Tafsir of Al-Ahzab 33:53

This commences the clarification of certain rights owed to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) by the people while he is with his wives, as well as the rights pertaining to them (may Allah be pleased with them). The appropriateness of this to what preceded is manifest. According to the majority, the verse was revealed on the day the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) married Zaynab bint Jahsh.

Imam Ahmad, ‘Abd ibn Humayd, al-Bukhari, Muslim, an-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh, and al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan reported through various chains from Anas, who said: When the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) married Zaynab bint Jahsh, he invited the people, and they ate, then sat conversing. He (the Prophet) seemed as if he were preparing to stand, but they did not stand. When he saw that, he stood, and when he stood, those who stood did so, while three men remained sitting. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) came to enter, and the people were still sitting. Then they stood up. I departed and went to inform the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) that they had left. He came and entered, and I went to enter, but he cast a curtain between me and him. Then Allah the Exalted revealed: "O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet" until the end of the verse.

The prohibition is for tahrim (prohibition/unlawfulness). His saying, the Glorified, "unless you are permitted" is a badal al-musahabah (substitution of accompaniment). It is an istithna’ mufarragh (hollow exception) from the most general of states; meaning: Do not enter them in any state whatsoever, except in the state of being accompanied by permission.

Abu Hayyan permitted it to be the ba’ of causation, so the exception is from the most general of causes; meaning: Do not enter them for any reason, except for the reason of permission. Al-Zamakhshari took the view that it is an exception from the most general of times; meaning: Do not enter them at any time, except the time when you are permitted. Abu Hayyan countered him by stating that occurring in the place of an adverb (time/place) is specific to the explicit verbal noun (masdar sarih) and not the interpreted one (mu’awwal). One does not say, "I came to you that the rooster crows," but rather, "I came to you at the crowing of the rooster." It is not hidden that the claim of specificity is one of two opinions among grammarians on the issue; indeed, it is the most famous, and al-Zamakhshari is an Imam in Arabic who should not be opposed with such a contradiction.

Some claimed that the time is implied in the structure of the speech, so it is omitted—the omission of a preposition—and that this is not a case of the verbal noun occurring in the place of an adverb.

Some distinguished scholars permitted this to be an exception from the most general of states without implying the ba’, but rather considering the verbal noun to be interpreted as a passive participle (ism al-maf’ul); meaning: Do not enter them unless you are permitted. The constructed verbal noun is sometimes interpreted in the sense of the passive participle, as was said regarding the saying of Allah the Exalted, "What is this Qur'an to be fabricated (an yuftara)," meaning, "What is this Qur'an fabricated (muftara)?" So, whoever says that a verbal noun being in the sense of a passive participle is unknown in the interpreted form is mistaken. It was said regarding what was mentioned that it contradicts the view of the grammarians, for the constructed verbal noun is always definite, as stated in al-Mughni.

Al-Khafaji refuted this, saying that the truth is that it is superficial and that it may be indefinite, citing the saying of Allah the Exalted, "What was..." and His saying, "to food." "To food" is connected to "permitted," and it is transitioned with ila (to), even though it usually transitions with fi (in)—one says "he was permitted in such and such"—to convey the meaning of an invitation (da'wah), to indicate that they should not enter for food without an invitation, even if explicit permission to enter the house is realized, for every permission is not an invitation. It is said it is permissible that the two verbs ("enter" and "permitted") contend for it, and there is no harm in that.

His saying, "not watching for its readiness," means: not waiting for its ripening and reaching maturity. You say, "The food ana (ripened), ya'ni, anyan—like qala, yaqli, qalyan—when it ripens and matures," as stated by al-Zajjaj. Makki said: Anah is an adverb of time, a reversed form of ana which means "the time/moment," where the nun was inverted before the alif, and the hamza was changed to a kasra; meaning: "not watching its time," meaning its moment—the moment of its readiness and ripening, or the moment of its consumption. It is a state (hal) from the doer of "enter," and it is a hollow state from the most general of states, as you heard regarding "unless you are permitted." If it is made a state, it is a consecutive state; as if it were said: Do not enter in any state, except accompanied by permission and not watching. The apparent meaning is that it is a prospective state, though it is possible that it is simultaneous.

