Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:3

An-Nisa (The Women): Verse 3

And if you fear that you will not deal justly...

This verse belongs to the second category of rulings mentioned in this Surah, which concerns marriage contracts. There are several issues within this verse:

Al-Wahidi (may Allah have mercy on him) stated that al-iqsāṭ means to be just. It is said, aqsata ar-rajul (the man dealt justly) when he was fair. Allah the Exalted says: {…with justice. Indeed, Allah loves the just} (Al-Hujurat: 9). Al-qisṭ means justice and equity, as Allah says: {Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in justice} (An-Nisa: 135).

Al-Zajjaj said that the root of qasṭa and aqsata both derive from al-qisṭ, which means a share or portion. When they say qasṭa (in the sense of injustice), they mean he wronged his companion in the portion due to him. Do you not see that they say qāsaṭtuhu (I overpowered him) when one overcomes another regarding his share? Thus, qasṭa is built upon the pattern of injustice, wronging, and overpowering. When they say aqsata, the meaning is that he became one possessing just shares, built upon the pattern of anṣafa (to be equitable) when he brings forth fairness and justice in his word, deed, and division.

Know that the phrase {And if you fear that you will not deal justly} is the condition (shart), and {then marry those that please you of [other] women} is the consequence (jazā’). We must clarify how this consequence relates to this condition. The commentators have several views:

The First View: It is narrated from 'Urwah that he said: I asked 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) about the meaning of Allah's saying: {And if you fear that you will not deal justly concerning the orphans}. She replied: "O nephew of my sister, this refers to the orphan girl who is under the guardianship of her guardian. He desires her wealth and beauty, but intends to marry her for a dowry less than her due. Then, if he marries her, he treats her poorly, knowing that she has no one to defend her and ward off that husband's harm. So, Allah the Exalted said: (If you fear that you will wrong the orphans in their marriages, then marry [other] women who are pleasing to you.)" 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) then said: "After this verse, the people sought a ruling from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) concerning them, and Allah the Exalted revealed: {They ask you for a ruling concerning women. Say, 'Allah gives you a ruling concerning them, and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning the orphan women…}" She explained that the meaning of {and that which is recited to you in the Book concerning the orphan women} (An-Nisa: 127) refers to this verse: {And if you fear that you will not deal justly}.

The Second View: The interpretation is that when the preceding verse concerning orphans and the great sin involved in consuming their wealth was revealed, the guardians feared incurring sin by failing to deal justly regarding the rights of orphans. They became hesitant about their guardianship. Some men had ten wives or more, and they could not fulfill their rights or be just among them. It was said to them: If you fear abandoning justice regarding the rights of orphans and thus become hesitant about them, then be fearful of abandoning justice concerning [other] women as well. They then mentioned the number of married women, implying that one who hesitates about one sin but commits a similar one is not truly hesitant.

The Third View: Since they were hesitant about the guardianship of orphans, it was said: If you fear [wronging] the orphans, then fear committing fornication. So, marry what is lawful for you of women and do not approach the forbidden.

The Fourth View: This is narrated from 'Ikrimah, who said: A man might have several wives and also orphans under his care. If he spent his own wealth on his wives and was left needy, he would start spending the orphans' wealth on them. Thus, Allah said: {And if you fear that you will not deal justly concerning the wealth of orphans} due to the large expenses associated with many wives, then marriage is restricted for you to no more than four, so that this fear is removed. If you fear injustice even with four, then [marry] one. Thus, He mentioned the extreme limit (four) and the minimum (one), indicating what lies between them. It is as if Allah said: If you fear [injustice with] four, then [marry] three; if you fear, then two; if you fear, then one. This view is closer, as it seems Allah feared excessive marriage due to the potential injustice the guardian might commit with the orphan's wealth out of the need for great expenditure when marrying many wives.

This contains several issues:

The literalists (Aṣḥāb al-Ẓāhir) hold that marriage is obligatory, basing this on the command {then marry} (fa-inkihū), as the apparent meaning of a command is obligation. Al-Shafi'i argued against its obligation by citing: {And whoever among you cannot afford the means to marry believing free women, then [marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls…} (An-Nisa: 25) until His statement: {That is for those among you who fear being drawn into sin [by remaining unmarried], but that you be patient is better for you}. Allah the Exalted ruled that refraining from marriage in this situation is better than doing it, which indicates it is not even recommended, let alone obligatory.

