Sūrat an-Nisā’

It is Medinan, according to the correct view. An-Naḥḥās claimed it is Meccan, basing his argument on the premise that the saying of the Exalted, "Indeed, Allah commands you..." (v. 58) was revealed in Mecca by consensus regarding the key of the Ka’bah. The scholar as-Suyūṭī rebutted this, stating that it is a weak reliance; for the revelation of a verse or verses in Mecca within a long surah, the majority of which was revealed in Medina, does not necessitate that the entire surah be Meccan. Especially since the most valid opinion is that everything revealed after the Hijrah is Medinan. Whoever examines the circumstances of the revelation of its verses will recognize the refutation of his claim.

Also refuting his claim is what al-Bukhārī recorded from ‘Ā’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, who said: "Sūrat al-Baqarah and an-Nisā’ were not revealed except while I was with him [the Prophet], may Allah bless him and grant him peace." His marriage to her, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, took place after the Hijrah by consensus. It has also been said that it was revealed at the time of the Hijrah.

The number of its verses according to the Syrians is one hundred and seventy-seven; according to the Kufans, one hundred and seventy-six; and according to the others, one hundred and seventy-five. The verses in dispute are two: the first is "that you lose the way" (an taḍillū as-sabīl), and the second is "He will punish them with a painful punishment" (fayu‘adhdhibuhum ‘adhāban alīmā). The Kufans consider the first a complete verse, while the Syrians include the second as well; the others argue that both are merely parts of verses.

The aspect of its connection to Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān includes several points: One is that Āl ‘Imrān concluded with the command to have taqwā (piety), and this surah opens with it. This is one of the most emphatic aspects of coherence in the arrangement of surahs. It is a type of stylistic innovation called in poetry "resemblance of extremities" (tashābuh al-aṭrāf), and some call it tasbīgh. This is like the saying of Laylā al-Akhyaliyyah: "When al-Ḥajjāj descends upon a diseased land, he follows the furthest of its ailments until he heals it. He heals it from the chronic disease that is within it—a youth who, when he shakes the spear, he quenches it, he quenches it, and satisfies it with the drink of his buckets—the blood of men—until it reaches its core."

Another point is that in Āl ‘Imrān, the story of the Battle of Uḥud is mentioned in detail, while in this surah, its aftermath is mentioned, which is the saying of the Exalted, "So what is the matter with you [that you are] two groups regarding the hypocrites?" (v. 88). Indeed, it was revealed concerning matters related to that battle, as you will hear narrated, God willing, from al-Bukhārī, Muslim, and others.

A further point is that in Āl ‘Imrān, the battle that occurred after Uḥud is mentioned, as we indicated regarding the saying of the Exalted, "Those who responded to Allah and the Messenger..." (v. 172) and so on, and it is alluded to here by His saying, the Glorified, "And do not weaken in pursuit of the enemy..." (v. 104). Through these two points, it is known that delaying an-Nisā’ after Āl ‘Imrān is more appropriate than placing it before it—as was the case in the codex of Ibn Mas‘ūd—because what is mentioned here is an aftermath and a continuation of what was mentioned there, so delaying it is more fitting. Whoever scrutinizes it will find that much of what is mentioned in this surah is an elaboration of what was mentioned in the preceding one; thus, a greater connection and supreme structural cohesion become evident.

"In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. O mankind" This address encompasses all those who are burdened with religious obligations (mukallafun) from the time it was revealed until the Day of Resurrection, according to the verification previously established. Regarding whether this formulation covers slaves (abid) in religious law so that the ruling includes them, there is a difference of opinion. The majority hold that it does cover them because a slave is, by definition, one of "mankind," and thus enters into the general address unequivocally; his status as a slave does not constitute an impediment to that.

Some hold that it does not, arguing that it has been established by consensus (ijma') that the benefits of a slave are due to his master; thus, if he were burdened with this address, it would mean diverting his benefits away from his master, which is a contradiction. Therefore, they follow the consensus and abandon the apparent meaning. Furthermore, the slave is excluded from the address regarding Jihad, Friday prayer, Umrah, Hajj, voluntary acts, acknowledgments, and the like. If the address were general, it would necessitate specification (takhsis), and the principle is the absence thereof.