Al-Zamakhshari, after making what preceded an accusative of adverbial time, made this a state as well, but he said afterward that the exception fell upon the time and the state together; as if it were said: Do not enter the houses of the Prophet except at the time of permission, and do not enter them except as not watching.

Abu Hayyan refuted him, saying that this is not permissible according to the school of the majority, who hold that nothing occurs after illa in an exception except the excepted, the exception-from, or an attribute of the exception-from. He then said: Al-Akhfash and al-Kisa'i permitted this in the state; they permitted, "The people did not come except on Friday, departing from us," so what al-Zamakhshari said is permissible according to them. It is not hidden to the contemplator of al-Zamakhshari's speech that it is far removed from making the noble verse like the mentioned example, because that is based on delay and precedence, and his words are averse to considering that in the verse. Yes, if he had limited himself to making "not watching" a state from the pronoun of "enter," it would be possible to say that his intent is: Do not enter while not watching, unless you are permitted. The meaning would be that their entry while not watching its readiness is conditioned by permission, whereas their entry while watching is forbidden absolutely, by way of priority. Then he advanced the excepted and delayed the state.

Some refuted him by saying that it involves excepting two things—the adverb and the state—with one tool, and Ibn Malik said in al-Tashil: Two things are not excepted with one tool without a conjunction. The apparent meaning is the impermissibility of this, regardless of whether the exception is hollow or not, and whether the two things are governed by the preceding factor or not. So, "The people did not come except Zayd, Amr," is not allowed, nor "The people did not come except Zayd, Amr," and so on.

The discussion on this issue—which of these constructions are valid and which are not, and if valid, upon which aspect—is long and wide. What I incline toward is restricting their generality—"Two things are not excepted with one tool without a conjunction"—to when the two things are not governed by the preceding factor before the exception. Thus, "None came except Zayd except Bakr," for example, is not allowed, since the verb cannot have two subjects without a conjunction, nor "I did not hit except Zayd, Amr," for example, since the verb daraba cannot have two objects without a conjunction. I see the permissibility of "I did not give anyone anything except Zayd, a coin," and "None was hit except Zayd, Amr," without need for the obligation of substituting two names for two names, similar to the saying: "And when we struck the nab' (tree) with the nab' (tree), some of it with some, its branches refused to be broken." In the first, it is the ellipsis of a verb governing Amr, indicated by what is mentioned in the second.

What Ibn Malik mentioned in arguing based on the analogy to conjunction, where he said: "Just as two conjoined elements are not implied after a conjunction, two excepted elements are not implied after an exception tool," does not hold against us. We say regarding conjunction, in the permissibility of "Zayd hit Amr and Bakr hit Khalid" definitively, then "I did not give anyone anything except Zayd, a coin" is similar. His statement that the exception is in the ruling of an initial sentence because the meaning of "The people came except Zayd" is "The people came, Zayd is not among them" is—based on what is said—demanding that what is before does not govern what is after in such as what was mentioned because it is equivalent to "not," and this is not among the excepted forms; it is nothing, as is not hidden.

Regarding what is in Amali al-Kafiya that it is necessary in a hollow exception to imply a factor, if two things are used after illa, then either no factor is implied at all—which contradicts the rule of the chapter—or two factors are implied—which leads to something outside of analogy without proof. If it were permissible for two, it would be permissible for more, which is obviously invalid. Or, a factor is implied for one without the other, which leads to confusion in intent. Al-Hadithi refuted this by saying that one could choose the third and say: The factor is not implied except for the one immediately following illa of the two, because it is the explicitly hollow exception, so no confusion occurs at all.

Abu Hayyan implied an omission in the verse and made "not watching" a state from the pronoun in it, and the estimation is "Enter while not watching." This is what the speech of Ibn Malik necessitates, where he obligated in such as "None was hit except Zayd, Amr" making Amr an object of an omitted verb indicated by what is mentioned, and the sentence is a new beginning, an explanatory start that occurred as an answer to a question arising from the first sentence; as if when it was said, "None was hit except Zayd," a questioner asked, "Who was hit?" and it was said, "He hit Amr."

