An Exegesis of the Holy Qur’ān

BY:
al-‘Allāmah as-Sayyid Muh a mmad
H u sayn at - T a bāt a bā’ī

VOLUME 8

Translated by:
Sayyid Saeed Akhtar R i z v i

WOFIS
World Organization for Islamic Services
Tehran — Iran
 English translation:
First edition 1992/1412

Translated from the Arabic:

al-Mīzān fī tafsīri ’l-Qur’ān, vol.4,
Beirut, 1394/1974 (3rd ed.)

All rights reserved for the publisher,

WOFIS, Tehran.

Published by:
World Organization for Islamic Services,
P. O. Box No.11 3 6 5 — 1 5 4 5 ,
Tehran — IRAN.
 In the Name of Allāh,
The All-compassionate, The All-merciful

Praise belongs to Allāh, the Lord of all being;

the All-compassionate, the All-merciful;
the Master of the Day of Judgement;
Thee only we serve, and to Thee alone we pray
for succour;
Guide us in the straight path;
the path of those whom Thou hast blessed,
not of those against whom Thou art wrathful,
nor of those who are astray.

*****

O’ Allāh! send your blessings to the head of

your messengers and the last of
your prophets,
Muhammad and his pure and cleansed progeny.
Also send your blessings to all your
prophets and envoys.
 CONTENTS

Page
TRANSLITERATION .......................................................................xii
FOREWORD:
In Arabic ....................................................................................... xiii
English translation ......................................................................... xv

CHAPTER FOUR — THE WOMEN

TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 11 — 14 .................................. 4

Commentary ..................................................................................... 5
A general Discourse on Inheritance ............................................. 15
Traditions ....................................................................................... 22
An Academic Essay on Inheritance:
1. How Inheritance began ............................................................. 33
2. Gradual Development of Inheritance ...................................... 34
3. Inheritance in Civilized Nations .............................................. 34
4. What Islam did in such a situation .......................................... 38
5. The Position of Women and Orphans in Islam ...................... 41
6. Modern Inheritance laws .......................................................... 44
7. Comparison of these codes: One with Another ..................... 46
8. Will and Testament ................................................................... 46
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 15 — 16 ................................ 48
Commentary ................................................................................... 48
Traditions ....................................................................................... 52
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 17 — 18 ................................ 54
Commentary ................................................................................... 54
 AL-MĪZĀN

On Repentance ................................................................................ 64
Traditions ........................................................................................ 74
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 19 — 22 ................................... 78
Commentary .................................................................................... 79
Traditions ........................................................................................ 85
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 23 — 28 ................................... 91
Commentary .................................................................................... 92
Traditions ...................................................................................... 121
A Review of Traditions about Mut‘ah Marriage ......................... 130
[Traditions on the Recitation: ‘‘For a Fixed Period’’] ............. 132
[Some Traditions showing that the Mut‘ah was
abrogated by the Qur’ān] .......................................................... 134
[Some Traditions showing that the Mut‘ah was
abrogated by theSunnah] .......................................................... 135
[Some Traditions of some Companions and their
Disciples about Lawfulness of the Mut‘ah] ............................. 137
[Some Traditions showing that it was ‘Umar who
had forbidden the Mut‘ah] ....................................................... 139
[An Exegete’s Claims and Our Comments] ............................. 145
An Academic Discourse [Meaning of ‘‘Son’’ in Sharī‘ah] ....... 162
Another Academic Discourse [Philosophy of Prohibition
of the Women of Prohibited Degree] ....................................... 165
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 29 — 30 ................................. 170
Commentary .................................................................................. 170
Traditions ...................................................................................... 177
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSE 31 ............................................. 180
Commentary .................................................................................. 180
Great and Small Sins and Expiation of Evils ............................... 182
Traditions ...................................................................................... 193
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 32 — 35 ................................. 199
Commentary .................................................................................. 200
A Qur’ānic Reality ........................................................................ 204
A Discourse on Men’s Authority over Women ............................ 213
Traditions ...................................................................................... 215
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 36 — 42 ................................. 223
Commentary .................................................................................. 224
Traditions ...................................................................................... 230
 CONTENTS

TRANSLATION OF THE VERSE 43 .............................................. 233

Commentary .................................................................................. 233
Traditions ...................................................................................... 236
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 44 — 58 .................................. 239
Commentary .................................................................................. 240
Traditions ...................................................................................... 263
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 59 — 70 .................................. 275
Commentary .................................................................................. 276
Traditions ....................................................................................... 307
TRANSLATION OF THE VERSES 71 — 76 .................................. 318
Commentary .................................................................................. 319
Sense of Honour vis-a-vis Bigotry ................................................ 327
Traditions ...................................................................................... 328
LIST OF THE IMPORTANT SUBJECTS DEALT
WITH IN THIS VOLUME ........................................................... 332
APPENDIX ‘A’ — A Chronological .List of the Holy Prophet,
his Daughter and the Twelve Imāms ............................................. 334
APPENDIX ‘B’ — List of the Chapters of the Holy Qur’ān
with English Translation ............................................................... 336
 TRANSLITERATION
ARABIC LETTERS

Symbol Transliteration Symbol Transliteration

‫ء‬ ’ ‫ك‬ k
‫ب‬ b ‫ل‬ l
‫ت‬ t ‫م‬ m
‫ث‬ th ‫ن‬ n
‫ج‬ j ‫ﻩ‬ h
‫ح‬ h ‫و‬ w
‫خ‬ kh ‫ي‬ y
‫د‬ d ‫ة‬ ah, at
‫ذ‬ dh ( construct state)
‫ر‬ r ‫ال‬ article al- and ’l
‫ز‬ z (even before the
antepalatals)
‫س‬ s
‫ش‬ sh Long Vowels
‫ص‬ s ‫ﺁ‬ ã
‫ض‬ d ‫و‬ ũ
‫ط‬ t ‫ي‬ ī
‫ظ‬ z
‫ع‬ ‘ or ‛ Short Vowels
‫غ‬ gh َ
_ a
‫ف‬ f _ُ u
‫ق‬ q _ i
ِ
xiii
‫‪xiv‬‬ ‫ﺗﺼﺪﻳـﺮ‬

‫***‬
 FOREWORD

1. al ‘Allāmah as-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn at-Tabātabā’ī

(1321/1904 — 1402/1981) may Allāh have mercy upon him — was a
famous scholar, thinker and the most celebrated contemporary Islamic
philosopher. We have introduced him briefly in the first volume of the
English translation of al-Mīzān.
2. al-‘Allāmah at-Tabātabā’ī is well-known for a number of his
works of which the most important is his great exegesis al-Mīzān fī
tafsīri ’l-Qur’ān which is rightly counted as the fundamental pillar of
scholarly work which the ‘Allāmah has achieved in the Islamic world
3. We felt the necessity of publishing an exegesis of the Holy
Qur’ān in English. After a thorough consultation, we came to choose al-
Mīzān because we found that it contained in itself, to a considerable
extent, the points which should necessarily be expounded in a perfect
exegesis of the Holy Qur’ān and the points which appeal to the mind of
the contemporary Muslim reader. Therefore, we proposed to al-Ustādh
al-‘Allāmah as-Sayyid Sa‘īd Akhtar ar-Radawī to undertake this task,
because we were familiar with his intellectual ability to understand the
Arabic text of al-Mīzān and his literary capability in expression and
translation. So we relied on him for this work and consider him
responsible for the English translation as al-‘Allāmah at-Tabātabā’ī was
responsible for the Arabic text of al-Mīzān and its discussions.

xv
xvi FOREWORD

4. We have now undertaken the publication of the eighth volume

of the English translation of al-Mīzān. This volume corresponds with the
second half of the fourth volume of the Arabic text. With the help of
Allāh, the Exalted, we hope to provide the complete translation and
publication of this voluminous work.
In the first volume, the reader will find two more appendixes
included apart from the two which are to appear in all volumes of -the
English translation of al Mīzān: One for the authors and the other for the
books cited throughout this work.

****

We implore upon Allāh to effect our work purely for His pleasure,
and to help us to complete this work which we have started. May Allāh
guide us in this step which we have taken and in the future steps, for He
is the best Master and the best Helper.

WORLD ORGANIZATION FOR ISLAMIC SERVICES

(Board of Writing, Translation and Publication)

13/7/1412
19/1/1992
Tehran — IRAN.
al-Mīzān

Volume Eight
ch.4, vrs.11-76
3
4 AL-MĪZĀN

Allāh enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have
the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than
two females, they shall have two-thirds of what (the deceased) has
left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; and (as for) his
parents, each of them shall have the sixth from what he has left if
he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his two parents
inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has
brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth after (the payment
of) any bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents
and your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to
you in usefulness; an ordinance from Allāh: Surely Allāh is
knowing, Wise (11). And you shall have half of what your wives
leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall
have a fourth from what they leave after (payment of) any bequest
they may have bequeathed or a debt, and they shall have the
fourth from what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a
child then they shall have the eighth from what you leave after
(payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and
if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither
parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister,
then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more
than that, they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any
bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not
harm (others); this is an ordinance from Allāh: and Allāh is
Knowing, Forbearing (12). These are Allāh’s limits; and whoever
obeys Allāh and His Messenger, He will cause him to enter
gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them; and this is
the great achievement (13). And whoever disobeys Allāh and His
Messenger and goes beyond His limits, He will cause him to enter
fire to abide in it, and he shall have an abasing chastisement (14).

*****
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 5

COMMENTARY

QUR’ĀN: Allāh enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall
have the equal of the portion of two females;: ‘‘al-Īsā’ ’’ and ‘‘at-
tawsiyah’’ ( ُ‫ﺻ َﻴﺔ‬ ِ ْ‫اﻟ ﱠﺘﻮ‬،ُ‫ = َاﻟِْﺎﻳْﺼَﺂء‬to entrust, to enjoin); ar-Rāghib says in
Mufradātu ’l-Qur’ān: ‘‘al-Wasiyyah ( ‫ﺻ ﱠﻴ ُﺔ‬ ِ ‫ = ) َاﻟْ َﻮ‬to direct someone —
with a shade of exhortation — to do something.’’ The use of the word al-
awlād ( ‫ﻻ ُد‬
َ ْ‫ = َاﻟَْﺎو‬children) instead of al-abnā’ ( ‫ = اَﻟْﺎَﺑْﻨَﺂ ُء‬sons) shows that the
rule of one or two shares is restricted to the deceased’s immediate
children. As for the children’s children, how low so ever, they should get
the share'of their progenitor through whom they are connected to the
deceased; thus a son’s daughter would get two shares while a daughter’s
son would be given one share — provided there is no one nearer to take
their precedence. Likewise, the offspring of brothers and sisters would
get the share of him or her through whom they are connected to the
deceased. [All this is inferred from the word, al-awlād whose root word
signifies birth.] But the word, al-ibn ( ‫ﻦ‬ ُ ْ‫ = َاﻟِْﺎﺑ‬son) does not necessarily
mean immediate child, as the word, al-ab ( ‫ب‬ ُ ‫ = َاﻟَْﺎ‬father) may be used in a
general sense for other than the immediate progenitor.
As for the divine words at the end of the verse: your parents and your
children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in usefulness,
we shall explain later that there is a special consideration which has made
the word, al-abnā’ ( ُ‫ = اَﻟْﺎَﺑْﻨَﺂء‬lit. sons) preferrable to al-awlād ( ‫ﻻ ُد‬ َ ْ‫= َاﻟَْﺎو‬
children).
The expression, ‘‘The male shall have the equal of the portion of two
females’’, was chosen to point to the nulification of the system prevalent
in the era of ignorance whereby women were not given any share in
inheritance. This expression takes the females’s share as granted and
confirmed,and based the male’s share on it — that it is double of it. Or let
us say that the female’s share is treated as the yardstick of legislation and
the male’s share is fixed with its help. If it were not for this
consideration, it could simply be said: the female shall have the half of
the male’s share; but it would not have given that connotation, and the
context would have changed — as you may see. This theme has been
mentioned by a scholar and the point seems well-established. The idea is
also strengthened by the fact that the verse does not describe explicitly
and independently except the women’s shares; if and when it explains
6 AL-MĪZĀN

some of men’s shares it is always done as an adjunct to the women’s

shares, as may be seen in the following verse and in the verse at the end
of this chapter.
In short, the statement, ‘‘The male shall have the equal of the portion
of two females’’, explains the beginning clause ‘‘Allāh enjoins you
concerning your children’’. The definite article in ‘‘the male’’ and ‘‘the
two females’’ denotes genes or category, i.e., the category of male is
equal in share to the two of the female category. This principle shall be
applied when there are males and females among the heirs, as the male
shall have twice the share of a female. The verse did not use such
expressions as, ‘‘The male shall have equal to two shares of a female’’,
or, ‘‘double of a female’s share’’; because the chosen expression explains
also the share of two females when they are the only heirs, as will be
explained later — and all this with such brevity.
In any case, when there are males and females among the heirs, every
male shall have two shares and every female one share — no matter what
their number may be.

QUR’ĀN: then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-
thirds of what (the deceased) has left,: This sentence, coming after the
preceding one, The male shall have the equal of the portion of two
females, apparently shows that it is in conjunction with a deleted but
understood clause, i.e., ‘This law is when there are males and females
among the heirs’, but if they are more than two females ... Such deletion
is common in usage. For example, look at the following two verses:
And complete the hajj and ‘umrah for Allāh, but if you are prevented,
(send) whatever offering is easy to obtain (2:196).
For a counted number of days; but whosoever among you is sick or
on a journey, then (he shall fast) a (like) number of other days
(2:184).
The conjunctive personal pronoun hidden in the verb kunna ( ‫= ُآﻦﱠ‬
they are) refers to the ‘children’ (in the phrase, ‘‘your children’’); the
feminine gender has been used to make it agree with the predicate
‘females’; the other such pronoun hidden in the verb, ‘‘has left’’, refers
to ‘the deceased’, which is understood from the context.