He said {what pleases you of women} (mā ṭāba lakum) and not man ṭāba lakum (who pleases you) for several reasons:

1. It refers to the genus/category. If one asks, "What do you have?" the answer might be "a man or a woman," meaning, "What is that thing you possess?" and "What is that reality you possess?"
2. (Mā) along with what follows it is in the position of a verbal noun (maṣdar). The meaning is: "Marry the pleasing [quality/type] of women."
3. (Mā) and (Man) are sometimes interchangeable. Allah says: {By the heaven and He Who constructed it} (Ash-Shams: 5) and {Nor are you worshippers of what I worship} (Al-Kafirun: 2). Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala' narrated: Subḥāna mā sabbaha lahu ar-ra'd (Glory be to Him whom the thunder glorifies). He also said: {And of them is he who crawls on his belly} (An-Nur: 45).
4. Using (Mā) is to place females in the position of non-rational beings, as in: {except to their spouses or those whom their right hands possess} (Al-Ma'arij: 30).

Al-Wahidi and the author of Al-Kashshāf said that {what pleases you} means what is lawful (ḥall) for you of women, because some women are forbidden to marry, such as those mentioned in: {Forbidden to you are your mothers, your daughters…} (An-Nisa: 23).

I have reservations about this view. We established that the command {then marry} is one of permission (ibāḥah). If {what pleases you} meant what is lawful, the verse would be like saying: "We permit you to marry those whose marriage is already permissible for you," which renders the verse pointless. Furthermore, if we adopt their interpretation, the verse becomes ambiguous (mujmal), because the reasons for permissibility and lawfulness are not mentioned in this verse, making it necessarily ambiguous. However, if we interpret ṭāba as pleasing to the soul and inclination of the heart, the verse is general and subsequently specified. In Usul al-Fiqh, when ambiguity and specification conflict, resolving the ambiguity is preferable, because a specified general ruling is authoritative in areas not covered by the specification, whereas an ambiguous ruling is not authoritative at all.

This means two by two, three by three, and four by four. It is diptote (non-triptote/indeclinable). There are two views on this:

The First View: Two factors combine: al-'adl (deviation/transposition) and description. Al-'adl is when you use one word to mean another, like saying ‘Umar intending ‘Āmir. Similarly here, you mean "two by two" when saying mathnā. It is ma'dūl (deviated). The description is evidenced by Allah’s saying: {with wings, two, three, and four} (Fatir: 1), which is undoubtedly a description.

The Second View: These words are diptote because they contain two deviations ('adlayn). First, they are deviated from their original forms, as explained. Second, they are deviated from repetition, as you do not mean just "two" by mathnā, but "two by two." If you say, "Two or three men came," your intent is only to report the number that came. But if you say, "The people came mathnā," it conveys that their arrival occurred in pairs. Thus, two types of counting are present in these words, necessitating prohibition from inflection (diptote status). When two reasons for inflection are present in a noun, it becomes diptote because it resembles a verb in two aspects, thus preventing inflection. Similarly, when two forms of deviation are present, it must be diptote. And Allah knows best.

The people of sound reasoning (Ahl al-Taḥqīq) stated that {then marry those that please you of [other] women} does not include slaves ('abīd). This is because the address is to a person who is able to marry a woman when she pleases him. A slave is not so, as he cannot marry except with his master's permission, evidenced by the Qur'an and Sunnah.

• Qur'an: {Allah sets forth an example of a slave owned by another, unable to do anything} (An-Nahl: 75). The phrase {unable to do anything} negates his ability to act independently in marriage.
• Sunnah: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: (Any slave who marries without his master's permission is an adulterer.) Thus, this verse does not include the slave.

Given this premise, most jurists hold that marrying four is legislated for free men, not slaves. Malik said that a slave is permitted to marry four, relying on the apparent meaning of this verse.

