An-Nisa: (3) And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans...

This is the commencement of a prohibition against another evil deed they were accustomed to committing, which primarily concerned the persons of female orphans and, secondarily, their wealth. It follows the prohibition specifically regarding their wealth. Its postponement is due to the fact that the prohibited act regarding the persons [of the orphans] occurred less frequently than that regarding wealth, and it holds a lower status compared to the latter—as a compound holds to a single constituent.

The term "orphans" here refers to a specific category of those intended previously. It was that they would marry those who were lawful to them among the female orphans under their care—not out of any desire for the women themselves, but out of desire for their wealth. They would mistreat them and wait for them to die so they could inherit from them. Thus, they were admonished against this. This is the view of al-Hasan, and it is narrated by Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim from ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her). They, as well as al-Bukhari, Muslim, an-Nasa’i, and al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan, narrated from ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr that he asked ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) about this verse. She said: "O son of my sister, this is the orphan girl who is in the care of her guardian. He shares in her wealth, and he is pleased with her wealth and her beauty. He wants to marry her without dealing justly regarding her dowry, by giving her what others would give her. Thus, they were forbidden from marrying them unless they dealt justly with them and reached the highest standard for them in dowry; and they were commanded to marry what pleased them of other women."

Therefore, the "orphans" intended are those whom they were marrying; the context acts as evidence, for the response is explicit regarding this, and the link requires it. "(Of women)" refers to those other than the orphans, as the Humayra’ (Aishah) (may Allah be pleased with her) clarified, due to the indication of the meaning and the suggestion of the word "women."

Al-Iqsat (dealing justly) is justice and fairness. Some make the Hamza in it for izalah (removal), so its original meaning is "the removal of qasut, which is injustice and oppression." Al-Nakha‘i read "taqsitu" with a Fatha on the Ta. It is said: it is from qasata, meaning to deviate and oppress, as in [the verse]: "But as for the qasitun (deviators/unjust), they will be fuel for Hell," and the La is extra, as in His saying: "so that they may not know." It is also said: it is the same as aqsit, as al-Zajjaj narrated that qasata without a Hamza is used in the same manner as aqsit.

"Al-Yatama" (the orphans) is the plural of yatimah (orphan girl) by transposition, similar to ayami (plural of ayyim), as the root is ayaim and yata’im. It is used for females just as it is used for males. The intent of "fear" is "knowledge"; it is expressed as such to signify that the known thing is something to be feared and avoided—not its literal meaning, because the response is tied to the knowledge of the occurrence of the feared injustice, not to the fear itself. Otherwise, the command would not include those who bear injustice and do not fear it.

"In" (if) and what follows it is in the interpretation of a masdar (infinitive noun). If you do not estimate a kana (verb), it is in the accusative case, and the verb is connected to it directly. If you estimate it, two things are permissible: the accusative case according to Sibawayh, and the genitive case according to al-Khalil.

"Ma" (what) is a relative noun or a noun described by an adjective, and what follows it is its relative clause or adjective. It was preferred over "man" (who) to lean towards the description, such as a virgin or a previously married woman, for instance. "Ma" is exclusive to or predominant in non-rational beings when referring to the entity itself, but when the attribute is intended, it is not; just as you say in a question, "Ma Zayd?"—meaning, "Is he excellent or generous?" and "Be as generous as you wish among men," meaning the generous or the stingy.

It was narrated from al-Farra’ that it is here an infinitive particle, and the infinitive estimated by it and the verb is estimated as an active participle, meaning: "Marry the good of women." This is an unnecessary complication. Others said that its preference over "man" is based on the idea that women among rational beings are treated like non-rational beings, as it is narrated regarding them that they are deficient in intellect and religion. However, this is detrimental to the position of encouraging them.

"Min" (from) is explanatory, and it is also said to be partitive. The intent of "what pleases you" is that which your souls incline toward and find good. It is also said: what is lawful for you. This is narrated from ‘Aishah, and it is the view of al-Hasan, Ibn Jubayr, and Abu Malik. The Imam [al-Razi] objected to this by stating that it is tantamount to "the lawful is permitted," and it also necessitates ambiguity, as the lawful is not known from the verse. He preferred the first interpretation, which necessitates specification, making it better than ambiguity. The meticulous scholar in al-Kashf replied that if the definition of what is forbidden in His saying, "Forbidden to you are your mothers," etc., was revealed earlier, then there is neither ambiguity nor specification, because the relative noun acts as a definite article, and interpreting it as an established convention is the correct approach. Otherwise, ambiguity whose clarification is delayed is better than specification that is not contemporaneous, because delaying the clarification of the ambiguous is permissible according to both parties, while delaying the clarification of specification is not permissible according to the majority of the Hanafis.