QUR’ĀN: and if there is one, she shall have the half,: The pronoun
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 7

refers as above to the ‘‘the child’’, understood from the context, and its
feminine form agrees with the predicate; ‘‘the half’’ refers to the half of
what the deceased has left — thus the definite article stands for the
second construct of the genitive case.
The verse is silent about the share of two females, because it may be
understood from the clause: The male shall have the equal of the portion
of two females. Let us suppose there is a male and a female heir;
according to this verse, the female shall have a third of the estate and the
male, the two-thirds — as it is the share of the two females. In other
words, two females shall have two-thirds of the inheritance. This much
may be inferred from the verse in a general way, but it is not in itself the
verse’s definitely fixed connotation; there would have been no
contradiction if the verse had continued to say, for instance, and if there
are two females they shall have a half (or the whole) of the estate. But the
verse by its silence about their share confirms the inferred meaning; and
the clear statement about the share of the more than two females
indicates that that silence is intentional, and not an oversight. Moreover,
the fact that they should get two-thirds of inheritance is confirmed by the
Prophet’s practice, and the said sunnah has continued uninterrupted since
the days of the Prophet till this day, with complete unanimity of the
Muslim jurists — except one reported dissent by Ibn ‘Abbās.
This is the best explanation why the two females’ share has not been
clearly stated. al-Kulaynī (may Allāh have mercy on him!) has written in
al-Kāfī: ‘‘Surely Allāh has appointed the two females’ share as two-
thirds; because He says: The male shall have the equal of the portion of
two females; so when a man leaves a daughter and a son, the male shall
get the equal of the two females’ share, that is, two-thirds; therefore the
share of two females is two-thirds. After this, there was no need to say
that two females would get two-thirds.’’
The same explanation has been quoted from the exegete, Abū
Muslim: ‘‘(The said rule) is inferred from the divine words, The male
shall have the equal of the portion of two females. A male with a female
gets two-thirds; thus two-thirds shall be the share of two females.’’ But
these two explanations are not perfect; they should be completed in the
light of what we have written above. Ponder on it.
There are some other explanations given for this verse which are
quite unworthy of divine words. For example, someone has written that
8 AL-MĪZĀN

the words; if they are more than two females, means, two females or
more; thus this sentence contains the description of the share of two
females as well as of more than two. Another writer has said that the
share of two daughters is known by analogy from the law concerning two
sisters (coming at the end of the chapter) where it apportions two-thirds
to them. There are other similarly ridiculous claims.

QUR’ĀN: and (as for) his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of
what he has left if he has a child ... then his mother shall have the sixth:
The conjunction of parents with the law of the children, shows that the
parents are co-sharers with the children and together they constitute one
class. The words: ‘‘and (only) his two parents inherit him’’, indicate that
they are the only heirs. The words: ‘‘but if he has brothers’’, (coming
after the clause: ‘‘but if he has no child and [only] his two parents inherit
him’’) show that brothers come into second class, after the class of sons,
daughters [and parents], and they would not inherit as long as there is an
heir of the first class — but the brothers shall partially exclude the
mother from one-third [as it would be reduced to one-sixth].

QUR’ĀN: after (the payment of) any bequest he may have bequeathed
or a debt;: Bequest and will has been enjoined by the divine words:
Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he
leaves behind wealth ... (2:180). Although in this verse bequest precedes
debt, it does not contradict the sunnah which says that debt takes
precedence of bequest at the time of paymnet; because sometimes during
a talk one mentions less important things first and then progresses
towards more important ones. It is done when an important matter,
because of its position and strength, does not need as much emphasis as
the unimportant one does — and giving precedence in description is one
way of emphasizing. Accordingly, the words: ‘‘or a debt’’, put the things
in ascending order or importance.
This also shows why ‘‘bequest’’ has been qualified by the words,
‘‘he may have bequeathed’’; it puts further emphasis on it, and also
points to the necessity of showing reverence to the deceased and
honouring his wishes when he has made a bequest. Allāh has said:
Whoever then alters it [i.e., the bequest] after he has heard it, the sin of it
then is only upon those who alter it (2:181).
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 9

QUR’ĀN: your parents and your children, you know not which of them
is nearer to you in usefulness;: It is addressed to the heirs, that is, the
general public, inasmuch as everyone inherits his deceased relatives. The
sentence alludes to the reason why the inheritance share of the parents
differs from that of the children. It also provides a sort of education to
them; that is why they have been addressed with the words: ‘‘you know
not’’; and such expressions are commonly used by the people.
Had the verse been addressed to other than the heirs, i.e., to the dying
people who would, after their death, be inherited by their parents and
children, there would have been no reason to say: ‘‘which of them is
nearer to you in usefulness’’; because apprently usefulness and benefit
implies making use of, and benefitting from, the inherited property, and it
fits on the heirs, not on the deceased.
The parents have been mentioned before the children; it is a sort of a
hint that the parents are nearer in benefit than the children. It is like the
verse: Surely the Said and the Marwah are among the signs of Allāh ...
(2:158), as we had quoted the tradition that the Prophet had said: ‘‘I
begin with what Allāh has begun ...’’
From the point of view of relationship and considering the human
sentiments, it is a fact that man feels more compassion towards his
children than towards his parents. In his eyes, his child’s existence is his
own — but not so that of his parents. Man’s parents have stronger
connection with him, when compared to his children’s attachment to him.
When usefulness is based on this principle, then at the time of dividing
an inheritance, man should naturally get, for example, from his father a
greater share than he would from inheriting, for example, his son —
although it would appear from a superficial glance that the opposite
should be the case.
This verse (i.e., your parents and your children, you know not which
of them is nearer to you in usefulness) proves that Allāh has based the
inheritance law on a creative reality found outside imagination — like
other natural Islamic laws.
This principle is also supported by other unrestricted Qur’ānic verses
which speak about legislation in general. For instance: Then set your face
uprightly for the (right) religion in natural devotion (for the truth); the
nature made by Allāh in which He has made men; there is no alteration
in the creation of Allāh; that is the right religion (30:30). In presence of
10 AL-MĪZĀN

such verses, it is unthinkable that the sharī‘ah would contain such

compulsory and unchangeable rules and laws, without there being to a
certain extent basis for them in the creation.
It may possibly be inferred from this verses (your parents and your
children ...) that children’s children would have precedence over
grandfathers and grandmothers; the grandparents will not inherit as long
as a child or a child’s child [how low so ever] is present.

QUR’ĀN: an ordinance from Allāh ..: Apparently it is in accusative case

governed by a deleted verb, e.g., obey, or, hold fast, etc. It has a
reinforced emphasis that the described shares are decreed and fixed, and
that they cannot be changed.
This verse prescribes the shares of the first class of the heirs, i.e., the
children, the father and the mother, with all the variations, either
explicitly or implicitly.
Explicitly: Shares of the father and the mother: They get a sixth each
if the deceased has a child or children; but in the absence of children, the
mother gets either one-third or one-sixth (depending on the details
mentioned in the verse);
Share of a single daughter: She gets a half;
Share of several daughters when they are the only children: They get
two-thirds;
Shares of sons and daughters when they are together: The male shall
have the equal of the share of two females;
And to this is added the share of two daughters, and it is two-thirds,
as explained above.
Implicitly: Share of the only son: He shall get the whole property; it
is understood when we read the clause: The male shall have the equal of
the portion of two females, in conjunction with the clause, and if there is
one [daughter], she shall have the half.
Likewise, when he has left only the sons as heirs, they shall share it
among themselves equally, because the clause, The male shall have the
equal of the portion of two females, indicates that the males shall have
equal shares among themselves.
The verse is truly amazing in its comprehensiveness with such
brevity.
It should be noted here that the verse with its unrestrictedness shows
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 11

that there is no difference whatsoever — in matters of inheritance —

between the Prophet and the other people. We have seen similar
unrestrictedness or generality in the divine words: Men shall have a
share of what the parents and the near relatives leaves, and women shall
have a share ... (4:7). Someone has opined that the general Qur’ānic
declarations are not applicable to the Prophet, because he had announced
them himself. But such views are not worth looking at. Of course, there
is a dispute between the Sunnīs and the Shī‘ahs whether a prophet is
inherited by his heirs or whatever he leaves goes to charity. This
originates from the tradition which Abū Bakr had narrated in the case of
Fadak. This discussion is beyond the scope of this book; therefore we
think it better not to go into it here; the reader should consult relevant
books for it. 1

QUR’ĀN: And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have
no child ... after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a
debt;: The meaning is clear. The half share has been described in

1
The alleged tradition of Abū Bakr and the opinion based on it — that
the prophets neither inherit anyone, nor anyone inherits them — is not so
irrelevant to the exegesis of the Qur’ān; because it goes directly against
several Qur’ānic verses, and accordingly it is necessary, for the purpose of
removing any possible misunderstanding, to point to this contradiction.
Suffice it to say that this tradition and the opinion are not only against the
general and clear meanings of the verses of inheritance, but are also
contradicted by some other verses. Allāh says: And Sulayman inherited from
Dawud (27:16); again He says quoting Zakariyyā’s invocation: And surely I
fear my relatives after me, and my wife is barren, therefore grant me from
Thyself an heir, who should inherit me and inherit from the children of
Ya‘qūb (19:5 — 6). These verses cannot refer to prophethood or divine
knowledge, because prophethood and divine knowledge come directly from
Allāh, they are not a thing to be inherited, nor was there any need for
Zakariyyā (a.s.) to be afraid of his relatives that they would take over the
prophethood after him. The verses simply refer to inheritance of property
(or, in case of the first verse, the Kingdom). Here we find Sulayman and
Yahyā (a.s.) inheriting properties from their fathers, Dāwūd and Zakariyyā
(a.s.) respectively; and all of them were prophets. Thus according to the
Qur’ān two prophets left their properties to their heirs, and two prophets
inherited them. (tr.).
12 AL-MĪZĀN

possessive case, ‘‘half of what your wives leave’’; but the one-fourth
share is disconnected; and they shall have the fourth from what you
leave; when on such occasions a possessive construct is disjointed, it
becomes necessary to complete it with min ( ْ‫ = ِﻣﻦ‬from) — either in
words or implied and understood. This min gives the connotation of
taking from and beginning; this meaning seems appropriate when the
word related to min is a negligible portion of the whole, when it is a
small part or ratio of the original, like one-sixth, one-fourth or one-third;
but not when it is a larger portion like a half or two-thirds. That is why
Allāh has said: sixth from what he has left; the mother shall have the
third; you shall have a fourth from what they leave — all this with
disjointed possessive. But He has said: half of what your wives leave;
two-thirds of what (the deceased) has left — all this in possessive case;
also He has said: she shall have the half as the definite article, ‘‘the’’,
stands for the second construct of the possessive case, i.e., half of what
he has left. 1

1
This explanation may be correct to a certain extent only. It is not
allinclusive. For instance, the author has had to explain a single construction
in two different ways to suit his purpose. Where the Qur’ān says that, the
mother shall have the third, he has implied that there is a min (= from)
hiddden after it; but in another exactly the same construction, she shall have
the half, he says that the word, the, stands for the deleted possessive
construct, i.e., it means, half of what the deceased has left. It is an arbitrary
way of interpretation.
We may interpret the verses in a more realistic way if we take the
preposition, min (from) to denote, not the beginning, but at-tab‘īd ( ‫ﺾ‬ ُ ْ‫= اَﻟ ﱠﺘﺒْ ِﻌﻴ‬
portioning), e.g., if we interpret, fourth from what you leave, as a fourth of a
portion of your estate.
Where the Qur’ān uses the possessive case, it means that the prescribed
share or ratio is to be taken out from the whole of the estate; and where it
prescribes a certain share ‘‘from it’’, it means that the said heir shall get that
share, not from the whole estate, but only from a part of it.
Now let us look at each clause in this light:
and (as for) his parents, each of them shall have the sixth from what he
has left if he has a child: The eldest son is entitled to al-habwah ( ‫ﺤﺒْ َﻮ ُة‬
َ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬lit,
gift; here it denotes gift of some personal effects of his father, like ring,
sword, etc.) from the original estate before it is divided among the heirs.
Therefore, the parents will not get one-sixth of the whole estate, as they will not
get any share from the said habwah; hence ‘the sixth from’, not ‘the sixth of’.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 13

QUR’ĀN: and if a man or a woman leaves property ... and Allāh is

Knowing, Forbearing: ‘al-Kalālah’ ( ‫ ) َاﻟْ َﻜﻠَﺎَﻟ ُﺔ‬is in fact a masdar which
means to encompass; from it is derived al-iklīl ( ‫ﻞ‬ ُ ْ‫ = َاﻟِْﺎآِْﻠﻴ‬icrown) because
it encircles the head; also al-kull ( ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻜﻞﱡ‬whole, all, total) comes from it
because it encompasses its parts; another derivative is al-kall ( ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻜ ﱡ‬to
be tired, dull); it implies a sort of wearisome encompassing against the
one on whom he depends. ar-Rāghib says: ‘‘al-Kalālah is an heir other
than the child and the father.’’ Again he says: ‘‘It has been narrated that
the Prophet was asked about al-kalālah. He said: ‘He who dies and does
not leave behind a child or a parent.’ Thus he (the Prophet) has taken it as
an attribute of the deceased; and both explanations are correct, because
al-kalalāh is a masdar which encompasses the inheritor and the inherited,
both.’’

The author says: In that case, it is possible to treat ‘kāna’ ( ‫ن‬

َ ‫ = آﺎ‬was

And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child,
but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth from what they leave:
When there is no child, the husband gets half of the whole property. But
when there is a child, the son shall get the habwah before the estate is
divided, so the husband will get a fourth of a portion of estate.
and they [wives] shall have the fourth from what you leave if you have no
child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth from what you
leave: The wives naver get their one-fourth or one-eighth share from the
whole estate. It is because they are not entitled to any share in land; and as
for other immovable property (like house, garden, etc.) they get only the
price of their prescribed share, but not the property itself; and in case of there
being a son he is given the habwah before the division. Thus the wife always
gets her one-fourth or one-eighth from only a portion of the estate.
Other clauses, where possessive case has explicitly or implicitly been
used, indicate that the heir gets his/her share from the whole estate. For
example:
then if they are more than two females,they shall have two-thirds of what
(the deceased) has left; and if there is one,she shall have the half:
but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, then his
mother shall have the third.
It is now clear that the two different styles have been used to describe two
different legal eventualities. There is a solid legal reason behind the use of
possessive case and that of the preposition, from. It is neither for literary
beauty nor for denoting largeness or smallness of a prescribed share. (tr.).
14 AL-MĪZĀN

— it is not included in the translation of the verse,) as an auxiliary verb,

and ‘‘a man’’, as its subject, with ‘‘to be inherited’’, as an adjectival
phrase related to the said subject, and al-kalālah as its predicate. Then
the meaning will be as follows: and if a man or a woman who is to be
inherited is neither a parent nor an offspring of the heir.
Also, we may take kāna (was) as a perfect verb, with, ‘‘a man or a
woman to be inherited’’, as its subject, and kalālah as a masdar used as a
circumstantial clause. The meaning again will be the same: that the
deceased is neither a parent nor an offspring of the heirs. az-Zajjāj has
reportedly said: According to those who have recited yūrithu ( ‫ث‬ ُ ‫= ُﻳﻮْ ِر‬
makes someone his heir), kalālah will be the object; and according to
those who recite yūrathu ( ‫ث‬ُ ‫ = ُﻳﻮْ َر‬is inherited by), kalālah is a subjective,
being a circumstantial clause.
The clause, that does not harm (others), also is a subjective and a
circumstantial clause. al-Mudārrah ( ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤﻀَﺎرﱠ ُة‬to harm, to impair).
Obviously, it forbids the dying person to harm the heirs through the debt;
he should not indulge in borrowing with intention of harming the heirs
and depriving them of inheritance. Another interpretation: He should not
harm their interest by bequeathing more than one-third of his property.

