance from their station—tantamount to exiting from taqwa. Or it is a condition whose apodosis is His saying: "Then do not be soft in speech," with taqwa also in its Sharia meaning.

In al-Bahr, it is said it is in the sense of "encountering," i.e., "If you encounter someone, do not be soft." It is known in the language in this sense. Al-Nabigha said: "The veil fell, and she did not intend it to fall; so she reached for it and 'met it' (atqathna) with her hand," i.e., encountered it with her hand. This meaning would be more eloquent in praising them, as their superiority is not hung upon taqwa, nor is the prohibition of softness hung upon it, for they are muttaqin (God-fearing) in themselves, and the suspension [of the condition] implies—apparently—that they are not adorned with taqwa. The rebuttal is that ittaqaytun in the sense of "encountering," even if linguistically correct—and it has occurred in the Quran often, as in His saying: "Is he who is shielded (yattaqi) by his face from the evil of the punishment"—it does not hold here, because it is not used in that sense except with an object through which protection is obtained, as in His saying: "by his face," and the [line of] al-Nabigha: "with the hand." What was cited as evidence is a simple matter. The apparent wording of al-Kashshaf is the choice that "(If you are God-fearing)" is a condition whose apodosis is "then do not be soft," and he interpreted "If you are God-fearing" as "If you desire taqwa, even if you are already muttaqin," indicating that there must be a metaphorical aspect to the speech, for the reality is that those addressed are already muttaqin. So, if the intent is the first [option], it is for emphasis in the prohibition, interpreted as "if you desire taqwa." If the intent is agitation and rousing, it is interpreted as "if you are muttaqin." There is no gathering of the literal and metaphorical in that, as was imagined, and this was established in al-Kashshaf.

The meaning of "Do not be soft in speech" is: Do not reply with your speech in a soft, effeminate manner, according to the fashion of the suspect and the promiscuous. In summary: Do not soften the speech or make it thin. This—as has been said—is regarding other than speaking to a husband or the like, such as speaking to strangers, even if they were eternally prohibited to them.

It is narrated from some of the Mothers of the Believers that she used to place her hand over her mouth when she spoke to a stranger, changing her voice thereby, for fear that he might hear it [as] tender and soft. The harshness of speech for others than the husband was counted among the beautiful qualities of women in the Jahiliyyah and in Islam, just as their stinginess with wealth and their cowardice were counted [as virtues]. What occurs in poetry of praising a mistress for the tenderness of her voice, the beauty of her conversation, and the softness of her speech is from the category of folly, as is not hidden. From al-Hasan, the meaning is: "Do not speak with obscenity," and it is as you see.

(So that he in whose heart is a disease might covet) i.e., corruption and adultery; and with this, Ibn Abbas interpreted it, and he recited the line of al-Asha: "Guarding his chastity, content with taqwa, not among those whose hearts have a disease." The intent is the intention or desire for corruption and adultery. From Qatada, its interpretation is hypocrisy. Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Zayd ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with both) that he said: "Disease is of two types: a disease of adultery and a disease of hypocrisy."

Yat'ma'a (might covet) is in the accusative because it is the response to the prohibition. Aban ibn Uthman and Ibn Hurmuz recited it (yatma') with the jazm (jussive) and a kasra on the 'ayn to avoid two quiescent letters, and it is a coordination to the place of the prohibition, on the basis that it is a prohibition for the one with the diseased heart against coveting, following the prohibition for them against softness in speech, as if it were said: "Do not be soft in speech, so that he in whose heart is a disease does not covet." Abu Amr al-Dani said: Al-A'raj and Isa recited it (yatma') with a fatha on the ya and a kasra on the mim, and Ibn Khalawayh transmitted it from Abu al-Samal, who said: "It has been narrated from Ibn Muhaysin," and mentioned that al-A'raj, who is Ibn Hurmuz, recited it (yatma') with a damma on the ya, a fatha on the 'ayn, and a kasra on the mim, i.e., "that it [the softness in speech] might cause him—the one in whose heart is a disease—to covet." The [subject] "he" refers to the softness of speech, and "the one" (alladhi) is the object, or "the one" is the subject and the object is omitted, i.e., "that he in whose heart is a disease might covet himself."

(And speak a known [proper/good] word) i.e., good, far from suspicion, not inciting greed in anyone. al-Kalbi said: "i.e., correct, without desertion or solicitation." al-Dahhak said: "stern." It is said: "i.e., speech that you have been permitted to say." It is said: "The mention of Allah the Exalted and what is needed of speech."