The answer to the first point is: We do not concede that the diversion of his benefits to his master is absolute. Rather, it is exempted during times when religious duties become pressing. If the master were to order him at the very end of the time for Dhuhr, and obeying him would cause the prayer to be missed, the prayer becomes obligatory upon him, and his benefit is not diverted to the master at that time. Once this is established, being mandated to perform worship is not contradictory to their statement about diverting benefits to the master.

Regarding the second point, his exclusion is based on evidence that necessitates his exclusion, much like the exclusion of the sick, the traveler, and the menstruating woman from the generalities regarding the obligation of fasting, prayer, and Jihad. This does not indicate that the address does not cover them by consensus; rather, it is simply an exception to the rule made for a specific reason, which is permissible.

Furthermore, the correct view is that the nations that passed away before the revelation of this address have no share in it, because commandments and prohibitions are specific to those who can actually perform the compliance. How could they comply when they are beneath the layers of the earth, not rising until the Trumpet is blown?

Some permitted the possibility that the address is general enough to include them. Then it was said: It is not far-fetched that the command to follow is also general for them regarding the Eternal Speech subsisting in the Essence of Allah the Exalted, even if its being in Arabic is accidental relative to this nation. This is debatable, because what is viewed are the rulings of the Quran after revelation; otherwise, the call and all the direct addresses contained therein would be metaphors, and no one claims that—so reflect.

In any case, the word "mankind" (an-nas) includes males and females without dispute. There is, however, a difference regarding the inclusion of the feminine in expressions like "Fear your Lord" (ittaqū rabbakum—using the masculine plural). The majority maintain that females are not included in such a formulation ostensibly, contrary to the Hanbalis. The former argue that it was narrated from Umm Salamah that she said: "O Messenger of Allah, the women say: We do not see Allah mentioning anything but men." Then He revealed [verses] mentioning them, which denied their mention [in the masculine form] absolutely. Had they been included, her denial would not have been truthful, nor would the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) have permitted such a denial. They also argue that the scholars of the Arabic language have agreed that this formulation is a masculine plural and that it is for the sake of reinforcing the singular, and the singular is masculine. Also, the equivalent of this form is "the Muslims" (al-muslimūn); if the meaning of "Muslim women" (al-muslimāt) were included in it, the conjunction in the verse "Indeed, the Muslim men and the Muslim women..." would not be eloquent, unless it were for emphasis, and construction is better than emphasis.

The others [the Hanbalis] said: It is well-known among linguists that they prioritize the masculine over the feminine when they are gathered together by consensus. Moreover, if females were not included in that, they would not participate in the rulings, since most of them are established by such a formulation, and the necessary consequence is negated by consensus, as in the rulings of prayer, fasting, and zakat. Also, if one bequeathed to men and women one hundred dirhams, then said: "I have bequeathed to them [masculine pronoun] such and such," women would enter into it without any contextual cue; this is the meaning of the "truth" (haqiqa), so it is a truth for both men and women ostensibly—which is the objective.

The response to the first [point] is: It only indicates that the general phrasing is valid if all are intended, and the majority admit this, but it is metaphorical, and it does not necessitate that it be the apparent meaning—and this is where the dispute lies. As for the second, it is by denying the entailment. Yes, it entails that they do not participate in rulings through such a formulation, but what prevents them from participating via an external proof? The matter is as such; that is why they are not included in Jihad or Friday prayers, for instance, due to the lack of an external proof there. As for the third, the claim of "immediacy" there without a cue is denied, for the aforementioned bequest is a cue indicating the intent. Thus, the truth is that females are not included ostensibly. Yes, it is better here to say they are included due to prioritization (taghlib). Some claimed there is no prioritization, but rather the command is for men only as the apparent form dictates, and the entry of females into the command of piety is due to external evidence. It is not hidden that this necessitates restricting the word "mankind" to some of its members, because keeping it upon its generality is what sound taste rejects.

The commanded [piety] is that which includes avoiding disbelief, sins, and all obscenities, and it extends to observing the rights of people just as it extends to observing the rights of Allah the Exalted.

As for piety in terms of neglecting what must be protected in terms of rights between servants, this meaning corresponds to what is in the Surah regarding caring for orphans, maintaining family ties, justice in marriage, inheritance, and the like, specifically. Unlike the former, it only corresponds to them in a general sense.