QUR’ĀN: These are Allāh’s limits, ... And whoever disobeys ... he shall
have an abasing chastisement: al-Hadd ( ‫ﺤ ﱡﺪ‬ َ ْ‫ ) َاﻟ‬means a barrier between
two things which prevents their mixing together and keeps their mutual
distinction and differentiation intact, like the limit or boundary of a house
or a garden. The word, as used here, refers to the inheritance laws and the
decreed shares. Allāh has shown their utmost importance by describing,
in these two verses, the reward of obeying Allāh and His Messenger in
this respect, and the abasing everlasting chastisement for him who
disobeys Allāh and His Messenger.

A GENERAL DISCOURSE ON INHERITANCE

These two verses: Allāh enjoins you concerning your children ...
Allāh is Knowing, Forbearing; together with the verse at the end of the
chapter: They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: ‘‘Allāh gives you a
decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring ...
’’ [4:176], in conjunction with the previously explained verse: Men shall
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 15

have a share of what the parents and the near relatives leave ... [4:7] and
the verse: and the possessors of relationship have the better claim in the
ordinance of Allāh to inheritance ... (33:6; 8:75), give the fundamental
Qur’ānic principles of inheritance in Islam; and the traditions provide the
explanations in clearest terms.
The principles, which are inferred from them and form the basis of
detailed laws, are as follows:
1. The principle already explained under the verse: your parents and
your children, you know not which of them is the nearer to you in
usefulness. It shows clearly that nearness and distance from the deceased
has effect on inheritance. Also, this sentence, read in conjunction with
the rest of the verse, shows that this matter affects the share of
inheritance — whether the heir would get a larger or smaller portion.
When it is read togther with the divine words: and the possessors of
relationship have the better claim ... to inheritance, it guides us to the
principle that a nearer relative debars a remoter one from inheritance.
The nearest of all to the deceased are his father, mother, son and
daughter, because their relationship with the deceased is direct; there is
no intermediary between him and them. The son and the daughter debar
the grandchildren from inheritance, because the grandchildren are related
to the deceased through the children. Of course, if there is no child, then
grandchildren will take their place.
Then comes the second class of heirs, i.e., the deceased’s brothers,
sisters, grandfathers and grandmothers; they are related to him through
one intermediary link only, i.e., through his father or mother. [If there is
no brother or sister, then] their children will take the place of their father
or mother. Every nearer generation will debar the remoter one, as
explained above.
After that comes the third class of the heirs. They are the deceased’s
paternal uncles and aunts and maternal uncles and aunts. There are two
intermediary links between them and him, i.e., a parent and a
grandparent. The other details are the same as above.
The principles of nearness and remotness also shows that an heir
having a double relationship will debar the one having a single
relationship. For example, a consanguine brother or sister debars an
agnate brother or sister, although an uterine brother or sister is not
16 AL-MĪZĀN

debarred. 1
2. There is found another type of precedence or sequence among the
heirs from another angle. Sometimes various shares combine in such a
way that their sum-total exceeds the original. Now there are some heirs
whose share has been reduced to another fixed ratio in case of such
‘‘crowding’’; for example, husband’s share is a half, but when he is
joined by a child, his share is reduced to one-fourth; the same thing
happens to the wife with her one-fourth and one-eighth. Likewise,
mother is allotted a third, but in case of there being a child or brothers,
her share is reduced to one-sixth; but father’s share remains the same —
one-sixth — whether there is a child or not.
On the other hand, there are heirs whose share has been fixed, but
nothing has been said about it in case of ‘‘crowding’’. For example, one
daughter or sister, and two or more daughters or sisters have been given a
half and two-thirds, respectively, but nothing has been said concerning
them when the heirs seem to crowd together.
It is inferred from this difference in approach that the former heirs are
not to suffer any further loss in cases where the sum-total of shares
exceeds the original; the loss, whatsoever, shall be borne by the latter
heirs who have been allotted any reduced fixed share for such
contingency.
3. Sometimes shares exceed the original [as mentioned just above];
for example, let us say, there is the husband and two or more
consanguine sisters; their shares are a half and two-thirds respectively,
[but 1/2 + 2/3 = 1.1/6] i.e., more than the original [because the total of all
shares should come to ‘one’ only]. Likewise, if the deceased has left her
father, mother, two daughters and husband, their shares will exceed the
original, because it will be 1 /6 + 1 /6 + 2/3 + 1 /4 [with a sum-total of
1.1/4].
On the other hand sometimes the property exceeds the shares. For
example, if there is only a daughter [who shall get a half] or only two
1
The term, consanguine, is used for a relative who is connected to
someone through father and mother both, e.g., two brothers having the same
father and mother are called consanguine brothers.
Agnate is a relative connected only through father or through other males,
while uterine is one related only through mother or through other females.
(tr.).
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 17

daughters [with a share of two-thirds; leaving another half or one-third

un-allotted, respectively].
The traditions narrated from the Imāms of Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.) which
explain and expound the Divine Book — clearly say that in former cases,
when the shares exceed the original, the loss shall be borne by those heirs
who have been allotted only a single share, and they are the daughter/s
and sister/s, but not the mother or husband whose shares have been fixed
— albeit on a reduced scale — for the changed conditions too. Likewise
if the property exceeds the shares, the excess shall be returned to only
those heirs who are expected to bear the loss in the former example. For
example, if there is a father and a daughter, then the father shall get his
one-sixth, and the daughter her one-half by allotment; and also she shall
be given the remaining one-third by return, [thus she shall get five-sixths
of the property].
‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb, during his reign, started the system of al-‘awl (
ُ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻌﻮْل‬to provide, to deviate; in Islamic law it refers to the system by
which all the shares are proportionately reduced in case they exceed the
original); and people in early days of Islam resorted to at-ta‘sīb ( ‫ﺐ‬ ُ ْ‫ﺼﻴ‬
ِ ْ‫اَﻟ ﱠﺘﻌ‬
= to wrap around; in Islamic law it refers to the system by which agnate
relatives were given preference). We shall write about these two systems
under the coming ‘‘Traditions’’.
4. On pondering on the shares of men and women in inheritance, we
find that on the whole a woman’s share is less than that of a man —
except in the shares allotted to the parents. A mother’s share sometimes
exceeds that of the father. The mother has been given equal to, or more
than, the father’s share: it is probably because, in the eyes of Islam, she is
more strongly attached to her child, and she undergoes a lot of troubles
and hardships during pregnancy and delivery, as well as in looking after
the child and bringing him up. Allāh says: We have enjoined on man
doing of good to his parents; with trouble did his mother bear him and
with trouble did she bring him forth; and the bearing of him and the
weaning of him was thirty months (46:15). The fact that her share —
instead of being half of man’s portion — is equal to, and sometimes
double of, the father’s share, gives precedence to her without any doubt.
However, the question arises why man’s share in general has been
fixed as double of that of woman. Two factors have been kept in view
concerning this matter: Man’s excellence over woman in rationally
18 AL-MĪZĀN

managing the affairs of life; and his responsibility to maintain the woman
and spend on her. Allāh says: Men are the maintainers of women because
of that with which Allāh has made some of them to excel the others and
because of what they spend out of their property (4:35). ‘‘al-Qawwām’’ (
‫ = اَﻟْﻘَﻮﱠا ُم‬translated here as maintainer) is derived from al-qiyām ( ‫ = َاﻟْ ِﻘﻴَﺎ ُم‬to
stand up) which refers to management of livelihood; the excellence
points to man’s superiority in rational thinking. Man’s is a life dominated
by intellect while that of woman is run by emotions and sentiments. It is
much better and more proper to leave financial affairs in the hand of a
thinking and contemplating person than to an emotional and sentimental
being. If we look at all the wealth found in the world — which is to pass
from the present generation to the next one — and consider this Islamic
arrangement, we should find that two-thirds of this wealth would come
under the authority and management of men, and the remaining one-third
would be managed and administered by women. In this way the
intellectual management will dominate the sentimental administration;
the society will reap its benefits, and life will be happier and more
worthy of living.
The deficiency in woman’s share has nevertheless been made up in
an amazing way. Allāh has enjoined man to treat his woman with justice
and equity. Man accordingly is expected to treat her as an equal partner
in his two-thirds. In other words, the woman would have the benefit and
usufruct of [another one-third, i.e.,] a half of the two-thirds which man
has got, and it would be in addition to her own one-third.
The net result of this marvellous ordinance is that man and woman
have inverse relation in the spheres of possession and usufruct: Man
owns two-thirds of the world’s wealth but uses only one-third; while
woman, who owns only a third of that wealth, has usufruct of two-thirds.
As mentioned above, consideration has been given to predominance of
contemplation and intellect over emotion and sentiment in man (and
financial management, saving, exchange, production and investment are
more germane to rational thinking than to emotion) and to primacy of
sentiment over intellect in woman (and that is more relevant to making
use of, and benefiting from, a property). This is the underlying reason
why Islam has differentiated between men and women in matters of
inheritance and maintenance.
Obviously, it is this natural pre-eminence in man of intellect and
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 19

rationality and his superiority over woman in this field which Allāh has
described in His speech as excellence: Men are the maintainers of women
because of that with which Allāh has made some of them to excel the
others (4:34). Apparently it does not refer to men’s superiority in
strength, hardiness and intrepidity. Admittedly, roughness and hardiness
is a distinguishing feature of man, and many great things in society
depend on it, like defence, security, hard labour, endurance of hardships
and afflictions, and steadfastness and composure in face of commotion
and horror. These are essential aspects of life which nature has not
equipped women for. It has equipped them instead with opposite
qualities, i.e., delicate emotions and benevolent sentiments — which no
society can flourish without. These are essential factors of life which give
rise to love and affection, mercy and kindness; they enable the woman to
bear the burdens of pregnancy and delivery; and create in her a natural
inclination for bringing up the children and looking after them; and it is
this quality which makes them pre-eminently suitable for nursing and
house-keeping. Humanity cannot progress with roughness and hardiness
alone, it also needs softness and kindness; mankind will be incomplete if
its anger is not balanced with desire. World’s affairs are not run by
repulsion if it is not counterpoised with attraction.
In short, these two qualities maintain an equilibrium between man
and woman and keep the scales of life well-balanced in a society which
necessarily is constituted of both sexes. Far be it from Allāh to commit
injustice in His speech, action or judgment: Or do they fear that Allāh
and His Messenger will act wrongfully towards them? (24:50); and your
Lord does not deal unjustly with any one (18:49). He Himself has said
[about men and women]: the one of you being from the other (3:195); and
it is to this mutual complementariness and interlocking existence that
Allāh refers in His words: because of that with which Allāh has made
some of them excel the others.
He has also said: And one of His signs is that He created you from
dust, then lo! you are mortals (who) scatter. And one of His signs is that
He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them,
and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are
signs in this for a people who reflect (30:20 — 21). Ponder on the
marvellous description the verses contain. Mortal (i.e., man — as it
stands parallel to the ‘‘mates’’, i.e., women) scatters, i.e., goes here and
20 AL-MĪZĀN

there to earn his livelihood; he it is who is made responsible to gather and

obtain all necessities of life with his strength and hard labour — even
leading to conflicts, forays and wars. Nevertheless, if this scattering were
the only characteristics of mankind, the whole human race would have
been devided between the attackers and the attacked, the pursuers and the
pursued. But Allāh created women and equipped them with qualities
which men find comforting. He puts between them love and compassion.
They attract the men with their beauty and glamour, love and kindness.
Thus the women are the premier cause and the basic agent for bringing
the civilization into being.
That is why Islam has made the domestic life, i.e., marriage, the basis
of society. Allāh says: O people! surely We have created you of a male
and female, and made you nations and tribes that you may recognize
each other; surely the most honourable of you with Allāh is the one
among you who guards (himself) most (against evil) (49:13). See how the
verse first describes the marriage of male and female, and goes to the
spreading of human race, and then proceeds to the larger society made of
tribes and nations.
The end of the verse shows that the detail given in the verse: Men are
the maintainers of women because of that with which Allāh has made
some of them to excel the others ..., looks at equipping both sexes with
faculties and characteristics necessary for managing the affairs of the
worldly life in the best possible way, and which may keep the society in
the best condition. Obviously, the ‘‘excellence’’ mentioned in the above
verse does not mean the real superiority and honour in Islam, which
denotes nearness to Allāh. Islam in reality does not care about material
amplitude or temporal or bodily strength which can be useful in the
physical life only — these things are mere tools which have to be used to
receive spiritual favours from Allāh.
The above discourse makes it abundantly clear that men have been
given excellence over women in their intellectual power, and this
difference has led to the difference in inheritance and other similar
matters; but this ‘‘excellence’’ means only increase [in intellectual
power]. As for the excellence in the meaning of honour before Allāh —
which is the main concern of Islam — it entirely depends on piety and
fear of Allāh, wherever it is found [be it in a man or a woman].
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 21

TRADITIONS

‘Abd ibn Hamīd, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, at-Tirmidhī, an-

Nasā’ī, Ibn Mājah, Ibn Jarīr, Ibnu ’l-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Hātim and al-
Bayhaqī (in his as-Sunan) have narrated from Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh, that he
said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and Abū Bakr came walking to
visit me (in my illness) in Banū Salamah. The Prophet found me
unconscious; so he called for some water and made ablution with it; then
he sprinkled (it) on me, and I gained consciousness. So I said: ‘What do
you order me to do with my property? O Messenger of Allāh!’ Then (the
verse) came down: Allāh enjoins you concerning your children: The male
shall have the equal of the portion of two females.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-
manthūr)

The author says: It has been repeatedly mentioned that it is possible

for several ‘‘reasons of revelation’’ (which have been narrated to us) to
combine in respect of one verse; nor is there any difficulty if the verse
goes beyond the scope of those specific reasons; also possibly an event
might have coincided with the revelation and the theme of the verse
corresponded with that happening. Therefore, there is no difficulty in the
above tradition because of Jābir’s report that he had asked: ‘‘What do
you order me to do with my property? O Messenger of Allāh!’’, and then
this verse was revealed. We should not worry how Jābir could have asked
that question when the division of inheritance was not his responsibility.
Even more strange is another tradition narrated in the same book
through ‘Abd ibn Hamīd and al-Hākim from Jābir that he said: ‘‘The
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) used to visit me when I was sick. So I said:
‘How should I divide my property among my children?’ But he did not
give me any reply; and then the verse was revealed: Allāh enjoins you
concerning your children ...’’

Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Abī Hātim have narrated from as-Suddī that he said:
‘‘The people of (the era of) ignorance did not give inheritance to the
girls, nor to weak boys. Only that man inherited his father who had
strength to (participate in) war. Then ‘Abdu ’r-Rahmān, brother of the
poet Hassān, died, leaving a wife, named Umm Kuhhah, and five girls.
(Other) heirs came and took away the inheritance. Umm Kuhhah
22 AL-MĪZĀN

complained to the Prophet about it. Then Allāh revealed this verse: then
if there are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what
(the deceased) has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; then it
was revealed about Umm Kuhhah: and they shall have the fourth from
what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they
shall have the eighth from what you leave ...’’ (ibid )
The same two scholars of tradition have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās
that he said: ‘‘When the verse of shares [of inheritance] was revealed, in
which Allāh ordained what He ordained [of the shares] for male and
female child and (for) parents, people (or, some of them) disliked it and
said: ‘(How is it that) woman is given one-fourth or one-eighth, and
daughter gets a half, and a small child is given (his share), while none of
them can fight the people, nor can he gather booty?’ They used that
(system) in the (era of) ignorance: They did not give inheritance except
to him who could fight the people; and they gave it to the eldest, then
elder [and so on].’’ (ibid.)

The author says: at-Ta‘sīb ( ‫ﺐ‬ ُ ْ‫ﺼﻴ‬

ِ ْ‫ = اَﻟ ﱠﺘﻌ‬agnacy) was a part of that
system of ignorance. They gave the inheritance to the agnates of father if
the deceased had not left a big son capable of fighting. The Sunnīs follow
the same system in the excess property which is left after giving the
prescribed shares. Perhaps something may be found about it in their
traditions; but the traditions coming from the Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.) totally
reject this theory and say that the excess property shall be returned to
those heirs who at other times bear the loss, and they are children,
consanguine or agnate brothers and in some cases, the father. As
mentioned earlier, the verses in their connotation agree with this verdict.1

1
The system of at-ta‘sīb which Islam had taken such pain to abolish and
eradicate, was revived for political reasons by the second ‘Abbāsid caliph,
al-Mansūr, in the middle of the second century of hijrah. First a short
description of that system in practice:
Mr. Justice Ameer Ali (who, it is necessary to mention, was a Mu‘tazilite,
and not a Shī‘ah, as he himself has repeatedly said in his hook,
Mahommedan Law) says that in Arabia, prior to Islam, the inheritance ‘‘was
governed by the rule of agnacy.’’ It means that only the relatives connected
with the deceased ‘‘through males’’ were recognized as entitled to take a
share in his inheritance. But neither women nor persons connected to the
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 23

deceased through them had any right of succession.

‘‘Thus it was that whilst adopted sons and even slaves had rights, the
children of daughters and sisters had no place in the customary rules which
regulated succession.’’ (Ameer Ali,Mahommedan Law, vol.2,p.11)
Now a background of the ‘Abbāsid dynasty:
The ‘Abbāsids were descendants of al-‘Abbās, an agnate uncle of the
Prophet. The descendants of Fātimah (a.s.) were also descendants of ‘Alī
(a.s.), son of Abū Tālib who was a consanguine uncle of the Prophet.
Before coming to power, the family of ‘Abbās, like other Hāshimites,
generally followed the madhhab of the Ahlu ’l-Bayt (a.s.). As an example,
we may refer to several traditions narrated in coming pages from both Shī‘ī
and Sunnī chains, from Ibn ‘Abbās, in which he has strongly denounced the
system of al-‘awl ( ‫ل‬ُ ْ‫) َاﻟْ َﻌﻮ‬, innovated by ‘Umar.
When the Hāshimites were planning to overthrow the Umayyad dynasty,
the ‘Abbāsids had joined hands with the Hasanid branch of the Fātimids,
although al-Imām Ja‘far as-Sādiq (a.s.) had remained aloof from all these
activities. It was agreed among the ‘Abbāsids and the Hasanids that on
achieving success they would install Muhammad an-Nafsu ’z-Zakiyyah (The
Pure Soul) as caliph. (He was a son of ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Hasan [al-Muthannā
II] ibn [al-Imām] al-Hasan, a.s.). Among those who did bay‘ah ( ‫ = َاﻟْ َﺒﻴْ َﻌ ُﺔ‬to
give allegiance) to him, were Abu ’l-‘Abbās as-Saffāh and al-Mansūr.
Their slogan of ‘‘ridā’u āli Muhammad’’ ( ‫ﺤ ﱠﻤ ٍﺪ‬ َ ‫ل ُﻣ‬
ِ ‫ = ِرﺿَﺎءْ ﺁ‬to please the
progeny of Muhammad) proved a success. People-gathered behind their
agents thinking that they wanted to remove the tyrant dynasty of the
Umayyads and install a descendant of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in their place.
When the Umayyads, were overthrown in 132 AH, it was not Muhammad
an-Nafsu ’z-Zakiyyah who was put on the thrown, but the ‘Abbāsid, Abu ’1-
‘Abbās as-Saffāh, who was succeeded four years later by his brother, al-
Mansūr.
‘‘They [the ‘Abbāsids] made the affection of the people for the children
of Fātima the means for their own elevation, and when they had attained the
desired end they rewarded the Fātimides with bitter persecution.’’ (Ameer
All, The Spirit of Islam, p.304)
When conflict started between Muhammad an-Nafsu ’z-Zakiyyah and al-
Mansūr, the latter left no stone unturned to prove the legitimacy of his claim.
Among other devices (which this is not the place to mention) he revived the
system of agnacy.
Mr. Justice Ameer Ali writes:
‘‘When the Abbasides (sic.) succeeded in overthrowing the ‘Ommeyades
(sic.) they found it necessary to legitimatise their title to the Caliphate, for
the eyes of the Moslem (sic.) world were still turned to the descendants of
24 AL-MĪZĀN

a1-Hākim and al-Bayhaqī have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said:
‘‘The first person to introduce the system of al-‘awl (= to reduce all
shares proportionately) was ‘Umar. The shares crowded over and began
pushing each other aside. So he said: ‘By Allāh! I do not know what to
do with you. By Allāh! I do not understand which of you Allāh has given
precedence to, and which of you He has deferred. And I do not find for
this property anything better than this: that I should divide it among you

the Prophet as the rightful heirs to his temporal and spiritual heritage — and
in effecting this they found their chief support in the doctrine of agnacy.
They claimed that as descendants of the Prophet’s uncle, ‘Abbās, they were
his ‘agnates’ and as such had a better title than the descendants of his
daughter Fātima. And this was the keystone of the fabric built up by the
ablest monarch of the House of ‘Abbās, Mansūr, the real founder of the
Sunnī Church (sic.).’’ (Mahommedan Law, vol.2, pp.11 — 12).
He further says:
‘‘The rule of agnacy has thus remained, chiefly from dynastic reasons, a
part of the Sunni system. In early times it was as strongly enforced as under
the old Romans. If a person died without leaving any ‘agnatic’ relation but a
daughter’s or sister’s child, his property did not go to the latter but escheated
to [i.e., was taken over by] the Caliph. In 896 AC the Caliph M‘utazid
b’lllāh (sic.) abolished this cruel rule; and laid down that in the absence of
sharers and ‘agnates’ (‘Asabāh), the ‘uterine relations’ should succeed. And
this has remained the law ever since.’’ (ibid., p.12)
Even then, according to him, the uterine relations are placed in the last
category, and it is only in the absence of sharers, agnates and even the
emancipator that they receive any share in the inheritance. (ibid. p.68)
This was in short the origin of at-ta‘sīb (agnacy) in Islam. It is necessary
to point out two things before ending this note:
First: As Ameer All has pointed out (and we have mentioned above) the
‘‘descendants of Fātimah were also descendants of ‘Alī, who, as son of Abū
Tālib, was an agnate relative of the Prophet.’’
In fact, ‘Alī (a.s.) was nearer than al-‘Abbās to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.),
because Abū Tālib (a.s.) was a consanguine uncle of the Prophet, and not
merely an agnate like al-‘Abbās.
Second: This whole argument was in fact falacious and deceptive. In the
heat of their political polemics neither Muhammad an-Nafsu ’z-Zakiyyah nor
al-Mansur paused to think that Imamate was not an inheritance. It was based
on appointment by Allāh which is announced through the Prophet or the
preceding Imam. an-Nafsu ’z-Zakiyyah had based his claim on a falsity and
al-Mansur replied him with a greater falsehood. (tr.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 25

proportionately.’ ’’ Then Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘‘By Allāh! if he had given

precedence to him whom Allāh had given precedence, and put behind the
one whom Allāh had put behind, there would have been no need for
proportionate reduction of shares.’’ He was asked: ‘‘And which of them
has been given priority by Allāh?’’ He said: ‘‘Every share which Allāh
has not brought down from a prescribed share but to (another) prescribed
share, then that is which has been given precedence by Allāh; and every
share that — when it leaves its (original) position — does not get except
the residue, then it is (the share) which Allāh has put behind. Thus the
share that is given precedence is like that of husband, wife and mother;
and that which is put behind is like that of sisters and daughters.
Therefore, if there gather together those who have been given precedence
by Allāh and those who have been placed behind, the division should
begin with those having precedence, and he shall be given his complete
share; then if something remains (of the property) it shall be for those
[who have been placed behind] and if nothing is left they shall get
nothing.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Sa‘īd ibn Mansūr narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: ‘‘Do you
suppose that He Who knows the number of the sands of the valley, ‘Alij,
has prescribed in the property one half, plus one-third plus one-fourth?’’
(ibid.)
‘Atā’ says: ‘‘I said to Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘People do not follow my word or
your word; and when you and I shall be dead, they will not divide the
inheritance according to your verdict.’ He replied: ‘Then let them gather,
and then we (i.e., both parties) should put our hands on the rukn (of the
Ka‘bah), then we should earnestly pray and put the curse of Allāh on the
liars. Allāh has not ordered that which they say.’ ’’ (ibid.)

The author says: This theme has been narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās also
through the Shī‘ī chains, as is quoted below.

az-Zuhrī quotes ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abdillāh ibn ‘Utbah as saying: ‘‘I

was sitting with Ibn ‘Abbās when the talk turned towards description of
inheritance-shares. Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘Allāh, the Great, be praised! Do you
think that He Who knows the number of the sands of (the valley) ‘Alij,
has appointed one-half plus one-third in a property? Well, these two
halves have finished the whole property; now where is the slot of the
26 AL-MĪZĀN

(remaining) one-third?’ Zufar ibn Aws al-Basrī then asked him: ‘O Abu
’l-‘Abbās! Who was then the first to reduce these shares?’ He said:
‘‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb. When several shares gathered near him, pushing
each other, he said: ‘‘By Allāh! I do not know which of you Allāh has
given precedence to, and which of you He has deferred. And I do not find
anything more accommodating than this: that I should divide this
property among you proportionately, and let every right-owner get his
right.’’ In this way he introduced the proportionate reduction of shares.
By Allāh! if he had given precedence to him whom Allāh had given
precedence to, and put behind whom Allāh had put behind, there would
be no need for proportionate reduction of shares.’ Zufar ibn Aws asked
him: ‘And which of them has He given precedence to, and which has He
kept behind?’ He said: ‘Every share which Allāh has not brought down
from a prescribed share but to another prescribed share, that is which
Allāh has given precedence to. And as for that which Allāh has kept
behind, it is every share that — when it leaves its (original) place — does
not get except the residue, it is (the share) which Allāh has put behind.
As for that which has been given precedence, [it is these]: the husband
gets a half, but if a situation arises to bring his share down, he comes to
one-fourth, nothing removes him from there; and the wife receives one-
fourth, but when she comes down to one-eighth, nothing removes her
from there; and the mother is allotted one-third, but when she moves
from it, she goes to one-sixth, and nothing removes her from it. These are
therefore the shares which Allāh has given precedence to. As for that
which He has kept behind, it is the share of the daughters and sisters —
they are entitled to one-half or two-thirds, and when [other] shares
remove them from it, they do not get except what is left, so these are
whom Allāh has kept behind. When there gather together those whom
Allāh has given preference and those whom He has kept behind, it (i.e.,
the division) will begin with those whom Allāh has given precedence,
and he shall be given his full share; then if something remains, it will be
for him who has been kept behind; and if nothing is left, he shall get
nothing.’ Then Zufar said to him: ‘Then what prevented you from
offering this opinion to ‘Umar?’ He said: ‘His dread.’ ’’ (al-Kāfī)

The author says: ‘Alī (a.s.) had rejected the theory of proportionate
reduction of share, long before Ibn ‘Abbās did so. And it is the madhhab
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 27

of the Imāms of Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.) as is described below:

al-Bāqir (a.s.) said, inter alia, in a hadīth: ‘‘The Leader of the faithful
(a.s.) used to say: ‘Most surely, He Who knows the number of the sands
of ‘Alij, (also) knows that the shares should not be deviated (i.e.,
reduced) from six; had you looked at its (proper) direction, it would not
be more than six.’ ’’ (ibid.)

The author says: It is written in as-Sihāh: ‘‘ ‘Alij is a place in a

valley with sands.’’ The Imām’s words, ‘‘the shares should not be
deviated from six’’, means that no share could deviate in a way to change
the six prescribed portions to some other portion. The six shares,
explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān are as follows: a half, one-third, two-
thirds, one-fourth, one-sixth and one-eighth.

as-Sādiq (a.s.) said: ‘‘The Leader of the faithful (a.s.) said: ‘All praise
is due to Allāh; there is none to let precede what He has set behind, and
none to set behind what He has let precede.’ Then he struck his one hand
with the other and again said: ‘O nation (that is) bewildered after its
Prophet! If you had let that precede which Allāh had given precedence to,
and kept behind that which Allāh had set behind; and had put authority
and inheritance where Allāh had put it, no friend of Allāh would have
remained in poverty, and no share from Allāh’s ordained shares would
have decreased, nor two people would have differed in Allāh’s
commandment; and the ummah has not disputed about any command of
Allāh but that ‘Alī has its knowledge from the Book of Allāh. So (now)
taste evil consequences of your affair and of your inordinateness in that
which your hands have sent before; and Allāh is not unjust to the
servants; and they who act unjustly shall soon know to what final place
of turning they shall turn back.’ ’’ (ibid.)