The scholar Taqi al-Din al-Subki, may mercy be upon him, mentioned in his treatise named al-Hilm wa al-Anah regarding the parsing of "not watching its readiness"—in which al-Salah al-Safadi says: "O seeker of grammar in a time longer in shadow than the spear shaft, and who has not adorned himself from it with a necklace, you must have patience and deliberation"—that the apparent meaning is that al-Zamakhshari did not say that except to interpret the meaning. The excepted in reality is the verbal noun to which the adverb and the state are related; as if it were said: "Do not enter except an entry accompanied by such and such." Then he said: "I do not speak of implying a verbal noun that is the factor for them both, for the work is for the hollow verb; I only intended to explain the meaning." Similar to this parsing is what we choose in the saying of Allah the Exalted, "And those who were given the Scripture did not differ except after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves," meaning: "except a differing after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves." "After knowledge had come to them" and "out of envy" are not the excepted; rather, the excepted fell upon them, which is the "differing," just as you say, "I did not stand except on Friday, laughing, in front of the Prince, in his house." All of them are governed by the hollow verb from the technical perspective, and from the meaning perspective, they are like one thing because collectively they are a part of the verbal noun that the negative verb contains. This is better than implying "they differed out of envy among themselves," because then it does not benefit restriction (hasr). Based on what we have said, it benefits restriction therein, just as it benefited in His saying, "after knowledge had come to them." It is a restriction on two things, but by the path we have stated, not that it is an exception of two things, but an exception of one thing applicable to two things.

It is possible to carry the speech of al-Zamakhshari upon that. So his saying: "The exception fell upon the time and the state together" is correct. The excepted is the more general, for the more general falls upon the more specific, and what falls upon the concrete is concrete. Thus, he escaped what was countered against him from the statement of the grammarians, "Two things are not excepted with one tool without a conjunction."

It is permitted that "not watching" be a state from the genitive in "for you," and al-Zamakhshari did not mention it. In al-Kashf, if it were made a state from that, it would benefit what he mentioned in that he prohibited entry at all times except the time of the presence of the specified permission. The scholar Taqi al-Din said: He did not make it a state from that, even if it is permissible from the technical side, because it would become a prospective state, and because they would not become prohibited from waiting, but that would be a condition in the permission. The meaning is not that, but rather that they were forbidden from entering except with permission, and they were forbidden, if they entered, from being "not watching its readiness." Therefore, it was prevented from the meaning side that the factor be "you are permitted" and that it be a state from its object.

Perhaps he is further in his view than what is in al-Kashf. Ibn Abi 'Abla read "ghayri" with a kasra, as an attribute to "food," so it would be running upon something other than the one whose state it is. The school of the Basrans regarding that is the necessity of making the pronoun explicit, by saying here "not watching you (antum)," or "not watching you." There is no harm in omitting it according to the Kufans if no confusion occurs, as is the case here.

Hamza and al-Kisa'i gave imala to "anah," based on the fact that it is a verbal noun of "the food ana (ripened) when it matures." Al-A'mash read "ina'ahu" with an elongation after the nun.

"But when you are invited, enter." This is a rectification of the prohibition of entering without permission, and it contains an indication that what is meant by permission for food is the invitation to it. "And when you have eaten, disperse," meaning: when you have eaten the food, then separate and do not linger. The fa is for immediate succession without delay, to indicate that their entry after permission and invitation should be in a manner that is followed by the commencement of eating without a gap. The verse, according to what the majority of exegetes went with, is an address to a group who used to wait for the food of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), then enter and sit, waiting for it to be ready. It is specific to them and those like them who act as they do in the future. Thus, the prohibition is specific to those who entered without an invitation and sat waiting for food without need. It does not benefit the prohibition of entering with permission for other than food, nor from sitting and lingering after food for another concern. If the address were considered general, the mentioned entering and lingering would be prohibited, and no one says that. This is supported by what ‘Abd ibn Humayd reported from al-Rabi‘ from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: "They used to time it, so they would enter the house of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and sit, conversing, so that food would be ready. Then Allah the Exalted revealed: 'O you who have believed'..." Likewise is what Ibn Abi Hatim reported from Sulayman ibn Arqam, who said: "It was revealed regarding the burdensome." From here, it is said that it is the verse of the burdensome. The claim that it is permissible that "to food" be contended for by the two verbs ("enter" and "permitted") has preceded, and the command is apparent based on it.