In the exposure of the title of Lordship (Rububiyyah) while added to the pronoun of the addressees, there is an evident support for the command and an emphasis on the obligation of compliance. Likewise, in describing the Lord with His saying, "who created you from a single soul," because usage dictates that the description to which a ruling is attached is either a causal factor for it or an incitement to it and a call toward it. It is not hidden that what is here is such, because what is mentioned indicates the great power or the immense grace. There is no doubt that the first necessitates piety absolutely, out of fear of the great punishment, and the second calls to it in fulfillment of the obligatory gratitude. The necessity of piety arising from the creation from a single origin, based on the second possibility, is very evident. In the mentioned description, there is an alert that the addressees are aware of what is mentioned, which necessitates adorning oneself with piety, and in it is a perfect rebuke to whoever misses that.

The meaning of the "single soul" is Adam (peace be upon him). The consensus of the jurists, hadith scholars, and those who agreed with them is that there is nothing but one Adam, who is the father of mankind. The author of Jami' al-Akhbar from the Imamiyyah mentioned in the fifteenth chapter a long report in which he narrated that Allah created thirty Adams before our father Adam, with a thousand years between each Adam, and that the world remained desolate after them for fifty thousand years, then was inhabited for fifty thousand years, then our father Adam (peace be upon him) was created. Ibn Babawayh narrated in the book At-Tawhid from as-Sadiq in a long hadith as well, that he said: "Perhaps you think that Allah did not create human beings other than you? Yes, by Allah, He created a thousand thousand Adams; you are at the end of those Adams." Al-Maytham stated in his major commentary on Nahj al-Balagha and quoted from Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir that he said: "A thousand thousand Adams or more have passed before Adam, who is our father." The Great Sheikh (may his secret be sanctified) mentioned in his Futuhat what ostensibly suggests that forty thousand years before Adam, there was another Adam. In the book Al-Khasa'is, there is also that which almost implies multiplicity, as he narrated from as-Sadiq that he said: "Indeed, Allah the Exalted has twelve thousand worlds; each world is greater than seven heavens and seven earths; not one of them sees that Allah has a world other than them..."

If this and its likes are authentic, they should be interpreted as the "world of symbols" (alam al-mithal), not this world we are in. Carrying the multiplicity of Adams into that world is not far-fetched. As for the belief in the apparent meanings of these reports, it is something the People of the Sunnah and the Community (Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah) do not hold; rather, Zayn al-Arab explicitly declared the disbelief of anyone who believes in the multiplicity of Adams. Yes, our Adam (peace be upon him) was preceded by the creation of others like angels, jinn, and many animals, and other things that only Allah knows, but not by the creation of his likenesses. He is originated in type and individual, contrary to some philosophers in their belief in the eternity of the human species. Many of us went to the view that from his existence until the time of the mission [of the Prophet] is six thousand years, and that the age of the world is seven thousand years, and they narrated many reports regarding that. The truth in my view is that he existed after not having existed, and will not exist after having existed. As for when he existed and when he will cease, it is something only Allah knows. The reports are contradictory in this chapter, so they can hardly be relied upon.

The claim that the "Universal Soul" sits to judge between the "particular souls" every seven thousand years, and that the Hour will rise after the completion of seven millennia, and that this is what is referred to, is something I do not accept as a matter of faith, nor do I choose it with certainty.

The address in "your Lord" and "created you" is to those who are commanded, and generalizing it to include past nations—while the previous address does not include them—is based on the fact that the universality of His Lordship and His creation of everyone is more perfect in emphasizing the previous command. Moreover, it involves a dismantling of the order that is not needed, because His creation of those commanded from the soul of Adam (peace be upon him), as they existed through the medium of the ancestors between him and them, makes the reference to their creation contain the right of all the mediums. Similarly, the reference to His Lordship over them contains His Lordship over all their origins, especially since the speech was followed by His saying, "and created from it its mate."