Some researchers said: "What pleases you" is that which you do not feel uncomfortable with, because it is in contrast to the [orphans] one feels uncomfortable with. This is not without merit. Regardless, the expression for foreign women using this title involves an exaggeration in attraction toward them and encouragement to marry them that is not hidden. The secret behind this is the concern to turn the addressees away from marrying orphans when there is a fear of not being able to deal justly, as a gesture of care for their orphanhood and to compensate for their vulnerability. For this reason, the command to marry other women was preferred over the prohibition of marrying the orphans, even though the latter is the primary intent. This is because it contains greater gentleness in swaying them, for the soul is naturally disposed to covet what it is forbidden from. The focus of the implicit prohibition on the expected marriage—given that the reason for revelation is the realized marriage, according to what some understood from the reports and as indicated by what al-Bukhari narrated from ‘Aishah that a man had an orphan under his care and married her, and she had a garden and he kept her for it while she had no one—is to hasten to repel evil before it occurs, for many an occurrence is not reversed. Furthermore, it serves to exaggerate the description of the realized marriage; for if the prohibited nature of the expected marriage exists because of the expected injustice, then the prohibited nature of the realized marriage with the presence of injustice is even more appropriate.

Ibn Abi ‘Ablah read "min taba" (whoever is good). In some codices, as in ad-Durr al-Manthur, it is "ma tayyaba lakum" with a Ya. Based on this interpretation, the verse is evidence for the permissibility of marrying an orphan, meaning the young one, as it implies its permissibility except when there is a fear of injustice.

The matters regarding the marriage guardian have been elaborated upon in jurisprudence books. Imam Malik's school holds that the young orphan girl is not to be married off as she has no consent, and there is a disagreement among them regarding the guardian marrying her off if the father granted him the power of compulsion or it was understood. The famous position is that he has that right, so "orphans" in the verse is applied to those who have recently reached puberty. The term yatim (orphan), as we indicated, is for both males and females.

"Two, or three, or four" is in the accusative case as a hal (state/adverb) from the implied agent of "taba" or from its referent. The Allamah permitted it to be a hal of "women" on the assumption that "min" is explanatory. Abu al-Baqa’ held that it is a substitute for "ma," while the Basrans adopted the position of it being a hal, which is the preferred school. The Kufans did not permit this because they consider them definite nouns, and in this position, they necessitated what Abu al-Baqa’ went to. They are indeclinable (diptotes) according to the correct view. Al-Farra’ allowed them to be declinable. There are four schools regarding the reason for their indeclinability: First, the view of Sibawayh, al-Khalil, and Abu ‘Amr: it is the transposition and the adjectival nature. It was objected that the adjectival nature in numerals is incidental and does not prevent declinability. It was answered that even if it is incidental in its origin, it was transferred from it after noticing the incidental adjective, so it became original in these rather than in their origin. This is not without debate. Second, the view of al-Farra’: that they are prevented for the transposition and the definiteness due to the intent of the Al-Lam (the definite article), which is why their addition (i.e., idafah) or the entry of Al upon them is not permitted. Third, what is narrated from al-Zajjaj that it is transposed from "two two," "three three," and "four four," so it was transposed from the numerals and from the feminine to the masculine; thus, there are two transpositions, which are two causes. Fourth, what Abu al-Hasan narrated from some grammarians that the cause preventing declinability is the repetition of the transposition within it, because mathna, for example, was transposed from the word "two" and its meaning, for it is not used in a place where it [the numeral] is used, as it does not follow the governing agents (i.e., awamil). Rather, it falls after a collective noun, either as a predicate, a hal, or an adjective. It is irregular for it to follow governing agents or to be added. As-Safaqusi added a fifth cause for the prevention, which is the transposition from other than the source of transposition, because the rule of transposition is that it should be in definite nouns, whereas this is transposition in indefinite nouns. A sixth cause is the transposition and the plural, because it requires repetition, so it became in the meaning of the collective. He said: Ibn al-Sa’igh added these two in his explanation of al-Jumal. Ahad, mawhad, thana, mathna, thulath, muthallath, ruba‘, murabba‘ have appeared, but nothing beyond that has been heard, as Abu ‘Ubaydah said, except in the saying of al-Kumayt: "And your legacy was not covered until I shot above the men [with] ‘ashar (tens)." From here, they faulted al-Mutanabbi for his saying: "Ahad or sudas in ahad of our night..."

