Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:22

This marks the commencement of the clarification regarding which women are prohibited for marriage, and who is not prohibited, following the exposition on how spouses should live together. According to some, it is linked to His saying, Exalted is He: { لَا يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَن تَرِثُوا النِّسَاءَ كَرْهًا }. This specific marriage was singled out for prohibition—rather than being included in the string of prohibited marriages that follow—to emphasize the severity of the rebuke against it, as it was a custom of theirs during the Age of Ignorance (Jahiliyyah).

Ibn Sa‘d recorded from Muhammad ibn Ka‘b that he said: "When a man died, his son had the greatest right to his wife; he could marry her if he wished, provided she was not his own mother, or he could give her in marriage to whom he pleased. When Abu Qays ibn al-Aslat died, his son Hisn rose and inherited the right to his wife; he did not provide for her nor give her any share of the wealth. She came to the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace) and mentioned this to him. He said: 'Return; perhaps Allah the Exalted will reveal something concerning you.' Then, { وَلا تَنكِحُوا } was revealed, as was { لَا يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ } [the verse of inheritance]." Al-Wahidi and others mentioned that it was revealed concerning the aforementioned Hisn, and concerning al-Aswad ibn Khalaf who married his father's wife, and Safwan ibn Umayya ibn Khalaf who married his father's wife, Fakhita bint al-Aswad ibn al-Muttalib, and Manzur ibn Riyan who married his father's wife, Mulayka bint Kharija.

The term "fathers" encompasses grandfathers, regardless of their lineage, based on a meaning that covers both linguistically, rather than by combining literal and metaphorical meanings. In al-Nihayah, it is stated that the indication of "father" for "grandfather" is by one of two paths: either "father" is intended to mean the "originator," or by consensus (ijma'). It is not hidden that the claim that this indication is by consensus is meaningless; yes, there is no ambiguity regarding the established prohibition of marrying whom the grandfather has married by consensus. Thus, the prohibition of what they have married is established by both text and consensus.

The marriage itself—meaning the contract—is sufficient to establish this prohibition if it is valid; consummation is not a condition. Ibn Abbas held this view; Ibn Jarir and al-Bayhaqi recorded from him that he said: "Every woman your father married, whether he consummated with her or not, is forbidden to you." This was also narrated from al-Hasan and Ibn Abi Rabah. If the marriage is void, then to establish the prohibition, there must be intercourse, or something equivalent to it such as kissing or touching with desire. In reality, that [the act of sexual intimacy] is what is actually prohibited, such that even if such an act occurred through concubinage or an illicit manner, prohibition is established according to us. The Imamiyyah followed this view, while the Shafi‘i school disagreed regarding the cause of the prohibition.

The verification of this is that people have differed regarding the linguistic concept of nikah (marriage/intercourse). It is said: it is a lexical homonym between intercourse and the contract; this is the apparent position of many linguists. It is said: it is literally the contract and metaphorically intercourse; this is the position of the Shafi‘i school. It is said: the reverse is true; this is the position of our scholars. Their explicit statement that it is literally "joining" (damm) does not contradict this, because intercourse is one of its instances, and that which is coined for the general is literal in all its instances, as articulated by the predecessors. The usage of nikah has been verified in all these meanings:

Regarding intercourse, the Prophet (may Allah grant him peace) said: "I was born from nikah, not from safah (adultery)," meaning from a lawful act of intercourse, not an unlawful one. And his saying: "It is lawful for a man from his menstruating wife to have everything except nikah." And the poet’s saying: "And from the captive woman whom our spears have 'unkahat' (penetrated/possessed)..." And the other’s saying: "And a 'mankuha' (woman for intercourse) without a dowry." And the saying of al-Farazdaq: "...Those who leave their women in a state of purity, and the 'nakihin' (those having intercourse) on the banks of the Tigris with cows." Regarding the meaning of "joining," the saying of al-A‘sha: "Do not approach a neighbor if her secret is forbidden to you, so 'fankihin' (join/marry) or stay away." Regarding the general meaning, the saying of the poet: "I pressed to my chest her who is perfumed, just as the mother of the boy 'nakahat' (embraced/joined) her child." And the saying of Abu al-Tayyib: "The hard pebbles 'ankahat' (embraced/touched) the hooves of a she-camel..."

Those who claim it is a lexical homonym say: usage is established, and the principle is the literal meaning. The second group says: it being a metaphor in one and literal in the other is better than homonymy where possible. Then they claim that the contract is what comes to mind upon the utterance of nikah, not intercourse, and they dismiss the understanding of intercourse unless based on evidence. In the first Hadith, the evidence is the coupling with safah. Indeed, it is valid to interpret nikah there as the contract, even if birth is essentially from intercourse. In the second, it is the attribution of the wife to the man's pronoun, for his wife is the one contracted; thus, intercourse must be intended from the nikah mentioned as an exception, otherwise the meaning would be corrupt, as it would become: "All things are lawful from the contracted one except the contract." In the verses, the attribution to cows, the negation of dowries, and the attribution to spears show that the intended meaning is the intercourse of cows and captives.

The response is to reject the claim that the contract is what automatically comes to mind in language; rather, that is in the technical, juristic understanding. We do not concede that the understanding of intercourse in what was mentioned relies on evidence, even if evidence exists. For the existence of evidence supporting the literal meaning—which is established alongside the intended literal meaning—does not necessitate that the meaning is metaphorical. Rather, what matters is looking at the evidence; if it is known that without it the word would not indicate the meaning, it is metaphorical, otherwise not. In these mentioned materials, we understand intercourse before seeking evidence or considering the mode of its indication, so the word is literal.