The scholar Ibn Kamal said: The apparent meaning is that the address is general to those who are not mahram, and the specificity of the cause does not suffice as a restrictor, according to what is established in the principles. Yes, it is a way to restrict permission by His saying, "to food," so the illusion of considering its concept is repelled. Therein is discussion, so contemplate. The famous view regarding the reason for revelation is what we mentioned at the beginning of the verse from Imam Ahmad, the two Shaykhs, and others, so do not be negligent.

"And not desiring to listen to a narrative," meaning: to the narrative of each other, or to the narrative of the people of the house by eavesdropping. The lam is for causality, or the lam of strengthening. "Desiring" is in the genitive, conjoined to "watching," and "la" (not) is redundant. It is permitted that it be in the accusative, conjoined to "other than," like the saying of Allah the Exalted, "nor of those who go astray." It is permitted that it be a prospective or simultaneous state from the doer of a verb that was omitted with its doer, and that is conjoined to what is mentioned; the estimation is: "Do not enter them, or do not remain, desiring to listen to a narrative." "That (the lingering indicated by the speech, or the desire to listen, or the mentioned desire and watching, or entering in other than the mentioned way—the first is more suitable to the context and what preceded) used to annoy the Prophet." Because it would be a preventative for him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) from fulfilling some of his needs, along with what it contains of narrowing the house upon him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his family. "And he feels shy of you," meaning: from expelling you by saying to you, "Leave," or from preventing you from what annoys him, as it is said. The speech is upon the implication of a possessive noun for His saying, the Exalted, "And Allah does not feel shy of the truth," for it indicates that what is felt shy of is a meaning of the meanings, not their entities, so that the negation and affirmation come upon one thing, as the system of the speech necessitates. If the intended meaning were the shyness of their entities, He, the Glorified, would have said, "And Allah does not feel shy of you." So what is intended by the truth is their expulsion or prevention from that, and the "truth" was placed in its position to exalt His status. The summary of the speech is that He, the Exalted, did not abandon the truth and commanded you to leave, and the expression of the lack of shyness is for the sake of correspondence (mushakala). It is permitted that the speech be upon metaphor or figurative language, and considering the implication of a possessive noun is what al-Zamakhshari and many others went with, and it is what should be relied upon. In al-Kashf: "If you say: Shyness from Zayd for expulsion, for example, is the reality, and shyness from his expulsion is a stretching by making what the action arose from like the link—and both expressions are correct, it is correct to place one in the position of the other—I would say: It is intended that the meaning of expulsion must be noted. So either the expulsion is implied and it is placed upon it, and the omission becomes frequent and the wording does not match in negation and affirmation, or the possessive noun is implied, and it becomes less frequent and matches. With the presence of the preference and the absence of the preventer, there is no way for turning away, so what was mentioned is necessary."

The scholar Ibn Kamal said: His saying, the Exalted, "And he feels shy of you," is a causality for an omitted thing indicated by the context, meaning: "And he does not expel you, for he feels shy of you." Therefore, it was started with the tool of causality. If the meaning were "he feels shy of expelling you," it would have been its right to be started with the wa. Therein is that the speech, after conceding what was mentioned, is upon the implication of the possessive noun. Some claimed that the origin is "He feels shy of you regarding the truth, and Allah does not feel shy of the truth," and the intended meaning of the truth is their expulsion, on the basis that that is from the ihtibak (mutual ellipsis). Both prepositions are not in the same sense; rather, the first is for initiation and the second is for causality. He said: "Assuming that is more appropriate to the miraculous nature of the revelation and the Qur'anic brevity," and the deficiency therein is not hidden.