The relied-upon response is that Al-Shafi'i argued for the restriction to free men based on two other points:

1. Allah says after this verse: {But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one, or those your right hands possess}. This only applies to free men.
2. Allah says: {But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then consume it in lawful and pleasant ways} (An-Nisa: 4). A slave does not consume what his wife willingly gives up of the dowry; rather, it belongs to his master. Malik argued that when two independent general statements are issued, the restriction in the latter does not necessitate restriction in the former.

Al-Shafi'i responded that since the addresses in these verses follow one continuous sequence, knowing that some parts are restricted to free men implies that all parts are so. Some jurists knew that the apparent meaning of this verse includes slaves, but they restricted this generality by analogy (qiyās). They argued that there is consensus that slavery affects the reduction of marriage rights, such as divorce and waiting periods ('iddah). Since the number of wives is a right of marriage, the slave should have half the right of the free man. The first argument is stronger. And Allah knows best.

A group held that marriage to any number is permissible, citing the Qur'an and Sunnah.

• Qur'an: They relied on this verse in three ways:
  1. The statement {then marry those that please you of [other] women} is unrestricted regarding the number, because any number can be excluded by exception (istithnā’), and the rule of exception is that what is excluded must have been included initially.
  2. The phrase {two or three or four} does not restrict that generality, because mentioning specific numbers does not negate the ruling for the rest. Rather, mentioning these numbers indicates the removal of restriction and prohibition absolutely. If a man tells his son, "Do what you wish: go to the market, or the city, or the garden," this explicitly delegates full choice to him and removes restriction regarding all things, not just those mentioned. Similarly here. Moreover, mentioning all possible numbers is impossible, so mentioning some numbers after {then marry those that please you of [other] women} signals permission for all numbers.
  3. The conjunction wāw (and) implies absolute conjunction. {two or three or four} implies the permissibility of this sum, which is nine, or rather eighteen, because mathnā means "two by two," and so on for the rest.
• Sunnah: In two ways:
  1. It is established by mass transmission (tawātur) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) died having nine wives. Allah commanded us to follow him: {So follow him}. The minimum level of command is permission.
  2. A person's sunnah is his established practice. Marrying more than four was the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), thus it was his sunnah. Furthermore, he said: (Whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not of me.) The apparent meaning of this Hadith suggests blame for one who refrains from marrying more than four, establishing at least the principle of permissibility.

The jurists' basis for establishing the limit rests on two things:

First: The Hadith. It is narrated that Ghaylān embraced Islam while having ten wives, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) told him: "Keep four and separate from the rest." It is also narrated that Nawfal ibn Mu'āwiyah embraced Islam while having five wives, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Keep four and separate from one."

This path is weak for two reasons:

1. The Qur'an indicated no limit, so this Hadith would be abrogating the Qur'an by a single narrator (āḥād), which is impermissible.
2. The Hadith is an event-specific ruling (waqi'at ḥāl). Perhaps the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only ordered him to keep four and separate from the rest because combining the four with the others was impermissible due to kinship or fosterage. This possibility remains, so the Qur'an cannot be abrogated by it.

Second: The Consensus of the Imams of the Cities that exceeding four is not permissible. This is the relied-upon basis. Two questions arise:

1. Consensus neither abrogates nor is abrogated. How can it be said that consensus abrogated this verse?
2. There are aberrant individuals in the Ummah who do not hold the prohibition of exceeding four, and consensus is not established if one or two dissent.

Response to the First: Consensus reveals that an abrogating factor occurred during the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Response to the Second: Those who dissent from this consensus are people of innovation (ahl al-bid'ah), so their dissent is irrelevant.

If it is said: If the matter is as you claim, why did the verse use "or" (aw) instead of "and" (wa)? Why did it say mathnā, thalāth, wa rubā‘ (two, three, and four) instead of mathnā, thalāth, or rubā‘?

We reply: If it had used aw (or), it would imply that it is only permissible under one of these specific divisions, and that they cannot combine these divisions (i.e., some marry two, some three, and some four). By using wa (and), it implies that each group is permitted to choose one of these divisions. It is analogous to a man telling a group: "Divide this thousand dirhams, two by two, three by three, and four by four." This means some may take two by two, others three by three, and a third group four by four. The benefit of omitting aw and using wa is what we mentioned. And Allah knows best.