Some permitted khumas and mukhammas up to the end of the ten based on analogy, but it is nothing. The repetition and the conjunction with "wa" (and) were chosen so that the verse would imply that each of the addressees may choose any number he wishes from these mentioned numbers, as that is the intent, not that some are for one group and others for another. If the numbers were mentioned singly, it would be understood as permitting the combination of those numbers rather than distribution. If they were mentioned with "aw" (or), it would imply permitting differences in number, such that one marries two and another three or four. What is said—that the mind does not turn to this because no one has gone to it—should not be heeded, for the speech is in the apparent form, which is the point of the shift.

Some researchers claimed that if he brought the numbers in a way that does not indicate repetition, it would not be valid as a hal, explaining that the state of all good things is not that they are two, nor that they are three. Similarly, if it were said: "Divide this wealth, which is a thousand dirhams, by a dirham, two, three, and four," it would not be valid to make the number a hal of the wealth that is a thousand dirhams, because the state of the thousand is not that. Unlike when it is repeated, for the intent then is detail in the ruling of division, as if it were said: "Marry the good things for you, detailed and divided into two two, three three, and four four." By this, the corruption of what was said is revealed: that there is no difference between "two" and "two-two" in the validity of being a hal, for the understanding of division is apparent from the second, not the first, as is not hidden. And that he only brought "wa" instead of "aw" to inform the speech that the parts should be on these types without exceeding them to what is above them, not that they should be on one of these types without combining two of them. This is based on the fact that the hal is a clarification of the manner of the action, and the restriction in the speech is a negation of its opposite, and "wa" is not for one of the two things or matters like "aw." By this, what some went to—of the permissibility of nine—is refuted by holding onto the view that "wa" is for summation, so two, three, and four are permissible, which is nine. That is because whoever marries five or more has not maintained the restriction, namely the manner of the marriage, which is its being upon this estimation and detail, but rather exceeded it to what is above it. Perhaps this is the intent of the Qutb in his saying: "When the Almighty ended the numbers at four, they were not permitted to exceed them, otherwise their marriage would have been five five." So the saying of some that the obligation is forbidden because the speech does not indicate restriction is a claim that is not in its place, and there is an apparent difference between what we are in and the incident mentioned.

Imam al-Razi mentioned the ambiguity of those who permit marrying any number desired and lengthened the discussion in this place, though he did not bring what eases the heart and settles the mind. He said: "A group of individuals went to the permissibility of marrying any number and argued with the Quran and the report. As for the Quran, they held onto this verse with three aspects: First, that His saying, 'Marry what pleases you of women,' is an absolute in all numbers, evidenced by the fact that there is no number that is not valid for exemption from it, and the ruling of exemption is to exclude what would have been included. Second, that 'two, three, and four' is not valid as a specifier for that general term, because specification by a part does not negate the establishment of the ruling in the remainder. Third, that 'wa' is for absolute combination, so 'two, three, and four' signifies the lawfulness of the total, which is nine or even eighteen."

As for the report, it is from two aspects: First, it is established by tawatur (consecutive transmission) that the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with him) died leaving nine [wives], and God Almighty commanded us to follow him, saying: "So follow him," and the lowest level of command is permissibility. Second, that the Sunnah of a man is his path, and marrying more than four is the path of the Messenger (may Allah be pleased with him), so that was his Sunnah. Then, he (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "Whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not of me." The apparent meaning of the hadith requires the attribution of blame to whoever refrains from marrying more than four, so there is at least the establishment of the original permissibility.