A group read, as in al-Bahr, "inastahya" with a kasra on the ha', the present tense of istahya, and it is the dialect of Banu Tamim. The omitted is either the central letter, so its measure is yastafil, or its final letter, so its measure is yasta'fi. In al-Kashshaf, it was read "la yastahyi" with one ya'. I think that the reading with one ya' in the verb in both places is this. The apparent meaning is the prohibition of lingering upon the one invited to food after he has eaten if there is annoyance to the master of the house in that. And what was mentioned is not specific to when the lingering is in the house of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). From here, the burdensome person was blameworthy among the people and ugly in action to the intelligent.

From Ibn Abbas and Aisha (may Allah be pleased with them both): "It suffices you regarding the burdensome that Allah the Mighty and Majestic did not tolerate them." In my view, like the mentioned burdensome person is he who is invited at a specific time with a group and delays from that time without a significant, legally recognized excuse, but purely to wait and display among those present the greatness of his status, and that the owner of the house cannot present the food to those present before his presence, out of fear of him, or respect for him, or suchlike, so those present or the owner of the house are annoyed by that. We have seen many of this class. We ask Allah the Exalted for well-being. Indeed, His favor, the Exalted, was great.

"And when you ask them for an object," the pronoun is for the wives of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), indicated by mentioning his houses (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), meaning: and when you request from them an object (something to be enjoyed, from household goods and others), "then ask them from behind a partition," meaning a screen.

Al-Bukhari, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn Mardawayh reported from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "O Messenger of Allah, the righteous and the wicked enter upon you, so if you would command the Mothers of the Believers to cover themselves..." Then Allah the Exalted revealed the verse of the veil. He (may Allah be pleased with him) was eager for their veiling, and that was not but out of love for the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

Ibn Jarir reported from Aisha that the wives of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) used to go out at night when they went to the Manasi' (open grounds). Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) used to say to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Veil your women," but the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) would not do so. One night, Sawda bint Zam'a (may Allah be pleased with her) went out in the evening, and she was a tall woman. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) called out to her with his loudest voice: "We have recognized you, O Sawda," out of eagerness that the veil be revealed. Then Allah the Exalted revealed the veil. That is one of the conformities of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and it is famous. The Shia counted what occurred from him (may Allah be pleased with him) in the report of Ibn Jarir as among the faults, saying: "Because of what it contains of bad manners, shaming Sawda, and the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and annoying him by that."

The Sunnis answered, after conceding the authenticity of the report, that he (may Allah be pleased with him) saw that there was no harm in that because it prevailed upon his opinion that great good would follow from it. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), even if he were more knowledgeable than him and more protective, did not do that, awaiting the revelation, which is appropriate for the perfection of his status with his Lord, the Mighty and Majestic.

Al-Bukhari in al-Adab and an-Nasa’i reported from the hadith of Aisha that she used to eat with him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and some of his companions used to eat with them, and a man's hand touched her hand. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) disliked that, so the verse was revealed. It is not far-fetched that the sum of what was mentioned is the reason for the revelation. The veil was revealed, as reported by Ibn Sa'd from Anas, in the year five of the Hijra.

He reported from Salih ibn Kaysan that it was in Dhu al-Qi'dah of that year. "That" is apparently a reference to asking from behind a partition. It is said: It is a reference to what was mentioned of not entering without permission, not desiring to listen to a narrative when entering, and asking for household goods from behind a partition. "is purer for your hearts and their hearts," meaning: more cleansed from the satanic thoughts that occur to men regarding women and to women regarding men. For seeing is the cause of attachment and tribulation. In some reports: "The glance is a poisonous arrow from the arrows of Iblis." A poet said: "A man as long as he has an eye that he turns upon the eyes of others, he is suspended upon danger. It gladdens his eye what pains his soul; no welcome to a benefit that brings harm."