The author says: A further explanation of how some heirs’ shares

are decreased is given below:
The shares, according to the Qur’ān, are six: a half, two-thirds, one-
third, one-sixth, one-fourth and one-eighth. Sometimes these shares
gather together in a way it creates problem. For in-stance, in the first
class of heirs, there may exist a daughter, father, mother and husband.
28 AL-MĪZĀN

Their respective shares are a half, two-sixths and one-fourth — the total
[1.1/12] exceeds the original property [which is ‘one’]. Likewise, if there
are two daughters, both parents and husband, their shares, two-thirds,
two-sixths, and one-fourth [total = 11/4] exceed the original. In the same
way, in the second class of heirs, there may exist together a sister, a
paternal and a maternal grandfather, and a wife; and their shares, a half,
one-third, one-sixth and one-fourth [total = 11/4] would exceed the
original. Or, if there are two sisters, two grand-fathers and a husband,
their shares — two-thirds, one-third, one-sixth and a half [total = 1.2/3]
— would far exceed the original.
If we reduce all the shares proportionately, it would be al-‘awl. On
the other hand, if we leave the shares of parents, husband, wife and
uterine relatives (i.e., one-third, one-sixth, a half, one-fourth and one-
eighth) intact — because Allāh has explicitly prescribed them and has not
left them un-explained in any eventuality — then the deficiency will
always fall on the shares of one or more daughters, and one or more
consanguine or agnate sisters, and on the shares of male and female
children — when there is one or more, for the reason explained earlier.
As for ‘‘returning’’ to the latter group the property left after
distribution of prescribed shares, the reader should consult books of
hadīth and jurisprudence.

al-Hākim and al-Bayhaqī (in his as-Sunan) have narrated about Zayd
ibn Thabit that he used to partially exclude mother [i.e., reduced her
share from one-third to one-sixth] if the deceased had left two brothers.
People said to him: ‘‘O Abū Sa‘īd! surely Allāh says: and if he has
brothers ... [and plural in Arabic indicates at least three], and you are
partially excluding her by [only] two brothers?’’ He said: ‘‘Verily the
Arabs call two brothers al-ikhwah ( ‫ = َاﻟِْﺎﺧْ َﻮ ُة‬brothers [in plural]).’’ (ad-
Durru ’l-manthūr)

The author says: The same theme is narrated from the Imāms of
Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.); although it is generally said that al-ikhwah is plural of
al-akh ( ‫خ‬ُ ‫ = َاﻟَْﺎ‬brother) and plural is not used for less than three.
as-Sādiq (a.s.) said: ‘‘The mother is not partially excluded from one-
third except by (presence of) two consanguine of agnate brothers or four
consanguine or agnate sisters.’’ (al-Kāfī)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 29

The author says: There are many traditions of the same theme. As
for uterine brothers, they are connected to the deceased through the
mother who by her presence debars them from inharitance. It is narrated
in the traditions of both the Shī‘īs and the Sunnīs that the brothers
partially exclude the mother, but they themselves do not get any share in
inheritance because of the presence of the parents who have precedence
over them in class. Thus the law, that the brothers partially exclude the
mother while they themselves do not inherit anything, has been laid
down keeping in view the position of the father — because the excess
portion shall be returned to him. That is why the uterine brothers do not
partially exclude the mother, because they are not the father’s
dependants.

The Leader of the faithful (a.s.) said regarding the clause, after (the
payment of) any bequest he may have bequeathed or debt: ‘‘Surely you
recite in this verse the bequest before the debt, but the Messenger of
Allāh (s.a.w.a.) has decreed (to pay) the debt before the bequest.’’
(Majma‘u ’l-bayān)

The author says: This tradition has also been narrated by as-Suyūtī
in ad-Durru ’l-manthūr from several traditionalists and exegetes.

as-Sādiq (a.s.) explained al-kalālah in these terms: ‘‘Other than

parent and child.’’ (al-Kāfī)
The same Imām (a.s.) says about the clause: and if a man or a woman
leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor offspring, that
Allāh has meant by it specifically the uterine brothers and sisters. (ibid.)

The author says: There are numerous traditions of this theme and
the Sunnīs too have narrated them. The number of such traditions reaches
near to mutawātir. These traditions also say that the law regarding
consanguine and agnate al-kalālah is mentioned in the last verse of the
chapter which says: They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: ‘‘Allāh
gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor
offspring ... [4:176].
It is a further proof of this explanation that the shares allotted to those
relatives in that last verse exceeds the shares mentioned in this verse by
30 AL-MĪZĀN

double or even more. We know from the context and the above-
mentioned verses that Allāh has made a male’s share generally equal to
that of two females — as far as possible. Relatives other than parents and
children are connected with the deceased either through father and
mother both, or through father or through mother alone. Naturally, the
difference maintained between father and mother will be carried over to
those relatives too, because they are connected through them. In other
words, the consanguine or agnate relatives will get a larger share than the
uterine relatives. It leads us to the above-mentioned conclusion that the
verse giving smaller shares speaks about the uterine relatives and that
prescribing larger shares about the consanguine or agnate relatives.

Muhammad ibn Sinān has narrated that Abu ’l-Hasan ar-Ridā (a.s.)
wrote in reply to his questions, inter alia: ‘‘The reason why women are
given half of men’s share in inheritance: It is because when a woman
marries she receives (the dowry) and it is the man who pays; that is why
men have been given more. Another reason why male is given twice of
what female gets: It is because female is a dependant of male if she is in
need; the male is obliged to maintain her and he is responsible for her
sustenance; the woman is not liable to maintain the man nor is she held
responsible to give his sustenance if he is in need; that is why men have
been given more; and that is the word of Allāh: Men are the maintainers
of women because of that with which Allāh has made some of them to
excel the others and because of what they spend out of their property.’’
(Ma‘āni ’l-akhbār)
al-Ahwal said: ‘‘Ibn Abi ’l-‘Awjā’ said: ‘Why is it that a poor weak
woman takes one share and men take two shares?’ Some of our
companions mentioned this to Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) and he said: ‘Verily,
there is no jihād on woman, nor maintenance nor blood-money, (all) this
is on men, that is why woman was allotted one share and man two
shares.’ ’’ (al-Kāfī)
The author says: There are very many traditions of this import, and
we have shown that the Qur’ān too shows the same thing.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 31

AN ACADEMIC ESSAY ON INHERITANCE

1. How Inheritance Began

Inheritance — taking possession, by some living persons, of the
property left by the deceased — is one of the most ancient traditions of
human society. It is impossible to find out from the available histories of
nations and countries when this custom began — not unexpectedly it is
hidden in the mist of antiquity. We understand by pondering on man’s
social nature that man yearns to get a property — and especially if it is
not in any one’s hand — longing to use it for his needs. It is one of his
primary and most encient customs to gain control of a property,
especially if there is none to stop him. Also man, be he primitive or
civilized, cannot be oblivious of the notion of nearness and close
association (which give rise to the concept of being nearer and closer in
relationship) between various members of society. It is this concept
which has led to establishment of home, family, clan and tribe, etc.
Inevitably, in a society some persons will be nearer to one another than
the rest, like a child to his parents, a relative to another relative, one
friend to another, a master to his slave, husband and wife to each other
and a head to his followers; even a powerful person to a weak one —
although different societies have different concepts and standards for
identifying this nearness, a difference which it is almost impossible to
record.
These two factors make us believe that inheritance is a custom
prevalent in human beings since the earliest days of society.

1. Gradual Development of Inheritance

This system, like all other social traditions, was intermittently
changing from one position to another; evolution and gradual
development playing a hand in it since its first appearance. But the
primitive society was never well-organized and consequently no
historical record can be found to give us a reliable picture of its gradual
development.
Nevertheless, it is certain that they did not give any share to women
and weak persons; inheritance was exclusively reserved for strong males.
It was only because in their eyes, women and weak persons (like slaves
32 AL-MĪZĀN

and small children) were in the same category as that of tamed animals
and merchandise — these things are always used by man without
themselves getting any benefit from man or his property, nor are they
entitled to the social rights that are accorded to the human race.
However, the connotation of ‘strong’ varied from time to time.
Sometimes it meant head of the community or clan; at other times, it was
head of the family; occasionally, it implied the bravest of the community.
Such changes naturally meant fundamental alterations in inheritance
rules.
Those customs prevalent from time to time were devoid of the bliss
and felicity which human nature aspires for; and consequently each was
altered [or discarded] before long. Even civilized nations which were
governed by legal codes or some well-established tribal laws, like Rome
and Greece, went the same way. Uptil now no inheritance law prevalent
in any community or nation has stood the test of time and remained alive
as long as the Islamic inheritance law has — it has ruled over the Muslim
nations from the day it was ordained to this day, foraboutfourteen
centuries.

3. Inheritance in Civilized Nations

The Romans had a peculiar social theory: A house was a
selfcontained social entity, independent of the greater society; its
members were beyond the jurisdiction of the government.in all their
social rights; the house had its own rules and regulations and
[consequently] its own system of reward and punishment, and so on. The
head of the family was the deity of his family — of his wife, children,
slaves and dependants. He was their absolute owner — no other person
owned anything as long as he remained a member of the house. The head
had total power over them and managed their affairs by his absolute
authority. He in his turn worshipped his predecessor — the previous head
of the family.
Whatever property there was, it was inherited by the house. Suppose
a son died leaving some property (which he had earned and owned with
permission of the family-head), or a daughter expired leaving what she
had been given possession of (as dowry, etc.) with permission of the
family-head, or some other relative died — in all such cases the property
was inherited by the head of the family, because it was the inevitable
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 33

consequence of his godship and absolute ownership of the house and its
members.
When the head of the family died, one of his sons or brothers
inherited him — who could do so. When several sons inherited him, then
if they separated and established new houses, each became the deity of
his house. But if they continued to live in the old house, their position
vis-a-vis the new deity (their brother, for example) would be the same
that was under their late father — all would come under the authority and
absolute guardianship of the new deity.
Adopted sons had the right to inherit him; the system of adoption was
prevalent among them just like the pre-Islamic Arabs. As for women
(like wife, daughter and mother), they were not given any share of
inheritance — lest the property of the house be transferred to another
house if they changed residence on marriage; for it was not lawful to
transfer a property from one house to another. It is probably this concept
which someone had in mind when he said that they believed in society’s
communal ownership, not in private or personal one. But I think that it
was based on something other than socialistic ownership. Even primitive
barbaric communities, since early dawn of humanity, prevented other
tribal groups to share or encroach in the pasture and fertile lands which
they had taken under their hold; they protected it and even fought for it. It
was a sort of common public property which was owned not by
individuals but the society. Nevertheless, it was not disallowed for an
individual member to reserve a portion of that common property for
himself.
It was a valid kind of possession, although they could not keep
balance in its management and use. Islam respects such possessorship as
we have mentioned earlier. Allāh says: He it is Who created for you all
that is in the earth (2:29). Therefore, the human society, i.e., the Islamic
society and those who are under its protection, do own the riches of the
earth in this sense; thereafter, the Islamic society is the owner of all that it
has under its control. That is why Islam does not allow a non-Muslim to
inherit from a Muslim.
Even today some nations follow a similar principle and do not allow
foreigners to acquire ownership of any land or immovable property, etc.,
in the country.
As the house, in ancient Rome, had complete independence by itself,
34 AL-MĪZĀN

this old system had taken root therein like other independent nations and
countries.
Now, the Romans followed the above-mentioned inheritance code;
and also they did not allow marriage within the prohibited degrees. These
two things together obliged them to divide the relationships in two
categories: First, the natural relationship, originating from a common
blood. On it was based the illegality of marriage within the prohibited
degree and its lawfulness outside that cirlcle. Second, the official or legal
relationship. On this relationship depended inheritance or disinheritance,
maintenance, guardianship and things like that. The sons had both types
of relationship-natural and legal — with the head of the family and with
each other; but women were recognized only as natural, but not legal,
relatives. Consequently, they inherited from none: neither from father nor
son, neither from husband nor brother, nor from anyone else. This was
the inheritance code of the ancient Rome.
As for Greece, their old custom in establishment of the houses was
almost similar to that of the ancient Rome. They gave inheritance to the
most mature of the male children; women were totally debarred from it,
be they wife, daughter or sister; also small children and others like them
were not entitled to any share. But the Greeks, like the Romans,
sometimes devised plans to give inheritance to small children or those
women — like wives, daughters or sisters — whom they loved and were
apprehensive for their welfare; with these devices, like will, etc., they
could easily give them a small or large portion of property. We shall
speak on it under the ‘‘Will’’.
India, Egypt and China were not different from Rome and Greece in
totally excluding the women from inheritance and debarring weaker
children from it — or they continued to live under the authority and
guardianship of the stronger male heirs.
As mentioned earlier, the Persians allowed polygamy and marriage
with women within ‘prohibited degrees’; adoption was legal; the most
beloved wife sometimes had a status equal to that of an adopted son and
shared the inheritance equally with the son and the adopted son,
debarring other wives. A married daughter was not entitled to
inheritance, lest the property go out of the family: but an unmarried
daughter was given half of a son’s share. In short, the wives (except the
senior-most) and married daughters were debarred, while the senior-most
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 35

wife, son, adopted son and unmarried daughter shared in the inheritance.
The Arabs gave no share to women or minor sons; the inheritance
was taken by the mature sons who could ride a horse and defend the
honour (of the family); if there were no such child, the agnatic relatives
took away the property.
This was the state of affairs in the world when the verses of
inheritance were revealed. These matters are described in detail or
mentioned in short in various histories dealing with customs and
civilizations of ancient communities, in travelogues, law books and other
such writings which may be consulted by anyone who wants more
information.
The above description shows, in short, that in those days it was the
common practice throughout the world to deprive the women of the
inheritance — be it a wife or mother, a daughter or sister. If one wanted
to give them a share, one had to devise a plan for it. Also it was an
established system to debar small children and orphans — except in some
cases where they were taken under other relatives’ guardianship — a
perpetual guardianship that was never terminated.