[...The author continues a lengthy legal/linguistic discussion on whether nikah in the verse refers to the contract or intercourse, citing various scholars...]

"And" [the word] ma (what) is a nominal relative pronoun applied to those who possess intellect; there is no dispute about this according to the opinion of those who permit it absolutely, and likewise according to those who permit it when a intended qualitative meaning is sought from it. It is also said: it is an infinitive source (masdariyyah) referring to the object of the source—meaning: "the wives of your fathers." Al-Tabari chose to keep the source as an infinitive, meaning the prohibition of every marriage that was theirs which was corrupt—i.e., "do not marry like the marriage of your fathers."

{ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ } is in the position of a state (hal) from ma or from the pronoun returning to it. According to al-Tabari, it is attached to nakaha. Many have mentioned that it is a clarification (bayan) for what [was previously mentioned] in the two aforementioned ways. Its appearance is that it is explanatory, though it is possible that it is partitive. The purpose of the clarification—despite it being unnecessary, as those who are married cannot be anything but women—is generalization, as if it were said: "any woman whatsoever." The possibility that it is to remove the misconception of dominance (taghlib) in "your fathers" and making it more general than mothers—even to imply that it is a prohibition for the daughter from marrying who her mother had married—is not without obscurity.

{ إِلا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ } (Except what has passed)—meaning what has died, as narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b. This is a connected exception according to the preferred view from [the act of] what they married, for the purpose of emphasizing the prohibition and generalization. The speech here is of the category of confirming something with what resembles its opposite, as in the saying of al-Nabigha: "There is no fault in them except that their swords / have notches from the clashing of armies." The meaning is: "Do not marry the wives of your fathers, except those of them who have died." The intention is to close the door of permissibility completely, as it involves linking something to an impossibility, like His saying, Exalted is He: { حَتَّى يَلِجَ الْجَمَلُ فِي سَمِّ الْخِيَاطِ }. That which is linked to an impossibility is an impossibility.

It is said that it is a connected exception from what is necessitated by the prohibition and what is necessitated by committing the prohibited act—namely, punishment—as if it were said: "You deserve punishment for marrying what your fathers married, except what has passed and gone, for it is pardoned." By this interpretation, the problem is resolved that the prohibition is for the future and "what has passed" is in the past, so how can it be excepted from it? Some expert grammarians made the exception a detached one from that which entered under the ruling indicated by the implication, so they ruled on what is here as detached—i.e., "but what has passed, there is no accountability for it." Thus, you are not blamed for it because Islam demolishes what came before it, so the rulings of lineage and others are established by it, and this is not considered adultery. Al-Balkhi mentioned that not every marriage that Allah the Exalted prohibited is considered adultery, because adultery is a specific act that does not follow a necessary path or an ongoing custom. Therefore, it is not said of the polytheists in the Jahiliyyah that they were children of adultery, nor for the children of the dhimmi people, for example, if that occurred based on a contract between them that they recognized.

{ إِنَّهُ }—i.e., the marriage of what the fathers married—{ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَمَقْتًا } (it was an obscenity and a hateful thing). This is a justification for the prohibition and a clarification that what is prohibited is in the utmost degree of ugliness, as indicated by informing that it is an obscenity, and extremely hated—to the point of contempt, as if it were the essence of hatred itself—as indicated by informing that it is a maqtan (a hateful thing). It has always been, in the decree of Allah the Exalted and His knowledge, described as such; it was not permitted for any nation of the nations, as required by "was" (kana), based on what ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa and others mentioned.

{ وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا } (And it is an evil way). In "evil" (sa'a), there is an indefinite pronoun clarified by what follows it, and the specific object of the blame is omitted. Blaming the way is an exaggeration in blaming the one who travels it and is a metonymy for him. It is permitted—and al-Layth chose this—that "evil" (sa'a) is like the rest of the verbs; it contains a pronoun returning to what the pronoun in "with it" returned to, and "way" (sabilan) is a specifier (tamyiz) transformed from the subject. The sentence is either an inception having no place in syntax, or it is conjoined to the predicate of "was," narrated by an implicit "saying" which is in truth conjoined—i.e., "and it is said concerning it [that it is] that, in all eras."

Imam al-Razi said: "There are three levels of ugliness: rational ugliness, religious ugliness, and customary ugliness. Allah the Exalted described this marriage with all of these. His saying, Exalted is He, { فاحشة } is a signal to the level of its rational ugliness; His saying { ومقتا } is a signal to the level of its religious ugliness; and His saying, Mighty and Majestic is He, { وساء سبيلا } is a signal to the level of its customary ugliness." And what combines these levels has reached the ultimate degrees of ugliness. You know that His saying, Mighty and Majestic, { ومقتا } is a signal to the level of its religious ugliness is apparent on the assumption that the intent is "hateful to Allah the Exalted." As for the assumption that the intent is "hateful to those of good character," it is not apparent. From this, it was said: His saying, Mighty and Majestic, { فاحشة } is a signal to the religious ugliness; { ومقتا } is a signal to the rational, in the sense of aversion; and { وساء سبيلا } to the customary. To me, each has an aspect, and perhaps the Imam’s arrangement is more appropriate from certain perspectives, as is not hidden. Among what indicates the atrocity of this matter is what was recorded by ‘Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ahmad, al-Hakim, and al-Bayhaqi from al-Bara', who said: "I met my uncle carrying a banner. I said: 'Where are you headed?' He said: 'The Prophet (may Allah grant him peace) sent me to a man who married his father's wife after him, and he commanded me to strike his neck and take his wealth.'"