Then he said: "Know that the reliance of the jurists in establishing the limitation is on two matters: First, the report, which is what was narrated that Ghaylan embraced Islam while he had ten wives, so the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'Keep four and separate from the rest.' This path is weak for two reasons: First, that since the Quran indicated the lack of limitation, if we established the limitation by this report, that would be an abrogation of the Quran by an individual report, which is not permissible. Second, that he (may Allah be pleased with him) might have ordered the keeping of four and the separation of the rest because the combination between the four and the rest is not permissible, either because of lineage or because of breastfeeding. In short, this possibility exists in this report, so the Quran cannot be abrogated by its like. The second matter is the consensus of the jurists of the provinces that it is not permissible to exceed four, and this is the reliance. But there are two questions in it: First, that consensus is not abrogated by, so how can it be said that consensus abrogated this verse? Second, that there are individuals in the Ummah who do not say that exceeding four is forbidden, and consensus does not form when there is opposition by one or two."

He was answered regarding the first question that consensus reveals the occurrence of an abregator in the time of the Messenger (may Allah be pleased with him), and regarding the second, that the dissenter of this consensus is from the people of innovation, so there is no consideration for his dissent, and thus it does not harm the formation of consensus. He ended. It is not hidden what is in the argument of the individuals [the dissenters] with the verse regarding debate, and that is known by reflecting on what we have mentioned.

As for arguing with the report, it is also not anything, because the consensus has occurred that exceeding four is among his specificities (may Allah be pleased with him), and we are commanded to follow him and desire his Sunnah (may Allah be pleased with him) in other than what is known to be among his specificities. As for the two matters that the jurists relied upon in this place, they are at the utmost of firmness.

The first aspect in weakening the first of the two [matters] is met with the objection that the Imam's statement in it—that the Quran indicated the lack of limitation, etc.—is forbidden. How is that so, when what is understood from it as indicating limitation has already preceded? Even if it did not indicate limitation, it does not indicate the lack of it; rather, at most, it admits the two possibilities—limitation and lack thereof—so it would then be ambiguous, and clarifying the ambiguous by an individual report is permissible, as explained in the foundations (al-usul). What was mentioned in the second aspect of the two aspects of weakening—that he (may Allah be pleased with him) might have ordered the keeping of four and the separation of the rest because the combination is not permissible either due to lineage or breastfeeding—is something that is hardly accepted given the indefiniteness of "four" and the establishment of "choose four from them" as in some authentic reports in the hadith of Ghaylan. Similarly, in the hadith narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah and al-Nahhas from Qays ibn al-Harith al-Asadi, who said: "I embraced Islam and I had eight wives, so I informed the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with him), and he said: 'Choose four from them and leave the rest.' So I did." This indicates without a shadow of a doubt that the intent is the retention of any four, not four specific ones. The possibility the Imam mentioned is sitting, not standing. If such were considered a disparaging factor in evidence, no evidence would remain on the face of the earth. Yes, the hadith is problematic according to what the Greatest Imam [Abu Hanifah] went to, according to what Ibn Hubayrah narrated regarding one who embraces Islam while he has more than four wives, that if the contract occurred upon them in one state, it is void, and if it was in separate contracts, the marriage is valid in the first four; for then there is no choosing. The three Imams differed with him in this, and that is another discussion we are not concerned with.

The strongest of the two matters relied upon regarding the limitation is consensus, for it has occurred and the era of the consensus-makers has passed before the appearance of the dissenter. It is not a condition in consensus that the entire Ummah agrees from the time of his mission (may Allah be pleased with him) until the establishment of the Hour, as the speech of Imam al-Ghazali suggests; otherwise, no consensus would ever be found. By this, one is dispensed from what Imam al-Razi mentioned—which is one of the schools on the issue—that the dissenter of this consensus is from the people of innovation, so his dissent is of no consideration. Therefore, the truth from which there is no escape is that it is forbidden to exceed four. This is the view of the Imamiyyah, and they narrated from al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him): "It is not lawful for a man's fluid to flow into more than four wombs," and a different view spread from them, but it is perhaps a dissenting opinion among them.