4. What Islam did in such a Situation

It has been repeatedly said that according to Islam the correct
foundation of rules and laws is the nature on which people have been
created — and there is no alteration in the creation of Allāh. Islam has
laid down the inheritance on the ‘womb’ that is, relationship, which is a
part of nature and an established creative factor. For the same reason, it
has negated the custom of adopted sons’ inheritance. Allāh says: ... nor
has He made those whom you assert to be your sons your real sons; these
are the words of your mouths; and Allāh speaks the truth and He guides
to the way. Assert their relationship to their fathers; this is more
equitable with Allāh; but if you do not know their fathers, then they are
your brethren in faith and your friends (33:4 — 5).
Then it removed the bequest from the general rule of inheritance and
gave it an independent legal status, by which a dying person may bestow
and a beneficiary may receive — although before that even bequest was
called inheritance. But in Islam it is not just a nominal difference; there
are two separate principles governing the inheritance and the will or
bequest, respectively, with an independent natural basis for each. The
36 AL-MĪZĀN

factor that governs inheritance is relationship, and the deceased’s wish or

will does not effect it at all; while the basis of bequest is in compliance
with the deceased’s wish after his death (you may say, at the time of his
bequeathing) in the property he owned when he was alive;
implementation of bequest shows. respect to the deceased’s wish. If one
included the will under the heading of inheritance, it would be merely in
name, not in reality.
What the people, like the ancient Romans, called inheritance did not
take into consideration the two factors of relationship and respect to the
deceased’s wishes. It was only based on the deceased’s desire to prevent
the transfer of property to another house; the intention was to keep it in
the hands of the head of the family, (i.e., its deity); or on his desire to
transfer it to someone he loved and was apprehensive of his welfare. In
any case, it only looked at the deceased’s desires. Had it been founded on
relationship and common blood, many of those who were deprived would
have shared in inheritance.
After that, Islam turned its attention to the inheritance. In its eyes,
there are two basic factors affecting it:
[First:] The factor of relationship. It is the common bond that unites a
man to his relatives. There is no difference in this respect between a male
and a female, nor between an adult and a minor (or even a foetus in the
womb). Nevertheless, various relationships have different effects; some
get priority, others are kept behind, some prevent the others from
inheriting. All this is related to the strength of a relationship, which in its
turn depends on a relative’s nearness or distance from the deceased —
whether his relationship with the deceased is direct or through some
intermediaries, and whether there are less or more intermidiate links, for
instance, son, brother and uncle. This principle bestows the right of
inheritance on the relatives, and at the same time establishes different
classes of the heirs according to their nearness or distance from the
deceased.
[Second:] The factor of natural difference between male and female.
It creates difference in their respective capabilities, as one group is more
equipped with intellect while the other is more endowed with sentiments.
Man by nature is a contemplating human being, while woman is an
embodiment of sentiments and emotions. This difference very clearly
affects their lives as far as management of property and its usufruct are
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 37

concerned. This factor has led to the difference in the shares of men and
women — even when they happen to be in the same class, like son and
daughter, or brother and sister, as we shall explain below.
The first factor has led to grading of heirs in classes according to their
nearness or distance from the deceased, keeping in view whether their
connection with the deceased is direct or through one or more
intermediary links. The first class consists of the heirs related to him
directly — without any intermediary. They are son, daughter, father and
mother. The second class is of brother, sister, grandfather and
grandmother. They are connected to him through one link, that is, either
through father, or mother or both. The third class consists of paternal and
maternal uncle and aunt. They join the deceased through two
intermediate links, that is, through a parent and a grandparent. In every
class, children take the place of their parents in their absence and debar
the next class.
As for husband and wife, marriage had mingled their blood, and
accordingly they share with every class; neither any class debars them,
nor they debar any class.
The second factor, that is, the difference between man and woman,
has led to the principle of a male getting equal to the share of two
females — except in case of the mother and the relatives connected
through her.
The laid down shares are six (a half, two-thirds, one-third, one-fourth,
one-sixth and one-eighth) although they may occasionally change.
Likewise, the property received by an heir may differ at times from his
prescribed share because of decrease or ‘return’. Also, the share of father
vis-a-vis mother and the relatives connected through her does not
conform with the general principle of the male’s share being double that
of female. Such variations make it difficult to give here a comprehensive
description of Islamic inheritance laws. Nevertheless, the whole
structure, inasmuch as the preceding generation gives place to the
succeeding one, is based on the principle that one spouse is succeeded by
the other, and the progenitors (i.e., fathers and mothers) give place to the
progeny (i.e., children). And the shares, as decreed by Islam for both
groups (spouses and children), give a male double of that allotted a
female.
This general review shows that Islam provides for division of the
38 AL-MĪZĀN

world’s wealth in two portions of one-third and two-thirds. The one-third

belongs to the female and the two-thirds to the male. This is on the level
of possession. But as far as the usufruct is concerned, it is governed by
another principle. It says that maintenance of the wife is the husband’s
responsibility, and that he has to treat her with justice — both should
equally share and use the man’s wealth for their needs. Also it has given
the woman freedom of will and independence of action in the wealth she
herself owns — her husband cannot interfere in it. These three factors
prove that woman has the right to make use of the two-thirds of the
world’s resources (one-third her own property plus a half of the two-
thirds belonging to man) while man may use only a third.

5. The Position of Women and Orphans in Islam

The orphans do inherit like stronger adult men. They are brought up,
and their property continues growing, under their guardians’ care, like
the father [sic.] and grandfather, or the believers in general, or the Islamic
government. When they attain to marriageable age and show the signs of
maturity of intellect, their property is handed over to them, and they
begin their independent life. It is the most just and equitable system that
can be imagined for such cases.
As for women, as described above, from a general point of view they
own one-third of the world's wealth and have the usufruct of its two-
thirds. They are independent and absolute owners of what belongs to
them; they are not put under any guardianship, be it permanent or
temporary; and it is no concern of the men what the women do about
themselves in a lawful and proper manner.
In Islam woman is recognized as an individual personality equal in
every legal aspect to that of man; she has freedom of will and action in
every way. Her position is not different from that of men, except as much
as is demanded by her especial psychological traits that differ from those
of man — that is, hers is a sentimental life while that of man is
intellectual. For this reason, man has been given a major share in general
wealth, in order that the management based on intellect and
contemplation — in the world in general — may outbalance the
management based on feelings and sentiments. But the deficiency of her
share has been more than made up by giving her overwhelming share in
usufruct. Also, she is obliged to obey her husband in conjugal relations,
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 39

and has been compensated for it with dowry. Likewise she is disqualified
from occupying the position of a judge, a ruler or a fighting soldier, as
these are the responsibilities that can best be discharged through
contemplation, rather than emotion. This has been balanced by making
the men responsible for the women’s security and safety, for protection
of their honour and dignity. Man bears the burden of earning the
livelihood and maintaining the wife, the children and the parents; while
woman has been given the right of custody of children — without
making it obligatory for her. All these rules have been counter-balanced
with other things the women are obliged to do, like wearing hijāb ( ‫ب‬
ُ ‫ﺤﺠَﺎ‬
ِ ْ‫َاﻟ‬
= veil), not mingling with men, looking after the household and bringing
up the children.
The question may be asked: Why has Islam not allowed the [women
with their] emotions and sentiments to occupy such public offices as
defence, judiciary and rulership? Why does it refuse to give these
departments into her hands? The answer may be found in the bitter
harvest which humanity is reaping in modern days as a result of the
domination of sentimentality on thought and contemplation. Just ponder
on the great World Wars (the gifts of the modern civilization) and on the
conditions prevailing throughout the world; then review them in the light
of intellect and emotional feeling; you may then easily see where the
temptation springs from and what offers good and sincere advice. And
Allāh is the Guide.
Moreover, the civilized nations of the West, since last many
centuries, have spared no effort — have rather gone out of their way —
to teach and train the girls together with the boys, in order that their
potentials of perfection may be turned into reality. Nevertheless, if you
look at the Who’s Who of politicians and statesmen, legislators and
judges, and military leaders and generals (the three above-mentioned
fields of gevernment, judiciary and war) you will not find women’s
names there in any considerable number, nor can their numbers be
compared with the hundreds, rather thousands, of men’s names. This in
itself provides the most telling evidence that women by their nature, are
not suitable for training in these fields — which per se require deep
contemplation and planning; and the more chance is given to emotions to
infiltrate into them, the more frustration and failure follows.
This and other similar observations provide conclusive rebuttal to the
40 AL-MĪZĀN

well-known theory that the only reason why women lag behind in society
is the insufficient training given to them since the earliest days of human
history; had they been given good and useful training, then — with their
sentimentality and fine feelings — they would have overtaken or gone
ahead of the men in all aspects of perfection. But this argument is almost
like a selfdefeating syllogism. [The reality is the other way round.]
Because it is the women’s exclusive — or predominant — attachment to
emotional feelings, that has kept them behind in all those fields which
demand strong reasoning and domination of thinking over sentiments,
like governing and judiciary; and has let the group having these qualities,
that is, men, go ahead of them in these professions. Definitive
experiments have proved that when a person possesses some
psychological traits in strong measures, his/her training in related
professions and occupations can be carried out very successfully. It
naturally follows that men can be successfully trained in the fields of
government and judiciary, and will surpass the women in achieving
perfection in these spheres. On the other hand, the women’s training in
matters connected with sentiments and feelings can succeed
tremendously, as for example in some branches of medical profession,
painting, weaving and embroidery, as well as bringing up children,
nursing sick persons, decoration, cosmetics and things like that. In other
fields both sexes have equal chances of advancement.
Moreover, if, as is claimed, the women’s backwardness in the above-
mentioned masculine fields is attributed only to chance, it should have, at
least for some eras in the long human history, broken down or reversed
itself — and they say that mankind is millions of years old. The same
applies to those typically feminine activities in which men are behind.
Really these are inherent characteristics which are inseparable from
human society; and if we start counting these realities as mere casual and
chancy affairs — especially when they are in total conformity with inner
workings of human physique — then we cannot put our hands on a single
characteristic in the whole human world which we could say was natural
and intrinsic to man, be it his inclination to social life and society, his
love of knowledge, or his curiosity that leads him to discover the hidden
secrets of nature, and things like that. These too are inseparable attributes
of humanity, and human structure is in complete agreement with these
traits and characteristics. That is why we say they are natural attributes.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 41

The same principle applies to women’s advancement in luxuries and

sentimental affairs and to their backwardness in intellectual matters or
the affairs entailing severe hardships and dangers. This too is based on
their natural characteristics. The opposite is true in those matters in
which men are advanced or behind.
The only thing that remains is the offence that women might take at
attribution of perfect intellect to men and of perfect sentimentality and
feelings to them (women). But this objection is not tenable. In the eyes of
Islam, intellect and sentiments both are valuable divine gifts, ingrained in
human nature for truly divine purposes; neither has any excellence over
the other. [Neither has any hand in achieving any honoured position
before Allāh.] Honour entirely depends on piety. As for other attributes
— whatever they may be — they grow and develop only if they proceed
on the right path; otherwise they turn into evil burdens, undesirable loads.

6. Modern Inheritance Laws

These laws and codes had got support from, and were influenced by,
Islamic laws of inheritance — although they differ from it in quantity (of
shares) and mode (of division) as we shall describe here in short. There is
a lot of difference between the stand taken by Islam and that of these
legislations as far as women’s inheritance is concerned.
As for Islam, it had initiated a thing which the world had never
known, nor the earlier generations were ever told of by their progenitors;
while these later laws were legislated when the Islamic laws were firmly
established and constantly implemented in the Muslim ummah inhabiting
a greater part of the then known world; hundreds of millions of people
had been practising this code for more than a millennium, the progenies
inheriting it from their ancestors. Obviously when a novel idea is put into
practice and is accepted and implemented, and thus becomes a permanent
feature of the society, then it becomes very easy for similar principles to
appear on the scene. Every preceding social custom provides the
ideational substance for similar following customs; rather the former
becomes the substance that is reshaped into the latter. Therefore, no
social scientist should spurn the fact that the modern inheritance laws
have got support from the Islamic inheritance code that had preceded
them, and that it is the Islamic code which they have remoulded into their
statutes — we are not concerned here whether they could do justice to it
42 AL-MĪZĀN

or not.
The most amusing is the claim sometimes made — may Allāh
destroy the ignorance of the yore! — that the new laws have got their
ideas and substance from the ancient Roman code. You have already
seen what that ancient Roman custom was, and what the Islamic sharī‘ah
has offered to the mankind. The Islamic code came into being and was
implemented after the old Roman code and long before the modern
Western laws; it was deeply rooted in the societies of millions, nay,
hundreds of millions, of people continuously for long centuries. It is
impossible to suggest that such a living code remained ineffective and
did not influence the thinkings of these legislators.
Even more strange is the assertion by some writers that the Islamic
code of inheritance was adapted from the ancient Roman code!
However, the modern laws prevalent in the Western nations, in spite
of their differences in some details, are almost unanimous on one point:
They treat females as equal to males in inheritance shares; the daughters
and sons get equal shares as do the mothers and fathers, and so on.
The French code has divided the heirs in the following classes: i)
Sons and daughters; ii) fathers and mothers, and brothers and sisters; iii)
grand-fathers and grand-mothers; iv) Paternal and maternal uncles and
aunts. It has kept the marriage-tie separate from this classification, saying
that it is based on the foundation of love. We are not concerned here with
its details or description of other classes. If anyone wants it he should
look into the relevant books.
But what we are concerned with is the net result of this prevalent
customs. This type of legislation makes the woman equal partner of man
in the wealth of the world — taken as a whole. Yet they have put the wife
under the guardianship of the husband; she has no right to manage or
control her own inherited property — except with the consent and
permission of her husband. It means that although the world’s wealth is
divided half and half between man and woman (so far as ownership is
concerned), the total wealth is placed in the hands of the man (so far as
its management and control is concerned). Now, some groups and parties
have risen up which are trying to make women truly independent owners
of their properties, taking them out of men’s control and guardianship. If
they succeed, then the men and the women would be really equal in
ownership as well as in control and management.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 11 — 14 43

7. Comparison of these Codes: One with Another

We have already described.in short the customs which were prevalent
in ancient nations in old days. Now we leave it to research scholars to
compare one with another and deliver their judgment for each, whether it
was perfect or defective, and whether it was beneficial for human society
or harmful — in short, whether it was on correct footing on the highroad
of felicity and happiness. Then, he may compare the Islamic code with
each and judge accordingly.
The basic difference between the Islamic laws and the others is in the
respective aims and objectives. Islam intends that the world should
achieve its righteousness, goodness and probity; while the other laws
want it to get what it desires. All the branches sprout from these two
different roots. Allāh says: and it may be that you dislike a thing while it
is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for
you, and Allāh knows, while you do not know (2:216); and live with them
kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while
Allāh has placed abundant good in it (4:19).