It is in the accusative case (naṣb) as a circumstantial adverb (ḥāl) modifying mā ṭāba (what pleases you). The meaning is: "Marry the pleasing women to you, counted in this manner: two by two, three by three, and four by four."

This contains several issues:

The meaning is: If you fear you will not be just among these numbers, just as you feared failing to be just with more than four, then suffice with one wife or a female slave. This is easier and less burdensome than marrying many free women, regardless of whether you marry many or few, whether you are just among them or not, or whether you practice ʿazl (coitus interruptus) or not.

The word {one} (wāḥidah) is read with the accusative marker on the tā’ (i.e., fawāḥidatan), meaning: "Then commit to or choose one, and abandon plurality altogether." The entire matter revolves around justice; wherever you find justice, adhere to it. It is also read with the nominative marker (fawāḥidatun), meaning: "Then one is sufficient," or "Then one wife or those your right hands possess is enough for you."

Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) can use this verse to argue that engaging in supererogatory acts of worship is better than marriage. This is because Allah gave a choice between marrying one woman or possessing a concubine. A choice between two things implies equality between them regarding the intended wisdom, just as a doctor saying, "Eat apples or pomegranates," implies that each serves the purpose equally. Just as the verse indicates this equality, reason also indicates it, because the objectives are tranquility, companionship, safeguarding one's religion, and household management—all of which are achieved through both means. Furthermore, if we consider the case where the woman was a slave, then freed and married, the equality between marriage and concubinage becomes very clear. If marriage and concubinage are proven equal, we say: There is consensus that engaging in supererogatory acts is better than concubinage. Therefore, it must be better than marriage, because what exceeds one of two equal things must exceed the other equal thing.

This contains two issues:

The meaning of al-adnā here is al-aqrab (closer). The meaning is: "That is closer to not inclining [to injustice]." The omission of min (from) is elegant because the context indicates it.

There are several views on the meaning of {that you will not ta'ūlū}:

The First View (The Preferred View): It means: Do not be unjust or deviate. This is the chosen view of most commentators, and it is narrated as a marfū‘ (attributed to the Prophet). 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding {That is more suitable that you will not ta'ūlū}: (Do not be unjust). In another narration: (that you will not deviate.) Al-Wahidi (may Allah have mercy on him) said both terms are narrated. The root of al-'awl is deviation. It is said, ‘āla al-mīzān ‘awlan (the scale tilted) when it deviated. A judge ‘āla fī ḥukmihi (deviated in his judgment) when he was unjust, because injustice is deviation. They recited poetry from Abu Talib:

With a scale of justice that does not cheat a barley grain, And a truthful weigher whose weighing is not deviating.

It is narrated that a Bedouin, judged by a judge, said to him: "Are you committing ‘awl against me?" It is also said, ‘ālat al-farīḍah (the shares of inheritance became excessive) when its shares increased. I a‘altuhā (made it excessive) when I increased its shares. It is known that when its shares increase, it deviates from moderation. These derivations indicate that the root of this word is deviation, which is then specifically applied by custom to deviation toward injustice and oppression. This is the discussion establishing the view held by the majority.

The Second View: Some said it means: Do not become poor (taftaqirū). It is said, rajulun ‘ā’il (a man is needy) because when his dependents ('iyāl) are few, his expenses are few, and when his expenses are few, he does not become poor.

The Third View: Narrated from Al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) that he said: {That is more suitable that you will not ta'ūlū} means: That is more suitable that your dependents do not become numerous. Abu Bakr al-Razi, in Aḥkām al-Qur'ān, criticized him on three grounds:

1. There is no disagreement among the early generations (Salaf) or those who narrated the interpretation of this verse that it means: Do not deviate or be unjust.
2. It is a linguistic error. If it were said: {That is more suitable that you will not tu'īlū} (tu'īlū meaning "make numerous"), it would be correct. But interpreting ta'ūlū as tu'īlū is linguistically wrong.
3. Allah mentioned one wife or female slaves. Slaves are considered dependents like women, and there is no disagreement that one can marry as many slaves as one wishes. Thus, the meaning cannot be the abundance of dependents.

