An-Nisa: (21) And how could you take it while...

(And how could you take it) is a denial after denial, and it has been emphasized as previously stated regarding (How can you disbelieve). It is also said: It is an expression of astonishment from Him, Glorified and Exalted is He—meaning, your taking it is truly astonishing. (While you have gone in unto one another) is a metonymy for sexual intercourse, according to what is narrated from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and as-Suddi.

It is also said that it means the "valid seclusion" (khalwa), even if intercourse did not take place; this was preferred by al-Farra and stated by Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him), and it is one of two positions held by the Imamiyyah. In the commentary of al-Kalbi from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), "al-ifda" (going in unto one another) is being with her under one cover, whether he had intercourse with her or not. The first position is deemed stronger because the speech is undoubtedly a metonymy, and the Arabs only use it for matters that are shameful to mention, such as intercourse; whereas seclusion is not shameful to mention, so it does not require a metonymy. Furthermore, the preposition "ila" (to) used with "ifda" indicates the meaning of reaching and contact, which is more appropriate for intercourse. Those who favor the second position say: Seclusion is called "ifda" because the man reaches the place of intercourse, and it is not conceded that seclusion is not something shameful to mention. The clause is a state (hal) for the subject of "take it," serving to confirm the disapproval and establish the absurdity—meaning: In any state or manner do you take it, while that which has occurred between you has occurred?

(And they have taken from you a firm covenant) i.e., a solemn pledge. (A firm one) i.e., severe and binding. Qatada said: It is what Allah Almighty has taken from men for the sake of women: (Either keep them in honor or release them with kindness). Then he said: This was taken at the time of the marriage contract, where it would be said: "Allah is your witness that you shall either keep her in honor or release her with kindness." This is also narrated from ad-Dahhak, Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, and others. According to Mujahid, the "firm covenant" is the word of marriage by which their private parts were made lawful.

Some have used the verse as evidence to forbid khul' (divorce initiated by the wife) absolutely, claiming it abrogates the verse in Al-Baqarah. Others argued that it is abrogated by that verse, a view narrated by Abu Zayd. A group maintains that it is neither abrogating nor abrogated, and the ruling contained within it concerns taking back the dowry without a willing heart. Ibn al-Faras and others used it as evidence for the permissibility of charging exorbitant dowries.

Abu Ya'la narrated from Masruq that Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) forbade increasing the dowry beyond four hundred dirhams. A woman from the Quraysh objected to him, saying: "Have you not heard what Allah Almighty has revealed: 'And you have given one of them a great amount (qintar)'?" He replied: "O Allah, forgive me; all people are more learned than Umar." Then he returned, climbed the pulpit, and said: "I had forbidden you from increasing the dowries of women beyond four hundred dirhams, so whoever wishes to give from his wealth whatever he likes, let him do so."

The Shi'ah have used this report to attack Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) for his ignorance of this issue and for a woman correcting him, claiming that ignorance is incompatible with the Imamate. The response is: The verse is not an explicit text (nass) for the permissibility of giving a qintar as a dowry. It is like your saying, "If Zayd comes to you and has killed your brother, then pardon him," which does not imply the permissibility of killing the brother. Even if we concede that it indicates the permissibility of giving it, we do not concede the permissibility of giving it specifically as a dowry; it is possible that the intention is giving jewelry or other things not as a dowry, but as a gift (hiba), and a husband does not have the right to revoke a gift made to his wife, especially after alienating her with separation. Moreover, the Almighty's saying, "And you have gone in unto one another," does not necessitate that what was given was a dowry. Even if we concede it was a dowry, we do not concede that not being extravagant is not superior to it.

Ibn Hibban narrated in his Sahih from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah be pleased with him and grant him peace) said: "Indeed, among the best of women are those with the easiest dowries." From Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), he (peace be upon him) said: "The blessing of a woman is the ease of her dowry."

Ahmad and al-Bayhaqi recorded in a marfu' (attributed) narration: "The greatest woman in blessing is the easiest in dowry." Thus, the Commander of the Faithful's prohibition of extravagance may have been for the sake of ease, an inclination toward what is superior, and a desire for that which the Messenger of Allah (may Allah be pleased with him and grant him peace) pointed to in word and deed. His deviation from his initial stance and his lack of rebuttal against the Qurayshi woman was a matter of encouraging the pursuit of the meanings of the Quran and extracting its subtleties. Furthermore, for a great scholar to show submissiveness to a lesser, unknown person is an encouragement for the latter, bringing joy to him, and urging him and his peers to occupy themselves with knowledge and attain what would allow them to prevail.

Therefore, his statement (may Allah be pleased with him), "O Allah, forgive me, all people are more learned than Umar," was a matter of self-abasement, humility, and good character, which prompted him to say it. Even so, he did not command them to be extravagant; the furthest he went was lifting the prohibition, leaving them the choice between the superior and the inferior, and there is no sin upon them in committing either of the two. Even if we concede that this issue had escaped his noble mind, we do not concede that this constitutes "ignorance" that harms the position of Imamate. Similar incidents occurred to the Commander of the Faithful Ali (may Allah honor his face), and he is the Imam of both parties. Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abd al-Barr narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka'b that a man asked Ali (may Allah honor his face) about an issue, and he spoke on it. The man said: "It is not like that, but rather so and so." The Imam replied: "You are right, and we were wrong. 'And above every possessor of knowledge is one [more] knowing.'"

This also occurred to David (peace be upon him) in what Allah has recounted for us in His Book, from His saying: "And David and Solomon, when they judged concerning the field..." until He said: "And We made Solomon understand it." Since this did not diminish the station of Prophethood and the Caliphate indicated by the Almighty's saying: "O David, indeed We have made you a successor upon the earth," it does not diminish the station of the Imamate, as is clear. Whoever is fair-minded will count this incident among the virtues of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), not his faults. But there is no cure for the disease of hatred and stubbornness. "And whoever Allah leads astray, for him there is no guide."