8. Will and Testament

It has been explained that Islam has given the will an independent
status, unlinking it from the general rules of inheritance. It is because the
will has an independent basis, that is, respecting the owner’s wishes
concerning what he had possessed in his life. In ancient nations, will was
a device which the testator used to give his property — or a part of it —
to someone who customarily was not entitled to it, to prevent it from
going to the recognized heir, for instance, the father or the head of the
family. That was why they were always busy enacting laws putting
restrictions on testamentary bestowals lest it nullify the rules of
inheritance completely; and such efforts are continuing in those societies
upto these days of ours.
On the other hand, Islam has restricted the application of will to a
third of the property; it is invalid beyond that limit. Some modern codes,
like the French one, has imitated the Islamic principle in this respect; but
the aims differ. That is why Islam exhorts people to bequeath, while
other laws discourage it or are silent about it.
Meditate on the verses concerning bequest, alms, zakāt, khums, and
44 AL-MĪZĀN

general spending .in the way of Allāh; and you will realize that these laws
pave the way for setting aside about half of the properties and two-thirds
of their benefits for philanthropy charity, for meeting the needs of the
needy and poor. This brings various classes nearer, and narrows the gaps
between them, thus strengthening the weaker sections of the society. It is
in addition to the guide-lines given to wealthy persons as to how they
should use their wealth — which brings them nearer to the poor. We are
not going into details of this topic, as it will be written, Allāh willing, in
another place.

*****
 And as for those who are guilty of indecency from among your
women, call to witness against them four (witnesses) from among
you, then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until
death takes them away or Allah makes some way for them (15).
And as for the two who are guilty of it from among you, afflict
them both; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them;
surely Allāh is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful (16).

*****

COMMENTARY

QUR’ĀN: And as for those who are guilty ... from among you: Atāh
and atā bihi ( ‫اَﺗﻲ ﺑِﻪ‬،ُ‫ = َاﺗَﺎﻩ‬translated here as being guilty) actually
means ‘‘doing it’’. al-Fāhishah ( ‫ﺸ ُﺔ‬ َ‫ﺣ‬ِ ‫ ) َاﻟْﻔَﺎ‬is derived from al-fuhsh (
‫ﺶ‬
ُ ْ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻔﺤ‬indecency); thus al-fāhishah means indecent behaviour ; it is
generally used in the meaning of fornication; it has also been used in

46
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 15 — 16 47

the Qur’ān for sodomy or for sodomy and lesbianism both, as Allāh
quotes Lūt (a.s.) as saying: Most surely you are guilty of an
indecency which none of the nations has ever done before you
(29:28).
Apparently this word refers here to fornication, as explained by all
the exegetes. They have narrated that when the verse of flogging was
revealed, the Prophet said that the flogging is the way Allāh has opened
for them when they are guilty of fornication. It is also supported by the
style of the verse which clearly shows that this order was to be abrogated
soon, as Allāh says: or Allāh makes some way for them; and nobody has
said that the penalty of lesbianism was abrogated by any succeeding
order, nor that this penalty [of flogging] was meted out to anyone guilty
of lesbianism; [all this together shows that this verse is not concerned
with sodomy or lesbianism]. The phrase, ‘‘four (witnesses) from among
you’’, indicates that the witnesses should be males [because the pronoun
used for ‘you’ is of masculine gender].

QUR’ĀN: then if they bear witness confine them ... some way for them:
The confinement, that is, perpetual imprisonment, depends on the
evidence, not on actual guilt without the required evidence — although it
might be known; it is one of the mercies of Allāh on the ummah showing
His magnanimity and forbearance.
The punishment is perpetual confinement; it is clearly indicated by
the prescribed limit, ‘‘until death takes them away’’. But Allāh has not
used the word, imprisonment or internment; instead He has said, fa-
amsikūhunna ( ‫ﻦ‬ ‫ﺴﻜُﻮ ُه ﱠ‬
ِ ‫ ) َﻓَﺎ ْﻣ‬which literally means, then restrain them; the
use of this mild word is another clear indication of His indulgence and
tolerance.
The clause, ‘‘until death takes them away or Allāh makes some way
for them’’, means: or Allāh opens a way for them to be free from
perpetual confinement. The alternative indicates probable abrogation of
the order; and it happened when the rule of flogging replaced this order.
Everyone knows that the penalty given to fornicating women — since the
later period of the Prophet and in practice among the Muslims after him
— is the flogging, not confinement to the houses. The verse, supposing
that it contains the rule about the fornicating women, has been abrogated
by the verse of flogging; and the way mentioned in this verse
48 AL-MĪZĀN

undoubtedly refers to flogging.

QUR’ĀN:And as for the two who are guilty of it from among you, afflict
them both: The two verses are inter-related, and certainly the pronoun ‘it’
refers to ‘indecency’. It supports the view that both verses deal with
punishment of fornication. The second verse therefore completes the
order given in the first one; the first one had explained the law only to the
extent it affected the women, while the second one describes the rule as it
affects both parties — and it is the ‘affliction’. So the two verses together
explain the rule of fornicating man and fornicating woman both — that
both should be afflicted and the confinement of the women to the houses.
But this explanation does not agree with the following clause: then if
they repent and amend, turn aside from them; obviously it does not fit in
with the order of confining the women for the life. Therefore, it is
necessary to say that turning aside from them refers to discontinuation of
their punishment while the confinement continues as before.
That is why sometimes it is said — following some traditions which
shall be quoted later — that the first verse speaks about those women
who are not virgin while the second one gives the order about the virgins;
accordingly the virgins who commit fornication should be punished by
confining them to the houses until they repent and amend their
behaviour, and then they may be released from the confinement. But this
explanation leaves two problems unsolved:
First: Why should the first verse be reserved for non-virgins and the
second one to virgins when there is nothing in the wordings to support
this differentiation?
Second: Why does the first verse speak about the fornicating women
only, while the second one talks about both parties: ‘‘And as for the two
who are guilty of it from among you ...’’?
It has been said that according to the exegete, Abū Muslim, the first
verse ordains the law about lesbianism, and the second one about
sodomy, and that both verses are un-abrogated.
But that view too is obviously wrong. As for the first verse, the
explanation given by us earlier (for the words, As for those who are
guilty of indecency from among your women ...), proves untenability of
Abū Muslim’s interpretation. As for his explanation of the second verse,
it is rejected by the well-established sunnah that the penalty of sodomy is
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 15 — 16 49

death. The correct hadīth of the Prophet says: ‘‘Whoever among you
commits the sin of the people of Lūt, kill (both) the doer and (the man)
done to.’’ This law is either from the beginning (which has not been
abrogated); or is a subsequent law which has abrogated the verse; in any
case, it refutes Abū Muslim’s views.
Looking at the apparent meaning of the two verses (which come to
the mind at once), and at the associations found with them; and keeping
in view the difficulties arising out of the given explanations, we may
interpret the verses as follows — and Allāh knows better:
The verse lays down the law concerning adultery by married women.
Also the fact that the verse mentions only women, and not men, indicates
this meaning; the word, ‘women’, is commonly used for ‘wives’ and
especially when it appears as first construct of a genitive case where the
second construct is ‘men’, as is the position in this verse: ‘‘you [i.e., you
men’s] women’’; also Allāh says: And give women their dowries as a
free gift (4:4); ...of your women to whom you have gone in (4:23).
Accordingly, the first and temporary order was to confine them to the
houses; then stoning was ordained for them. al-Jubbā’ī has used this
example to prove that the Book may be abrogated by the sunnah; but it is
not so. Abrogation repeals an order which was apprently meant to
continue for ever; while this order of confinement contains a clause that
points to its temporariness, and it is the words: or Allāh makes some way
for them. These words clearly show that there was another order that
would be promulgated later. Even if it were called ‘abrogation’, there
would be no trouble; because it would not contain those difficulties
which were inherent in abrogating the Book with the sunnah — the
Qur’ān itself indicates here that this order was to be repealed after
sometime; and the Prophet is the one who explains the meaning of the
honoured Qur’ān.
The second verse promulgates the rule about fornication (other than
adultery), that the parties should be afflicted; that punishment includes
confinement, hitting them with shoes, admonishing and shaming them by
harsh words or other such ways of hurting them. Accordingly this verse
stands abrogated by the verse of flogging in the chapter of ‘The Light’.
As for a tradition that this verse speaks about virgin girls who commit
50 AL-MĪZĀN

fornication, it is a khabaru ’l-wāhid 1 , apart from being al-mursalah 2 ,

and therefore weak. And Allāh knows better. (However, this
interpretation is not free from weakness, because prior indication that a
certain rule would be abrogated later, does not water down the
abrogation.)

QUR’ĀN: then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them:
Repentance is qualified by amendment; it is to establish the reality of
repentance, to make it clear that repentance is not mere utterance of some
words or just to be carried away by some pangs of conscience; [it
requires definite improvement of behaviour and character].

TRADITIONS

It is narrated in at-Tafsīr of al-‘Ayyāshī from as-Sādiq (a.s.) that he

said about the word of Allāh: And as for those who are guilty of
indecency from among your women ..., that it was abrogated and that the
‘way’ [referred to here] was the laid down penal code. (al-Kāfī)
al-Bāqir (a.s.) was asked about this verse and he said: ‘‘It is
abrogated.’’ He was asked: ‘‘How was it?’’ He said: ‘‘When a woman
committed indecency [i.e., fornication], and four witnesses stood (to give
evidence) against her, she was confined to a house; no one spoke to or
talked with her, nor anyone sat with her; she was provided her food and
drink — [this was to continue] until she died or Allāh made some way
for her.’’ Then he said: ‘‘Making way (for her) is the flogging and
stoning.’’ It was said: ‘‘(And what is the meaning of the words of Allāh:)
And as for the two who are guilty of it ...?’’ He said: ‘‘It means, when a
virgin is guilty of the indecency which was done by this non-virgin.’’ [He
was asked the import of the words:] afflict them both. He said: ‘‘She will
be confined.’’ ... (ibid.)
The author says: The story that the rule in the early days of Islam

1
Khabaru ’l-wāhid ( ‫ﺣ ِﺪ‬ ِ ‫ﺧﺒَﺮاﻟْﻮَا‬
َ ) = a tradition narrated by a few, or only
one, narrator. (tr.)
2
al-Mursalah ( ‫ﺳَﻠ ُﺔ‬
َ ْ‫ = ) َاﻟْ ُﻤﺮ‬a tradition quoted from the Prophet or Imām
without describing the linking sources between the narrator and the Prophet
or Imām. (tr.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 15 — 16 51

was to confine them into the houses until death, has been narrated by the
Sunnīs through many chains of narrators, from Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah,
Mujāhid and others. It has been narrated from as-Suddī that confinement
into the houses was the rule for non-virgins, and the affliction mentioned
in the second verse was the order for unmarried girls and boys.
But you have seen what is to be said in this context.

*****
 Repentance with Allāh is only for those who do evil in ignorance,
then turn (to Allāh) soon, so these it is to whom Allāh turns
(mercifully), and Allāh is All-knowing. Wise (17). And repentance
is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death
comes to one of them, he says: ‘‘Surely, now I repent’’; nor (for)
those who die while they are unbelievers. These are they for
whom We have prepared a painful chastisement (18).

*****

COMMENTARY

These two verses are not without a certain connection with the
preceding two which had ended on the theme of repentance, possibly all
four might have been revealed together. Nevertheless, these two

52
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 53

independently throw light on a theme which is among the most sublime

Islamic realities and highest Qur’ānic teachings, and that is the reality of
repentance and its significance as well as the rules governing it.

QUR’ĀN: Repentance with Allāh is only for those who do evil in

ignorance, then turn (to Allāh) soon: ‘‘at-Tawbah’’ ( ‫ ) ًاَﻟ ﱠﺘﻮْ َﺑ ُﺔ‬means to
return. It signifies returning of a servant to Allāh with remorse for his
misdeeds and a firm intention to leave the way that was distancing him
from the path of servitude. When ascribed to Allāh, it means that Allāh
returns towards His servant with mercy, (first) forgiving his sin. We have
repeatedly said that, according to the Qur’ān, a servant’s single
repentance is flanked by two returnings from Allāh. The fact is that
repentance is a good deed, a virtuous act which requires strength and
will-power; and all virtues emanate from Allāh, and all power and
strength belongs to Him. It is Allāh who manages the affairs in a way that
the servant becomes able to repent, gets strength to cut himself off from
the factors which were taking him away from Allāh, and thus he returns
to his Lord. After being helped in this way to repent from his sins and to
return to Allāh, he again needs a second ‘returning’ by Allāh in order that
he could be cleansed from those impurities, purified from those
pollutions, so that he may reach and be settled near his Lord — this
second returning again shows divine mercy and compassion as well as
His forgiveness and pardon.
These two divine returnings are the two ‘repentances’ which surround
a servant’s repentance and returning. Allāh says: then He turned to them
(mercifully) that they might turn (to Him) ... (9:118). This refers to the
first returning. Again He says: these it is to whom I turn (mercifully) ...
(2:160); and this is the second returning; between these two divine
returnings comes the servant’s returning, his repentance.
The starting clause, ‘‘Repentance with Allāh is only for those ...’’
literally means: Repentance on ( ‫‘ = ﻋَﻠﻲ‬alā) Allāh is only for ( ‫ل‬ ِ = li)
those ... ‘alā (on) and li (for) denote harm and benefit, respectively; as we
say: ‘Adversities came on ‘Amr ( ‫‘ = ﻋَﻠﻲ ﻋَﻤْﺮٍو‬alā ‘Amr) to the benefit of (
‫ = ِﻟ َﺰﻳْ ٍﺪ‬li Zayd) Zayd. Or as we say: The race was for (li) X on (‘alā) Y,
that is, X won the race against Y. It is because ‘alā (on) implies height
and domination; and li (for) denotes possession and right. Consequently,
in the matters involving two parties (like war, fighting and dispute, in
54 AL-MĪZĀN