This is a conjunction to "created you," included with it within the sphere of the relative clause. The verb was repeated to show the difference between the two creations: the first is by way of branching from the origin, and the second is by way of origination from the matter. For the intended meaning of "mate" is Eve, and she was created from Adam's left rib, as narrated from Ibn Umar and others. The two Sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim) narrated: "Treat women kindly, for they were created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is the top; if you try to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked." Abu Muslim denied her creation from a rib because He is capable of creating her from soil, so what is the benefit in creating her from that? He claimed that "from it" means "from its kind," and the verse is on the same order as His saying, "He made for you from yourselves mates." Some agreed with him, claiming that the view [of creation from a rib] leads to the statement that Adam (peace be upon him) was having intercourse with parts of himself, which has an obvious repulsiveness. Some claimed that Eve was a Hur (houri), created from what the Houris were created from after Adam was settled in Paradise. Both views are false. As for the second, it is because there is nothing in the verses or the hadiths that even remotely suggests a hint to it, let alone explicitly states it. Furthermore, it is said against it: The Houris were created from the saffron of Paradise, as reported in some traditions. If Eve were created from what they were created from—as is the text of the claimant's speech—then between her and Adam (peace be upon him), who was created from the soil of the world, there would be a near difference in the "kindness" that the verse might imply, which necessitates [divinity/strangeness] after the occurrence of reproduction between them in this realm. If she were created from what Adam was created from, then, besides being contrary to the text of his speech, it is also said: This is a statement similar to what Abu Muslim said, or if it is not exactly that, it is close to it. As for the first [the repulsiveness], it is because if the matter were as he mentioned, people would have been created from two souls, not from one soul, and this is contrary to the text. It is also contrary to what the authentic reports from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) speak of, and this also refutes the second view.

The statement, "What is the benefit in creating her from a rib when Allah is capable of creating her from soil?" is answered by: The benefit, besides the wisdom hidden from us, is to show that He, the Exalted, is capable of creating a living being from a living being without the way of procreation, just as He is capable of creating a living being from inanimate matter. If the capability of creating from soil were to prevent creation from other than it due to a lack of benefit, everyone would have been created from soil without a medium, for just as He is capable of creating Adam from soil, He is capable of creating all other individuals of humanity from it as well. So, what is your answer regarding the creation of people from each other, despite the capability of creating them like the creation of Adam (peace be upon him)? This is our answer regarding the creation of Eve from Adam despite the capability of creating her from soil. The statement that "this leads to what has repulsiveness" is clearly flawed, because this specific individuation that occurred for that part, such that none of its original individuation remained, is apparent and dispels the repulsiveness, which has no cause other than pure illusion, especially when wisdom necessitates such specific intercourse.

The Great Sheikh (may his secret be sanctified) mentioned that when Eve separated from Adam, her place in him was filled with the procreative desire, through which sexual intercourse occurred for the appearance of reproduction. The air that was outside, which filled her place, became the body of Eve upon her exit, for there is no vacuum in the world. So that airy part sought its place, which Eve had taken with her individuation, so she moved Adam to seek her place, and he found it filled with Eve, so he had intercourse with her. When he had intercourse with her, she became pregnant, and she brought forth offspring. After that, it remained a standing custom in the animals of the children of Adam and others by nature. However, man is the comprehensive word and a copy of the world, so everything in the world is a part of him, and man is not a part of one thing in the world. The cause of the separation and the creation of this first separated [being] was the desire for companionship with what is suitable in the "kind"—which is the specific species—and so that there would be in the world of bodies, through this natural joining of the "Perfect Man" (al-insan al-kamil) in the form that Allah willed, what resembles the "Highest Pen" (al-qalam al-a'la) and the "Preserved Tablet" (al-lawh al-mahfuz), which are expressed as the First Intellect and the Universal Soul. Ended.

It is understood from their words that this creation did not occur like this except between these two spouses, unlike other spouses of animals. I have not come across anything to satisfy the thirst on this point. Yes, Abd ibn Humid and Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with both) that the spouse of Iblis (may the curse be upon them) was created from his left rear rib. The "rear" (khalf)—as in the Sihah—is the shortest rib of the side, and that is how al-Dahhak interpreted it in this place. The explanation of the creation of the spouse was delayed after the explanation of the creation of the addressees because reminding [them] of their own creation is more effective in achieving what is intended—carrying them to comply with the command—than reminding them of her creation. The prepositional phrase was brought forward to attend to the explanation of the primordiality of Adam (peace be upon him) for her, and because of the suspense in the postponement. The title of "spousehood" was chosen as a preamble for what follows, which is reproduction.

Some researchers went to the view of the permissibility of conjoining this sentence to an implied one, indicated by the context, because the branching of branches from a single origin necessitates the creation of that origin inevitably. It is as if it was said: "Created you from a single soul," He created it first, "and created from it its mate," etc. This implied [sentence] is either an initiation intended to confirm the unity of the origin and explain the manner of their creation from it by detailing what was summarized first, or it is an adjective for "soul" that conveys that. Some made this implication necessary upon the assumption that the address in the preceding [part] is general to the species. Perhaps this is because, without the implication at that time, this would be—along with His saying, "and dispersed from both of them," i.e., spread and separated from that soul and its mate by way of reproduction and procreation, "many men and women"—a repetition of His saying "created you," because their result is the same. It is not by way of explaining the first, because it is conjoined to it [in the case of] the absence of the implication, and it would suggest that the men and women were not created from a single soul and that they are independent in their creation from it and from its mate, whereas people were only created "from a single soul" without the mate having an entry. That [contradiction] does not follow upon the conjunction and making the one addressed by "created you" those to whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was sent, since "and dispersed from both of them," etc., would apply to those other than the mission-recipients among the past nations—due to the restriction—and such an assumption is very far-fetched. Likewise, it does not follow upon the assumption of deleting the conjoined-to [the first clause] and making the address general, because that deleted [part] and what is conjoined to it would be an explanation of the manner of creation from that soul. Some claimed that there is no impediment to making the address general without the need to imply a conjoined-to [part] with it, and to this, the author of At-Taqrib leaned. The drawback they mention is not directed, for it is not understood from the creation of the children of Adam from a single soul that her mate was created from him, nor that the men and women were created from both origins together.

The conjoined [part] is responsible for explaining that. Many have mentioned that what is necessary in a conjunction is the difference between the conjoined [entities], even if from one aspect, and this is realized here without doubt, as is not hidden. The coloring in "men and women" is for the sake of multiplication, and "many" is an adjective for "men," emphasizing what the indefinite [nature] and the singular [form] conveyed in consideration of the meaning of the plural or number, or to respect the fa'il pattern. Abu al-Baqa' narrated that it is an adjective for an omitted source, meaning "a [many] scattering," and that is why it was made singular. To make it an adjective [to the noun] when it is said that it is a clumsy effort is not [the intent]. The "men and women" are not intended to be the adults specifically, but the males and females absolutely, by way of metaphor. Perhaps their preference over "males and females" is to emphasize the multiplicity and hyperbole in it, by designating each individual of the dispersed individuals for the primordiality of another. It was said: "Men" were mentioned because they are in the context of those burdened with piety, and describing men with "many" sufficed for describing women with it, because wisdom dictates that they be more numerous, as a man can increase his chastity [in marriage] to more than one, unlike the woman; this was stated by al-Khatib. Some argued with the verse that the originated [being] does not originate except from a previous matter and that creating something from absolute nothingness and pure negation is impossible. The response is: It does not follow from the origination of something in one form of matter for a wisdom that origination depends on matter in all forms. Moreover, the verse does not indicate more than our creation and the creation of the mate from what He mentioned, and that is not sufficient for the claimer. It was read "and [He is the] Creator and Disperser" by omitting the subject, because it is a connection to its conjunction to the relative clause, so it is nothing but a sentence, unlike "Zaid rode and [is] a goer," i.e., "and he is the Creator and Disperser."

"And fear Allah, by whom you ask one another" is a repetition of the first command and an emphasis on it, and the addressee is those to whom he was sent (peace and blessings be upon him) also, as previously mentioned. It was said: The addressee here and there are the Arabs, as narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), because this swearing was their custom. It was said: The addressee there is those to whom he was sent absolutely, and here specifically the Arabs. The generality of the beginning of the verse does not prevent the specificity of its end, like the reverse, and the dismantling [of the order] involved in that is not hidden. Placing the Glorious Name in the position of the pronoun is to point to all attributes of perfection, rising after the attribute of Lordship, as if it was said: Fear Him for His Lordship and His wondrous creation of you, and because He is worthy of all attributes of perfection.

In attaching the ruling to what is in the sphere of the relative clause is an indication of another of the requirements for compliance. For the saying of a person to another: "I ask you by Allah" and "I adjure you by Allah" by way of supplication requires fear of violating His commands and prohibitions. "You ask one another" (tasa'alun) is either in the meaning of "you ask each other," so the mutual form is in its apparent sense, or in the meaning of "you ask," as it was read. The mutual form tafa'ala comes in the meaning of fa'ala when the doer is multiple. Its original form, in the famous reading, is tata-sa'alun with two ta's, and one was deleted due to the heaviness. Nafi', Ibn Kathir, and the rest of the Kufans read tasa'alun by assimilating the ta of the mutual form into the sin due to their closeness in whispering (hams).

"And the wombs" (wal-arham) is in the accusative (nasb). It is conjoined either to the location of the prepositional phrase if the location is for them, or to the location of the noun governed by the preposition if the location is for it. The speech is on the order of "I passed by Zaid and Amr." This is supported by the reading "tasa'alun bihi" and "wa bil-arham," and that they used to pair them in questioning and adjuring by Allah the Exalted, saying: "I ask you by Allah and by Allah, and by the womb," as reported by more than one from Mujahid, and this is the choice of al-Farisi and Ali ibn Isa. Or [it is] conjoined to the Glorious Name, meaning: "Fear Allah the Exalted and the wombs, and maintain them, and do not sever them," for severing them is something that must be feared. This is the narration of Ibn Humid from Mujahid and al-Dahhak from Ibn Abbas, and Ibn al-Mundhir from Ikrimah, and it was narrated from Abu Ja'far (may Allah be pleased with him), and it was chosen by al-Farra' and al-Zajjaj. Al-Wahidi permitted the accusative as an incitement, meaning: "And hold fast to the wombs and maintain them."

Hamza read it with the genitive (al-arhami). In the famous explanation, this is on the conjunction to the governed pronoun (by the preposition bi). Most grammarians weakened this, saying that the governed pronoun is like part of the word due to the intensity of its attachment to it, and just as one does not conjoin to part of a word, one does not conjoin to it [a pronoun governed by a preposition without repeating the preposition].

The first to malign Hamza regarding this reading was Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrad, to the point that he said: "It is not permissible to read with it." A group followed him in that, among them Ibn Atiyyah, who claimed that it is refuted by two aspects: First, that mentioning the wombs as something one asks by is meaningless in the exhortation to fear Allah the Exalted, and there is no benefit in it other than informing that the wombs are asked by, and this degrades eloquence. Second, that mentioning them in such a way is an endorsement of questioning by them and swearing by their sanctity, and the authentic hadith refutes that. The two Sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim) narrated from him (peace and blessings be upon him): "Whoever is to swear, let him swear by Allah the Exalted, or be silent."

You know that Hamza did not read it thus from himself, but he took this—indeed, the entire Quran—from Sulayman ibn Mihran al-A'mash, Imam ibn A'yan, Muhammad ibn Abi Layla, and Ja'far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq, who was righteous, pious, and trustworthy in hadith, from the third generation.

Imam Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, and Yahya ibn Adam said regarding him: "Hamza surpassed the people in reading and inheritance laws." A group took from him and were his students, among them the Imam of Kufa in reading and Arabic, Abu al-Hasan al-Kisa'i, who is one of the seven readers whom the pillars of the religion said: Their reading is mutawatir (mass-transmitted) from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Despite this, he did not read it alone; rather, a group besides the seven read with it, such as Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, al-Hasan al-Basri, Qatada, Mujahid, and others, as narrated by Ibn Ya'ish. So the maligning of this Imam is of the utmost ugliness and the end of audacity and horror; one might fear disbelief from it.

What was mentioned about the prohibition of conjoining to the governed pronoun is the school of the Basrians, and we are not obligated to follow them. Abu Hayyan elaborated in Al-Bahr on refuting them and claimed that what they went to is incorrect; rather, the correct view is what the Kufans went to regarding permissibility, and this appeared in the language of the Arabs, both in prose and poetry. Ibn Malik leaned toward this. The hadith [argument] that "mentioning the wombs has no meaning in the exhortation to fear Allah" is a fallen argument, because if "piety" is meant as a specific piety—which is that regarding the rights of servants, of which maintaining family ties is a part—then questioning by the wombs is what it requires without doubt. If the general [piety] is intended, then it is included in it. As for the suspicion that mentioning them is an endorsement of questioning by them, and the hadith refutes that due to the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah, it has been said in response: We do not concede that swearing by other than Allah is prohibited absolutely; rather, the prohibited [oath] is what is [done] with the belief in the necessity of fulfilling the oath. As for swearing by way of emphasis, for example, there is no harm in it; in the report [it says]: "He succeeded, by his father, if he is truthful."