Furthermore, the legitimacy of marrying four is specifically for the free, and slaves are not included in this address because it only concerns a human who, when a woman pleases him, is capable of marrying her, and the slave is not like that, because his marriage is not permissible except with the permission of his master, due to his saying (may Allah be pleased with him): "Any slave who marries without the permission of his master is an adulterer." And because executing his marriage involves a defect for him, since marriage is a defect in him, so he does not possess it without the permission of the master. Furthermore, His saying, the Almighty, afterward: "But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry] one or what your right hands possess," cannot include slaves due to the lack of ownership. Since they did not enter into this address, they did not enter into the first address, because these addresses were revealed consecutively in one arrangement. It is far-fetched that what does not enter the subsequent address would enter the preceding one. Similarly, it is impossible for them to enter into His saying, the Almighty: "But if they give up anything of it to you willingly, then take it in satisfaction and ease," because the slave does not eat [own]; it would be for his master. Imam Malik differed in this, including slaves in the address and permitting them to marry four like the free, and their marriage does not depend on permission because they possess divorce, so they possess marriage. Some jurists claimed that the apparent meaning of the verse includes them, but he specified this general term by analogy, because slavery has an effect in decreasing the rights of marriage, like divorce and the iddah. Since the number is among the rights of marriage, it must be that the slave is given half of what the free man has in it as well.

They differed regarding the command for marriage; it is said to be for permissibility, and "taba" (pleases) does not lose its meaning if it is in the sense of "is lawful," because the meaning becomes "is permitted to you what is permitted here," as the object of benefit is the restriction, which is the mentioned number. It is said: for obligation, meaning the obligation of limiting oneself to this number, not the obligation of the essence of marriage. Imam al-Nawawi said: "No one is known to have made marriage obligatory except Dawud and those who agreed with him from the people of the literal school, and a narration from Ahmad." For they said: "It is incumbent upon him if he fears hardship to marry or have a slave-girl." They said: "It is only incumbent upon him once in a lifetime," and some did not condition the fear of hardship. The people of the literal school said: "It is only incumbent upon him to marry, and it is not incumbent upon him to have intercourse." The scholars differed regarding the best of marriage and leaving it.

Imam al-Nawawi mentioned that people in this are four categories: A category whose soul yearns for it and who finds the means, so marriage is recommended for him. A category whose soul does not yearn and who does not find the means, so it is disliked for him. A category whose soul yearns and he does not find the means, so it is disliked for him as well, and this one is commanded to fast to repel the yearning. A category who finds the means and whose soul does not yearn, so the school of al-Shafi‘i and the majority of the Shafi‘is is that leaving marriage to dedicate oneself to worship is better; it is not said that marriage is disliked, but that leaving it is better. The school of Abu Hanifah and some of the companions of Malik and al-Shafi‘i is that marriage is better for him. He ended what is intended from it.

You must know that what is mentioned in the books of our masters, the Hanafis—texts and explanations—is contrary to what this Imam mentioned in verifying the school of the Greatest Imam (may Allah be pleased with him). In Tanwir al-Absar and its explanation, ad-Durr al-Mukhtar, in the book of marriage, it is written: "And it is obligatory at the time of yearning; if he is certain of adultery without it, it is a duty, as in an-Nihayah. And this is if he possesses the dowry and maintenance, otherwise not; so there is no sin in leaving it, as in al-Bada’i‘. And it is a confirmed Sunnah in the most correct [view], so one sins by leaving it and is rewarded if he intends chastity and a child in the state of moderation, i.e., the capability for intercourse, dowry, and maintenance."

In an-Nahr, its obligation was prioritized due to the constancy upon it and the denunciation of those who turn away from it, and it is disliked for fear of injustice; if he is certain of it, it is forbidden. He ended. However, there is a dispute by the opponents regarding the evidence for the obligation according to what the author of an-Nahr mentioned, and the completion of the discussion is in its place.

This is [the discussion], and it has been said in the interpretation of the noble verse that the intent of "women" is also orphans, and the meaning is: "And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans raised in your care, then marry what pleases you of the orphans among your relatives." To this went al-Jubba’i, and it is as you see. It is said: when the verse was revealed regarding orphans and the great sin in consuming their wealth, the guardians began to be cautious about their guardianship for fear of the sin of leaving justice, even though they were not cautious about leaving justice in the rights of women, since one of them had ten of them. So it was said to them: "If you fear" leaving justice in the rights of orphans and were cautious of them, then also fear leaving justice between women and reduce the number of married women, because whoever is cautious of a sin or repents from it while he is committing its like, he is not cautious nor has he repented. To a similar view went Ibn Jubayr, al-Suddi, Qatadah, al-Rabi‘, al-Dahhak, and Ibn ‘Abbas in one of the narrations from him. It is said: they were not cautious of adultery, but they were cautious of the guardianship of orphans, so it was said: "If you fear sin in the right of orphans, then fear adultery; so marry what is lawful for you of women and do not hover around the prohibited." Its parallel is when someone persists in prayer but does not give zakat, so you say to him: "If you feared sin in leaving prayer, then fear leaving zakat." To a similar view went Mujahid.