"And it is not for you," meaning: and it is not correct and not upright for you "to annoy the Messenger of Allah," meaning: to do in his life an action that he dislikes and is annoyed by, such as lingering and desiring to listen to a narrative, which you used to do, and others. The expression of him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) with the title of the Message is to condemn that action and to indicate that it is far removed from what his status (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) necessitates, since in the Message there is of their benefit, which necessitates reciprocating with the like rather than annoyance, what there is. "Nor to marry his wives after him ever," after his passing or his parting. It is like specification after generalization, for marrying the wife of a man after his parting from her is of the greatest annoyance. Among people are those whose jealousy for their wives is excessive, to the extent that they wish for them death so that they may not be married after them, especially the Arabs, for they are the most jealous of people.

Al-Zamakhshari recounted that some youth killed a slave girl he loved for fear that she would fall into the hands of another after his death. The apparent meaning is the prohibition, and the contract is not valid. The generality of "wives" is apparent in that there is no difference in that between the one consummated with and others, such as the musta'idha (the one who sought refuge) and the one in whose flank he saw whiteness, so he said to her (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) before consummation: "Return to your family." This is what Imam al-Shafi'i stated, and he corrected it in al-Rawdah. The Imam of the Haramayn and al-Rafi'i in al-Saghir corrected that the prohibition is for the one consummated with only, because it was reported that al-Ash'ath ibn Qays al-Kindi married the musta'idha in the time of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and Umar intended to stone him, but he was informed that she had not been consummated with, so he desisted without disapproval. It was also reported that Qutayla bint Qays, the sister of the mentioned al-Ash'ath, was married by Ikrimah ibn Abi Jahl in Hadhramaut, and her brother had married her before to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), so before he consummated with her, he carried her with him to Hadhramaut, and he (the Prophet) died while she was his wife. That reached Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), so he said: "I intended to burn her house upon her." Umar said to him: "She is not one of the Mothers of the Believers; he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not consummate with her, and the veil was not placed upon her."

It is said: He did not argue against him with that; rather, he argued that she apostatized when her brother apostatized, so she was not one of the Mothers of the Believers by her apostasy. Likewise, it is apparent that there is no difference in that between the one of them who chose the worldly life, such as Fatima bint al-Dahhak ibn Sufyan al-Kilabi in the report of Ibn Ishaq, and the one who chose Allah the Exalted and His Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), such as his nine wives (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) whom he left behind when he died.

Scholars have two paths regarding the permissibility of the one who chose the world for others. One is to push the disagreement, and the second is to decide on the permissibility, which the Imam and al-Ghazali (may mercy be upon them both) chose. It is as if whoever said the permissibility of the non-consummated with and the permissibility of the one who chose the world mentioned carried "wives" to those who were in his wedlock on the day of the revelation of the verse and to those who resemble them, and they are none but the consummated-with ones who chose him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If that is carried, and it is intended by His saying, the Exalted, "after him" (after his parting), it necessitates the prohibition of marrying those of those wives whom he divorced for the believers, and it is so. From here, those who said that his divorce (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is limited to three disagreed. Some said: She is permissible to him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) if he divorced her three times without a muhallil (intervening husband). Others said: She is not permissible to him at all. The apparent meaning of the expression "wives" is the non-inclusion of the ruling for a slave woman whom he parted from (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) after intimacy.

There are aspects in the issue; the third of them is that she is prohibited if he parted from her by death, like Mariya (may Allah be pleased with her), and she is not prohibited if he sold her or gifted her in life.

The prohibition of marrying his wives (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) after him is among his specificities (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). I heard from some ignorant Sufis that they prohibit marrying the wife of the Sheikh after him for the disciple, and it is ignorance upon which there is no increase. "Indeed, that," a reference to what was mentioned of annoying him (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and marrying his wives after him, and what it contains of the meaning of distance, to indicate the distance of its status in evil and corruption, "was in the sight of Allah," in His judgment, the Glorified, "great," meaning: a great matter and a terrifying affair whose measure cannot be calculated. Therein is of His exalting, the Exalted, the status of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the obligation of his sanctity, alive and dead, what is not hidden. Therefore, He (the Glorified) exaggerated the threat, where He said: