Tafsir of An-Nisa' 4:3

When the verse regarding orphans was revealed, highlighting the great sin (ḥūb) in consuming their wealth, the guardians feared incurring this sin by failing to provide equity in the orphans' rights. They began to feel apprehensive about their guardianship. Since a man might have eight, six, or ten wives and fail to fulfill their rights or deal justly between them, it was said to them: If you fear failing to deal justly regarding the rights of orphans and thus feel apprehensive, then fear also failing to deal justly between wives, and reduce the number of your spouses. For whoever feels apprehensive about one sin or repents from it while committing another similar one is neither truly apprehensive nor repentant; for the obligation to feel apprehensive and repent arises from the sin’s inherent ugliness, and that ugliness exists in every sin. It is also said that they were not apprehensive about adultery while being apprehensive about the guardianship of orphans, so it was said: If you fear injustice regarding orphans, then fear adultery, and marry what is lawful for you of women, and do not hover around the forbidden.

It is also said that a man would find an orphan girl who possessed wealth and beauty, or he would be her guardian, so he would marry her to prevent others from having her. He might accumulate ten of them, and due to their weakness and the lack of anyone to defend them, he would fear wronging them in their rights and falling short of what is due to them. Thus, it was said: If you fear that you will not deal justly with orphan girls, then marry others who are pleasing to you.

"Orphans" (al-yatāmā) is used for females just as it is for males. It is the plural of yatīmah (orphan girl), formed by inversion (qalb), similar to ayāmā (widows/unmarried), where the original is ayā'im and yatā'im.

Al-Nakhaʿī read tuqsiṭū (that you deal justly) with a fatḥah on the tā’, treating the lā as an extra particle, similar to the lā in "so that they may not know" (57:29), meaning: "If you fear that you will act unjustly."

"What is pleasing to you of women" Meaning: What is lawful for you. It is specified as "of women" because some are forbidden, such as those mentioned in the verse of prohibition. It is said that "what" (mā) is used to denote the category, as female rational beings are sometimes treated grammatically like non-rational beings, as in the verse: "or what your right hands possess" (4:3).

"Two, three, or four" These are modified numbers derived from repeated counts. They are indeclinable because they contain two underlying factors: the deviation from their original form and the deviation from repetition. They are indefinite nouns made definite by the definite article; you say, "So-and-so marries the mathnā, the thulāth, and the rubāʿ." Their grammatical position is an accusative state of being (ḥāl) from "what is pleasing to you," meaning: "Marry those who are pleasing to you, counted in this number: two by two, three by three, and four by four."

If you ask: "The permission granted to the groom is to combine two, three, or four; what is the meaning of the repetition in mathnā, thulāth, rubāʿ?" I say: The address is to the collective, so repetition is necessary so that every groom desiring to combine may take the number permitted to him, just as you say to a group, "Divide this money—which is a thousand dirhams—two by two, three by three, and four by four." If you used the singular, it would have no meaning.

If you ask: "Why did the conjunction wāw (and) come instead of aw (or)?" I say: It is as it came in the example I provided for you. If you were to say, "Divide this money two by two or three by three or four by four," you would be signaling that it is not permissible for them to divide it except by one of these types of division, and they would not be allowed to combine them—meaning they could not make part of the division by twos, part by threes, and part by fours. The wāw indicates the permissibility of combining these types of division; it signifies that the grooms may take whom they wish to marry in a collective manner, whether they choose to vary these numbers or keep them uniform, while being forbidden from exceeding them.

Ibrāhīm read thulth and rubʿ as shortened forms of thulāth and rubāʿ.

"But if you fear that you will not be just" Between these numbers, just as you feared failing to deal justly with those above them.

"Then one" Adhere to or choose one, and abandon the combination entirely. The entire matter revolves around justice; wherever you find justice, hold fast to it. It is also read as fawāḥidatun (in the nominative), meaning: "Then what suffices is one," or "One is enough for you."

"Or what your right hands possess" This is equal in ease and convenience to a single free woman, without restriction or limitation of number. By my life, they are less burdensome, cause less trouble, and are lighter in expense than those for whom a dowry is paid. It does not matter whether you have many or few, whether you deal justly between them in division or not, or whether you practice ʿazl (coitus interruptus) with them or not. Ibn Abī ʿAblah read it as man malakat (those whom your right hands possess).

"That" Refers to choosing one or taking concubines.

"Is more likely that you will not incline" Closer to not deviating. From the saying: "The scale ʿāla (tilted/leaned) when it deviated." A person's scale is ʿā'il (tilted), and a judge ʿāla in his judgment when he acts unjustly. It is narrated that a Bedouin was judged by a judge, and he said to him, "Do you act unjustly (taʿūlu) against me?" Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him): "That you will not incline" means "that you will not act unjustly."

As for what is narrated from Al-Shafiʿi (may Allah have mercy on him) that he interpreted "that you will not incline" as "that your dependents will not become numerous," his reasoning is to derive it from the saying: "A man ʿāla his dependents," meaning he provides for them, just as they say mānahum (he provided for them) when he spends on them. This is because whoever has many dependents is obligated to provide for them, and in that, it becomes difficult to maintain the limits of piety, earning lawful wealth, and pure provision.

Speech from someone like him—among the beacons of knowledge, the imams of the law, and the heads of the mujtahids—is worthy of being interpreted as correct and sound. One should not suspect him of distorting taʿīlū (to have many dependents) into taʿūlū (to act unjustly). It was narrated from Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him): "Do not think ill of a word that came from the mouth of your brother when you can find a good interpretation for it."

The book titled Shāfī al-ʿAy (The Healer of Inarticulacy from the Speech of Al-Shafiʿi) is sufficient witness that he was too elevated in rank and too vast in his mastery of the Arabic language for such a thing to be hidden from him. But scholars have their own methods and styles, and he followed the method of allusion (kināyāt) in interpreting this word.

If you ask: "How can it be said that one who takes concubines has many dependents, when concubines involve similar burdens to those for whom dowries are paid?" I say: It is not so. The purpose of marriage is procreation and lineage, unlike concubinage. That is why ʿazl is permitted with concubines without their permission. Thus, concubinage is a cause for fewer children compared to marriage, just as marrying one is compared to marrying four. Ṭāwūs read an lā taʿīlū (that you do not have many dependents) from the verb aʿāla (a man whose dependents became numerous). This reading supports the interpretation of Al-Shafiʿi (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding the meaning he intended.