The Allamah Shaykh al-Islam followed up on these two views, saying: "It is not hidden that the eloquence of the noble arrangement does not support them, as they are based on the earlier revelation of the first verse and its prevalence among the people, and the obviousness of its ruling depending on what follows it from His saying: 'And do not give the foolish your wealth,' until His saying: 'And sufficient is Allah as an accountant.'" It is also understood from the speech of some researchers that the most apparent [view] in the verse is what the two Shaykhs and others narrated from ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her), rather than these two views, because the verse, according to that narration, descends upon His saying: "And they ask you for a fatwa concerning women. Say: Allah gives you a fatwa concerning them and what is recited to you in the Book concerning the female orphans to whom you do not give what is prescribed for them and yet desire to marry them." Thus, the two verses correspond, and that does not occur based on the two views. Rather, there is no connection between the two verses according to them, because the requirement of both of them is that the speech is about orphans in general, not female orphans. Then, it is far-fetched for them that the condition does not connect with the response except from a general aspect. As for the first, it is in that injustice against women in sanctity is like injustice against orphans in that both are injustices. As for the second, it is because adultery is forbidden just as injustice against orphans is forbidden; and how many a forbidden thing shares with them in prohibition! So there is no specificity there that connects the condition and the response like the specificity connecting them there. Then, the apparent meaning of His saying: "Two, three, and four" is that it arrived with a form of expansion for them with a type of restriction, as if it were said: "If you fear from marrying orphans, then there is expansion in others up to such and such." According to the first of the two views, the intent is tightening, because its conclusion is: "If you fear injustice against women, then be cautious by reducing the number of married women," which is contrary to what the context implies of expansion, and it is far from the eloquence of the revelation, as is not hidden.

It is said: the man used to marry four, five, six, and ten, and say: "What prevents me from marrying as so-and-so married?" When his wealth was exhausted, he would incline to the wealth of the orphan in his care and spend it. So the guardians of orphans were forbidden from exceeding four, so they would not need to take the wealth of the orphan. This was attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Ikrimah, and according to this, the intent of orphans is general for both males and females, and so it is according to the two views before it. It was objected that it is understood from it the permissibility of exceeding four for one who does not need to take the orphan's wealth, which is contrary to consensus. Also, the intent of this command would be tightening, which is—as you have known—contrary to what the context implies, confirmed by His saying, the Almighty: "But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry] one." As if, when He expanded upon them, He informed them that fear of deviation might result from expansion, so the obligation then is that they should be cautious by reducing, so they limit themselves to one. The intent is "if you fear that you will not be just" among these mentioned counts, even in the smallest of the mentioned numbers, just as you feared it in the right of the orphans, or just as you did not act justly in their right; so choose or commit to one and leave all of them completely.

Ibrahim read "thuluth" and "rubu‘" with the shortening of "thulath" and "ruba‘." Abu Ja‘far read "fawahidatun" in the nominative, meaning: "The contenting is one," or "One sufficed," or "One is sufficient for you," or "The married one is one."

"(Or what your right hands possess)"—meaning of concubines, regardless of how many they reach, as is taken from the context and the contrasting of "one." This is a conjunction to "one," on the condition that the commitment and choice in it is by way of concubinage, not by way of marriage, as in what it is conjoined to, because it necessitates the entry of the ownership of marriage upon the ownership of the right hand by the necessity of the addressees being the same in both places. They have said: it is not permissible for a master to marry his slave girl, nor for a woman to marry her slave, because marriage was not legislated except to be fruitful with fruits shared between the married couple, and servitude contradicts ownership, so the occurrence of the fruit on the basis of sharing is prevented. This is contrary to what will come in His saying: "And whoever among you cannot afford the cost of marrying free, believing women, then [let him marry] from what your right hands possess of your believing slave girls." For the one commanded to marry there is not the one addressed by the ownership of the right hand. Some estimate in what it is conjoined to: "Marry," due to the beginning of the speech indicating it, and this is conjoined to it on the meaning of "Limit yourselves to what your right hands possess." The speech is on the edge of his saying: "I fed her [with] fodder and cold water." "Or" is for leveling, and it levels in ease and facility between the one free woman and the concubines without restriction due to the lack of burden they impose, the lightness of their costs, and the lack of the obligation of division among them. Some claimed that this is conjoined to "women," meaning: "Marry what pleases you of women, or what your right hands possess." It is not hidden how far-fetched this is.