The author of An-Naẓm added a fourth point of criticism: Allah said at the beginning of the verse: {But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one}, not "if you fear poverty." Therefore, the consequence must correspond to the condition, and the opposite of justice is injustice, not the abundance of dependents.

My response:

Regarding the First Objection (Lack of disagreement among the Salaf): This objection is extremely weak. It was not narrated that Al-Shafi'i refuted the commentators' view that the meaning is "do not be unjust or deviate." Rather, he mentioned another possibility. In Usul al-Fiqh, when early scholars mention one interpretation, it does not prevent later scholars from extracting another meaning. If that were the case, the subtle points later scholars derived would be rejected, which is clearly not the case. Furthermore, who informed Al-Razi that none of the Companions or Successors mentioned this view? It is well-known that Tawus recited it as: {That is more suitable that you will not tu'īlū} (i.e., make numerous). If it is established that early scholars used this as a recitation variant, then using it as an interpretation is even more likely. Thus, this proves Al-Razi's severe ignorance in this criticism.

Regarding the Second Objection (Linguistic error in ta'ūlū vs. tu'īlū): You cited this linguistic point from Al-Mubarrid, but due to your ignorance and eagerness to criticize the leaders of Ijtihad, you failed to realize that Al-Mubarrid's criticism is flawed for several reasons:

1. It is said, ‘ālat al-mas’alah (the issue became excessive) when its shares increased. This meaning is close to deviation, because when something deviates, the avenues of desire and will increase. If so, the meaning of the verse is: "That is more suitable that you do not become numerous." If you are not numerous, you will not fall into injustice and oppression, as abundance and mixing are the vehicle for injustice. By this path, this interpretation reverts to something close to the first interpretation chosen by the majority.
2. When one says, "So-and-so has a long spear and much ash," if asked for the meaning, it is good to say, "It means he is tall and generous in hospitality." It is not meant that "long spear" literally means "tall stature," but that the intended meaning of the statement is this concept. The scholars of rhetoric call this expressing something by allusion (kināyah) or implication (ta‘rīḍ), which ultimately points to the thing by mentioning its necessary consequences. Here, the abundance of dependents necessitates deviation and injustice. Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him) made the abundance of dependents an allusion to deviation and injustice, because the abundance of dependents is inseparable from deviation and injustice. He presented this as an interpretation, not merely as an allusion. This is a common method in the Book of Allah. Since Al-Shafi'i was fully aware of the methods of linguistic correspondence, he favored mentioning this phrasing. Abu Bakr al-Razi, being dull-witted and far from the styles of the Arabs, naturally failed to recognize this elegant aspect.
3. As the author of Al-Kashshāf mentioned, this interpretation is derived from the phrase: ‘āla ar-rajul ‘iyālahu ya‘ūluhum (The man supported his dependents), similar to mānahum yamūnahum (he provided for them), because one whose dependents are numerous is obliged to support them, and in that lies difficulty in maintaining the limits of piety, lawful earning, and good sustenance. Thus, these points establish that what the Imam of the Muslims, Al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him), stated is supremely excellent, and criticism against it stems only from excessive dullness and lack of knowledge.

Regarding the Third Objection (Abundance of dependents is the same whether they are wives or slaves): The response is twofold:

1. What Al-Qaffal (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned: If female slaves become numerous, he can compel them to earn, and if they earn, they spend on themselves and their master. Thus, the dependents become fewer. This is not the case if the woman is free. Thus, the difference is clear.
2. If a female slave becomes burdensome, the master can sell her and be rid of her. If she is free, he must spend on her. Custom indicates that as long as the husband keeps the wife, she does not demand her dowry, but if he seeks divorce, she demands it, putting the husband in distress.

Regarding the Fourth Objection (Mentioned by Al-Jurjani, author of An-Naẓm): The response is twofold:

1. What the Judge mentioned: The view of Al-Shafi'i is preferable because if it were interpreted as injustice, it would be redundant, as that was already understood from {And if you fear that you will not deal justly}. If we interpret it as Al-Shafi'i did, there is no redundancy, making it preferable.
2. Even if the matter is as you claim, we have shown that Al-Shafi'i's interpretation ultimately reverts to the first interpretation, but through allusion and implication. If this is the case, the objection is removed. This concludes the discussion on this point, and success is from Allah.