Some mentioned that a person's saying to another: "I ask you by the womb to do such and such" has no purpose other than supplication; it is not like the saying of a speaker: "By the womb, I will certainly do such and such, and I have done such and such," so it is not in the scope of the prohibition at all. The statement that the meaning here is an account of what they used to do in the Age of Ignorance is clearly flawed, so understand. Ibn Jinni interpreted this reading with another interpretation; he said in Al-Khasa'is: A chapter on the fact that when the omitted [part] is indicated by a cue, it is in the position of the uttered [part]. Among that is: "The trace of a dwelling I stood in its ruins," Meaning: "By the trace of a dwelling..." If it is said to him: "How are you this morning?" he says: "Good, may Allah protect you," i.e., "I am in good [state]," and the ba is omitted due to the state indicating it. By such a way, Hamza's reading is directed in our view. In the commentary on Al-Mufassal, it is stated that the ba in this reading is omitted due to its mention preceding it. Al-Zamakhshari also followed this in his Ahaji. The author of Al-Kashf mentioned that it is closer than the first interpretation for most Basrians due to the established omission of the preposition in expressions like "By Allah, I will do it" and "There is nothing like Abdullah nor his brother," as they say that. Carrying it on what is established is the [correct] direction. It was narrated from some that the waw is for swearing, similar to "Fear Allah, for by Allah, He is watching over you," and the fa was omitted because initiation is stronger than the two principles—and it is a good direction.

Ibn Zayd read "and the wombs" (wal-arham) in the nominative (rafa'), as a subject with an omitted predicate, meaning: "And the wombs [are] likewise," i.e., [things] to be feared, due to the cue of "Fear," or [things] to be questioned by, due to the cue of "You ask." Ibn Atiyyah estimated it as "worthy to be maintained," and Ibn Jinni as "among what you must maintain and take precaution regarding." Perhaps the sentence is parenthetical. Otherwise, there is obscurity in the conjunction. Allah the Exalted alerted, when He paired the wombs with His Name, that maintaining them is in a [high] place with Him the Exalted. The two Sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim) narrated from Abu Huraira who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Allah the Exalted created the creation, and when He finished with them, the womb stood up and said: 'This is the position of one seeking refuge in You from severance.' He said: 'Yes, are you not pleased that I join those who join you and sever those who sever you?' She said: 'Yes.' He said: 'That is for you.'" Al-Bazzar narrated with a sound chain: "The womb is a shujna (branch/link) clinging to the Throne, speaking with a slippery tongue: 'O Allah, join those who join me and sever those who sever me.' So Allah the Exalted says: 'I am the Most Gracious (Ar-Rahman), I am the Most Merciful (Ar-Rahim). I derived the "womb" (ar-rahim) from My Name; whoever maintains it, I maintain him, and whoever severs it, I sever him.'"

Imam Ahmad narrated with a sound chain: "Indeed, the most usurious of usury is [unjustly] overextending oneself against someone's right, and this womb is a shujna from the Most Gracious. Whoever severs it, Allah the Exalted forbids Paradise for him."

Reports on this chapter are numerous, and the intended meaning of "womb" is relatives. It applies to everyone who is connected to you by lineage, even if distant. It is used for relatives from the female side. Specifying it in the chapter of "maintaining ties" to those who end at the mother's womb is rejected, as the command has come to do good to relatives absolutely. "Indeed, Allah was ever over you a Watcher" (raqib), i.e., a Guardian, stated by Mujahid. It is from raqaba in the sense of guarding, as al-Raghib stated. It may be interpreted as "the One who sees all," and from it is marqab (lookout) for the high place from which one overlooks to see what is below it. From here, Ibn Zayd interpreted it as "the All-Knowing." In any case, it is a fa'il form (active participle) in the sense of fa'il. The sentence is in the position of a rationale for the command and the obligation of compliance. The exposure of the Glorious Name is to emphasize it, and bringing forward the preposition is to respect the pauses.