Ibn Abi ‘Ablah read "min malakat." It was expressed with "ma" in the famous reading, aiming for the description. Because the slave is [usually] for sale and purchase, and what is sold is mostly non-rational, the expression with "ma" in it was more apparent. Attributing ownership to the right hand is because its cause, for the most part, is the transaction occurring by it. It is also said: because it is the first thing that is by way of jihad and captivity, and that requires their [the hands'] actions. This became famous regarding slaves, especially their females, as is intended here in consideration of the comparison between it and the ownership of marriage that falls upon free women. It is also said: the slave was called "possession of the right hand" because it is exclusive to beauty, and there is an omen of blessing (yumn) in it also.

From some of them, an Arab was asked: "Why did you make the names of your slaves better than the names of your children?" He said: "The names of our slaves are for us, and the names of our children are for our enemies." So understand. Ibn al-Faras claimed that the verse is a refutation of those who made marriage obligatory for the individual, because He, the Almighty, gave a choice in it between it and concubinage, and concubinage is not obligatory by consensus. If marriage were obligatory, He would not have given a choice between it and concubinage, because it is not valid according to the scholars of foundations to give a choice between an obligatory and a non-obligatory [act], because it leads to invalidating the reality of the obligatory, and that its abandoner would not be sinful. This does not refute the one who says: "The obligatory is one of the two matters" and denies the consensus on the lack of obligation of concubinage in general, so reflect. Some claimed that it is evidence for the prohibition of marrying Jinn women because He, the Almighty, specified women by mention.

You know that the concept of the opposite, for the one who holds it, is not considered here due to the obvious point of specifying women by mention and its benefit. Imam al-Suyuti claimed that there is an indication in it for the lawfulness of looking [at the woman] before marriage, because the "good" is only known by it. It is not hidden that the indication might be accepted, but the restriction is forbidden. This lawfulness is established in more than one hadith. In Sahih Muslim, it is that he (may Allah be pleased with him) said to a man marrying a woman from the Ansar: "Did you look at her?" He said: "No." He said: "Go and look at her, for there is something in the eyes of the Ansar." This is the school of the majority of scholars. It was narrated from a people that they dislike it, but they are refuted by the hadith and the consensus on the permissibility of looking for a need during selling, buying, testimony, and their like. Then, it is only permitted for him to look at the face and the hands. Al-Awza‘i said: "To the places of flesh."

Dawud said: "To her entire body," which is a clear error, clashing with the foundations of the Sunnah and the consensus. Is the woman's consent a condition or not? The majority [are] on the lack of condition; rather, the man has [the right] to look with heedlessness and lack of consent. From Malik is the dislike of looking with heedlessness, and in a weak narration from him, it is not permissible to look at her except with her consent. Many deemed it good that this looking is before the engagement, so that if he dislikes her, he leaves her without causing harm, contrary to if he leaves her after the engagement, as is not hidden.

Some said: "There is also an indication in it for the desirability of increasing [the number] beyond one for whoever does not fear the inability to deal justly, because He, the Almighty, prioritized the command to increase and suspended the matter of the one upon the fear of not dealing justly." "And how sweet is the increase if the wives are harmonious, and the feminine plural is healthy after the dual, declinable with a Damma among the rest of the vowels." This, by my life, is farther than the star ‘Ayuq and rarer than red sulfur and the egg of the ‘Unaq: "Not everything a person wishes does he attain; the winds blow with what the ships do not desire."

"(That)"—meaning choosing the one, or concubinage, or all—is the most appropriate, and to it points the speech of Ibn Abi Zayd—"is nearer that you may not deviate." ‘Awl (deviation/injustice) is originally a perceptible inclination; it is said: "The scale inclined (‘ala) when it leaned," then it was transferred to the conceptual inclination, which is injustice. From it: "The ruler deviated (‘ala) if he was unjust." The intent here is the forbidden inclination that is the opposite of justice, meaning: what was mentioned of choosing the one and concubinage is nearer, compared to what is other than them, to you not deviating a forbidden deviation, because it is negated at its root by the negation of its place in the first and the negation of its danger in the second, contrary to choosing the number in dowries, for the forbidden inclination is expected in it due to the realization of the place and the danger. To this, some researchers went, and some permitted the indication to be to three matters: reducing the number of wives, choosing the one, and concubinage, meaning these three matters are nearer than all that is other than them. The first is more apparent.

It was narrated from Imam al-Shafi‘i (may Allah be pleased with him) that he interpreted "that you may not deviate" as "that your dependents may not increase." Al-Shihab mentioned that he erred in it, and many of the predecessors censured him in it, because it is only said to the one whose dependents increased: "A‘ala yu‘ilu i‘alatan" (he supported/increased dependents), and they did not say "‘ala ya‘ulu" (he deviated).

He was answered that Imam al-Shafi‘i followed in this interpretation the path of metonymy, for he made the verb in the verse, "A man supported his dependents," like your saying, "He provided for them (ma nahum) and supported them (yamunuhum) if he spent on them." And whoever has many dependents must support them, so he used the spending and intended the necessity of its meaning, which is the increase of dependents. It was objected that "‘ala" in the sense of providing and spending has no indication of the increase of maintenance so that it could be metonymized for the increase of dependents. He was answered that al-Raghib mentioned that the root meaning of ‘awl is weight; it is said: "‘alahu," meaning he bore the weight of his maintenance. The weight is only in the increase of spending, not in its scarcity. So "that you may not deviate" is intended as the increase of spending, by the context and the evidence of the place, because the intent is not the negation of maintenance and dependents at their root, for whoever marries one is supporting and has maintenance, so the speech is like the explicit in it. The use of the root of the verb for the increase in it is not rare, so there is no dust [on this]. It was mentioned in al-Kashf that there is no need for the original reply regarding Imam al-Shafi‘i (may Allah be pleased with him), for al-Kisa’i narrated from the eloquent Arabs: "‘ala ya‘ulu" if his dependents increased, and among those who narrated it are al-Asma‘i and al-Azhari. This interpretation was narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim from Zayd ibn Aslam, and he is one of the elite successors. The reading of Tawus, "that you may not support (an la tu‘ilu)," is supportive of it, so there is no way for the disparagement of those who disparaged the Imam, ignorant of languages and reports. Al-Duri, the Imam of the reciters, narrated that it is the language of Himyar and recited: "And surely death takes every living being without doubt and [when] he walked and supported (‘ala)," meaning: and if his livestock and dependents increased. As for what was said—that "‘ala" in the sense of "his dependents increased" is Ya-based, and in the sense of "he deviated" is Waw-based—the error is not in using "‘ala" for the increase of dependents, but in not distinguishing between the two matters. It was also refuted by what the speech of some necessitated: that "‘ala" has meanings—he inclined, deviated, became poor, his dependents increased, provided, spent, and was incapable. It is said: "The matter '‘alani'" meaning it incapacitated me, and its imperfect is ya‘ilu and ya‘ulu. So it is from the Waw and Ya ones according to the difference of meanings. The intent of dependents based on this interpretation is possible to be the wives, as we indicated, and the lack of increase in wives is in choosing one, and similarly in reducing [them] if we say it is included in the referred-to, it is apparent. As for the lack of their increase in concubinage, it is by consideration that this is true for their total lack.

It is possible that it is the children, and their lack of increase in choosing one, and similarly in reducing [them], is also apparent. As for their lack of increase in concubinage, it is by consideration that it is a suspicion of the lack of children, as the custom is not to constrain the man to the intercourse of concubines, and he does not refuse withdrawal (‘azl) from them, contrary to [free] wives, for the custom is to constrain the man to intercourse with them and refuse withdrawal from them, even though withdrawal from them, like withdrawal from concubines, is permissible by religious law with or without permission in the famous [view] of the school of al-Shafi‘i. In some explanations of al-Kashshaf is what indicates that there is a disagreement in that among the Shafi‘is, so some forbade it as is the school of Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him). Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah that he interpreted "that you may not deviate" as "that you may not become poor." We have already preceded that "‘ala" comes in the meaning of "became poor." From its coming as such is his saying: "So the poor does not know when his richness [will be], and the rich does not know when he will become poor (ya‘il)." However, the verb in the verse is Ya-based, not Waw-based as in the verse, and the matter in it is easy as you have known. Based on all interpretations, the sentence is starting anew, running from what precedes it in the position of causation.