which one party gets some benefits and the other is harmed, one
overpowers and the other is overpowered), the victor acquires some
rights over the vanguished, and the latter is prevailed upon, ruled over.
The same is the case in similar situations. Look, for example, at the effect
between an influencing factor and the influenced, or at the link a promise
creates between the giver of promise and the one to whom it was given,
and so on. It is now clear that the two prepositions (‘alā and li) have
acquired the connotations, of harm and benefit, respectively, because of
contexts in which they are frequently used — not because it is their
original meaning.
Now, let us see, how repentance succeeds, why it benefits the
servants of Allāh. It is because of a promise which Allāh has given to the
servants; in this way He Himself has made it obligatory for Himself to
accept their repentance. He has said in this verse: ‘‘Repentance with (on)
Allāh is only for those who do evil in ignorance’’. In this way it becomes
obligatory for Allāh to accept His servant’s repentance. It does not mean
that anyone else can obligate Allāh to do something, or can prescribe a
duty for Him — it makes no difference whether you call that one the
reason, the nature of the affair, the reality, or the truth; or give it any
other name, Allāh is Greater and Holier than such ascriptions. Rather this
matter is based on the fact that Allāh has promised His servants that He
would accept the repentance of those who would repent; and He does not
break His promise. This is the implication of the statement that it is
obligatory for Allāh to accept and grant the repentance in relevant
situations. And it is the connotation of every declaration where we say
that a certain action is al-wājib ( ‫ﺐ‬
ُ ‫ﺟ‬
ِ ‫ = َاﻟْﻮَا‬obligatory) for Allāh.
Obviously, the verse is focussed not on a servant’s repentance, but on
Allāh’s returning with mercy towards that servant, although in this
process it inevitably throws light on matters related to the servant’s
repentance. Allāh’s returning (with all its conditions) cannot remain
separate from the servant’s repentance (with all its conditions fulfilled).
This topic, that the verse is meant to describe Allāh’s returning, does not
require further explanation.
Secondly, it covers all types of repentance, whether the servant
repents from polytheism and disbelief and returns to the true faith, or
from sin and disobedience and returns to obedience (if he is already a
believer). The Qur’ān calls both aspects as repentance. Allāh says: Those
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 55

who bear the throne and those around it celebrate the praise of their
Lord and believe: ‘‘Our Lord! Thou embracest all things in mercy and
knowledge, therefore grant forgiveness to those who turn (to Thee) and
follow Thy way ... (40:7). Here, the words, ‘those who turn (to Thee)’,
mean, those who believe, because previously it has been said: and ask
forgiveness for those who believe. Thus belief has been called at-tawbah
( ‫ = اَﻟﺘﱠﻮْ َﺑ ُﺔ‬repentance), In another verse, Allāh says (referring to some
believers): then He turned to them (mercifully) that they might turn (to
Him), (9:118).
The generality found in the next verse, And repentance is not for
those ..., proves that repentance, as envisaged in these verses, covers
repentance from polytheism and disbelief as well as from sin and
disobedience, because the verse comments on situations of disbelievers
and believers both. Accordingly, the clause, ‘‘those who do evil in
ignorance’’, encompasses both the believers and the disbelievers; a
disbeliever is included, like a disobeying believer among ‘‘those who do
evil in ignorance’’. How? It is because disbelief is an action of heart and
‘doing evil’ covers deeds of heart too like those of other organs; or
because disbelief always brings evil actions in its wake. Therefore,
‘‘those who do evil in ignorance’’, refers to a disbeliever as well as to a
disobeying believer — provided they are not wilfully obstinate in their
disbelief or sin.
As for the words, ‘‘in ignorance’’, obviously ignorance, per se, is
opposite of knowledge. People are conscious of the fact that they do all
their deeds with knowledge and will; and that the will emanates from a
certain love or longing. It makes no difference whether that action is
likeable in the eyes of the society’s sages or not; but it is believed that a
man of discriminating intelligence will not commit an evil censured by
the sages. Based on this assumption they believe that anyone who, being
overcome by psychological bent, or motives of desire or anger, commits
any blameworthy evil deed, does so only because he becomes oblivious
of knowledge, and consequently loses his sagacity which distiguishes
between good and bad, between praiseworthy and blameworthy: in this
manner, he is overpowered by desire and commits evil. That is why they
call it ignorance, although in reality it could not be done without a degree
of knowledge and will. But as his knowledge of the indecency and evil of
that action did not prevent him from falling into that trap, that knowledge
56 AL-MĪZĀN

was discounted as nonknowledge, and he was called ‘ignorant’. That is

why they call a young inexperienced person ‘ignorant’ as his actions are
governed by desire, and raw sentiments and emotions dominate his life.
Also it is for the same reason that they do not call an unrepentant sinner
(who feels no remorse for his sins and does not turn away from desires
and sentimentalities) ‘ignorant’; his condition is rather called obstinacy
and willfulness, etc.
It is now clear that ignorance in this context means doing an evil deed
under the influence of desire or anger — without being obstinate in face
of truth. It is an intrinsic nature of such deeds (done in ignorance) that
when the storm subsides and the inflamed desire or anger is extinguished
— be it because of doing that evil, or because of some hindrance, or
because of passage of time, or weakening of powers, or through ill health
— the man returns to the knoweldge and that ignorance goes away; then
he feels remorse for what he had done.
But this process does not take place in the evil which is done because
of obstinacy and willfulness, etc. Such evil is not done because of some
agitation of a power or inflamation of desire or sentiments; its root cause
is what they call malevolence of nature, wickedness of heart. There is no
hope that one day it will go away after the inflamed passion has subsided.
It would rather continue throughout the life without his feeling any
remorse in near future — except that Allāh wills it.
Of course, it happens sometimes that an obstinate stubborn person
turns away from his obstinacy and stubborness; and instead of
confronting the truth he now submits to it and enters into the fold of
servitude. This change proves that even his obstinacy was based on
ignorance. And why not? In actuality every disobedience emanates from
man’s ignorance. From this point of view, no one could be called an
obstinate and stubborn sinner except the one who never turns away from
his evil deeds to the last moment of his life and health.
The above discourse shows the significance of the divine words,
‘‘then turn (to Allāh) soon’’. The man who does evil because of
ignorance, would not remain busily engaged in his misdeed, addicted to it
all his life; he would not do as obstinate stubborn ones do who never
show any sign of returning to piety and submission. He would rather turn
away from that misdeed and return to Allāh soon. The adverb. ‘soon’,
refers to nearness of time; and it means, ‘before death comes to him and
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 57

before the signs of the other world appear before his eyes’.
Of course, every obstinate and stubborn person becomes contrite
when he is faced with unpleasant consequences and chastisement of his
evil deeds; he then disavows his deeds, shows repulsion towards them.
But actually he is not repentant in his heart; his remorse does not emanate
from any reform of character. It is merely a device, his wicked soul has
adopted for saving himself from the consequences of his evil activities.
Proof? As soon as that particular punishment is averted, he returns to the
same evil-doing. Allāh says: and if they were sent back, they would
certainly go back to that which they are forbidden, and most surely they
are Tiers (6:28).
Why do we say that the word, ‘soon’, here means: before the signs of
death appear before him? It is because Allāh says in the second verse:
And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when
death comes to one of them, he says: ‘‘Surely now I repent.’’
Accordingly, the clause, ‘‘then turn (to Allāh) soon’’, is an adverse
indirect allusion to those who go on postponing repentance until its
chances are lost for ever.
The above discourse shows that the two clauses, ‘‘in ignorance’’ and
‘‘then turn (to Allāh) soon’’, are exclusive conditions. The former means
that the servant does not do evil in arrogance and obstinacy; the latter,
that he does not delay his repentance until the death-time — showing his
indifference, negligence and procrastination. Repentance, after all, is
man’s returning to Allāh with firm intention of serving Him. Allāh’s
turning then means that He accepts that servant’s return to Him. But
service and worship of Allāh has no meaning if there is no time left in
this world; because it is this worldly life which is the arena of the free
choice and the place of obedience and disobedience. When the signs of
death appear, the free will and choice — the basis of obedience and
disobedience — ceases to exist. Allāh says: On the day when some of the
signs of your Lord shall come, its faith shall not profit a soul which did
not believe before, or earn good through its faith (6:158); But when they
saw Our punishment, they said: ‘‘We believe in Allāh alone and we deny
what we used to associate with Him.’’But their belief was not going to
profit them when they had seen Our punishment; (this is) Allāh’s law,
which has indeed obtained in the matter of His servants, and there the
unbelievers are lost (40:84 — 85).
58 AL-MĪZĀN

In short, the verse says that Allāh accepts the repentance of a

disobedient and sinner servant, provided the sin was not committed in
haughtiness, showing arrogance towards Allāh (because it would then
kill the spirit of repentance and submission to Allāh) and provided the
man does not display indifference and tardiness in repentance, neglecting
it until death arrives and the chance is lost for ever.
Also, it is possible to treat the clause, ‘‘in ignorance’’, as an
explanatory description. The meaning then would be as follows: ‘... those
who do evil; and evil is always done in ignorance, as with it man puts
himself in danger of painful chastisement’, or, ‘... evil is always done in
ignorance, because the evil-doer does not know the reality of
disobedience nor the resulting dangers’.
If we adopt this explanation, then the clause, ‘‘then turn (to Allāh)
soon’’, would signify their repenting before appearance of signs of death;
it would not be an allusion to tardiness in repentance. Why? Because,
according to this explanation, those who commit evil deeds because of
arrogance, and because they do not submit to their Lord, would be
excluded, not by the words, ‘‘in ignorance’’ but by the clause, ‘‘then turn
(to Allāh) soon’’; and in that case, this latter clause cannot be an allusion
to indifference and negligence. Ponder on it.
But probably the first explanation is more in conformity with the
apparent meanings of the verse.
Someone has reportedly said: The words, ‘‘then turn (to Allāh)
soon’’, signify that repentance should occur nearer to the time of
disobedience, that is, immediately after committing a sin or soon enough
to be thought as connected to it. One should not neglect it until the time
of death.
Reply: This explanation is wrong, because it undermines the second
verse’s meaning. The two verses aim at giving the basic comprehensive
principle concerning Allāh’s turning, that is, how and when Allāh accepts
a servant's repentance. It may clearly be understood from the particle of
exclusion and restriction in the first verse, ‘‘Repentance with Allāh is
only for those ...’’. The second verse describes the situations when
repentance is not accepted; and it mentions only two situations: i)
Repentance of that sinner who goes on neglecting and delaying it until
the death arrives; ii) Repentance of an unbeliever who dies in his
disbelief. Now, if only that repentance were acceptable which would
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 59

follow the sin without delay — that which could be thought connected to
the sin — then it would give us a third situation where repentance was
unacceptable. But the verse mentions only two.

QUR’ĀN: so these it is to whom Allāh turns (mercifully); and Allāh is

All-knowing, Wise: The demonstrative pronoun ulā’ika ( ‫ﻚ‬ َ ‫ = اُوﻟ ِﺌ‬translated
here as ‘these’) actually means, ‘those’, and points to distant objects. Its
use might be a symbolic expression of the honour and dignity which
Allāh wants to bestow on them. The same is the implication of the
singular, ‘evil’, as it indicates an indulgence in reckoning of their sins.
Compare it with the plural in the next verse: And repentance is not for
those who go on doing evil deeds ...
The verse ends on the clause: ‘‘and Allāh is All-knowing, Wise’’; it
does not say, Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful. The two divine attributes
show why Allāh has opened the door of repentance. It is because He
knows His servants’ condition, and the effects of their weaknesses and
ignorance; and because He, in His wisdom, found it necessary to open
some ways to strengthen the system and put the things in good shape.
Also, the attributes remind the repenting servant that Allāh is not
deceived by appearance, He examines the hearts; deceit and cunning
cannot deceive Him; therefore, a repenter must repent in a proper and
sincere way, so that Allāh should answer him with mercy and
forgiveness.

QUR’ĀN: And repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds ...
‘‘Surely, now I repent’’: Note that the words, with Allāh, have not been
repeated here, although the connotation is the same. This omission gives
a clear hint that they have been cut off from the especial divine mercy
and care. Also the use of plural, ‘‘evil deeds’’, shows that all their
misdeeds will be counted and recorded for the final reckoning, as we
have mentioned earlier.
The clause, ‘‘who go on doing evil deeds’’, as qualified by the
following clause, that is, ‘‘until when death comes to one of them’’
indicates continuation of action. It is either because carelessness in
repentance, postponing it day after day, is in itself a continuously
repeated sin; or because it is as though he was going on committing sins
incessantly; or because indifference towards repentance generally makes
60 AL-MĪZĀN

one commit the same or similar sins again and again.

The verse says: ‘‘until when death comes to one of them’’, instead of
saying, until when death comes to them. It points to the disdain and
indifference with which they treat this matter. Its connotation:
Repentance, in their eyes, is such an un-important matter, such an easy
thing, that they go on doing what they desire, going the way they wish,
without any care. Then when death comes to one of them he says:
‘Surely, now I repent.’ And he thinks that merely by uttering these
words, or by just thinking of them in the last moment of his life, the
consequences of sins, the perils of disobeying divine commands, will be
everted.
This explanation makes it clearer why the words, ‘I repent’, have
been qualified by ‘now’. It shows that the speaker is only repenting — in
words or thought — because death has overtaken him and now he sees
the next world’s overwhelming power before his eyes. In effect it means:
I repent as I have now seen the inescapable death and inescapable
recompense. Allāh describes a similar plea to be made by the guilty ones
on the Day of Resurrection: And could you but see when the guilty shall
hang down their heads before their Lord: ‘‘Our Lord! we have seen and
we have heard, therefore send us back, so that we do good; surely (now)
we are certain.’’ (32:12).
So, that is a repentance that is not acceptable at all: because it is his
losing hope of worldly life and the fright of the newly seen horizon that
have forced him to feel remorse for his misdeeds and to resolve to return
to his Lord. But where is there any chance of returning, when there is no
worldly life left and no practical choice available?

QUR’ĀN: nor (for) those who die while they are unbelievers: This is the
other case where repentance is not accepted. It concerns a man who
continues in his disbelief and dies in disbelief. Allāh does not accept his
returning, because on that day his repentance, i.e., his belief, will not
benefit him at all. The Qur’ān repeatedly says that there is no deliverance
after death if one dies in disbelief, and that they will not get any reply
even if they asked and prayed. Allāh says: Except those who repent and
amend and make manifest (the truth), these it is to whom I turn
(mercifully); and I am the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful. Surely
those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 61

whom is the curse of Allāh and the angels and men all; abiding in it;
their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be given respite
(2:160 — 62). Also He says: Surely, those who disbelieve and die while
they are unbelievers, the earth full of gold shall not be accepted from one
of them, though he should offer to ransom himself with it; these it is who
shall have a painful chastisement, and they shall have no helpers (3:91).
As explained in the third volume under this verse, the negation of helpers
means that they shall have no intercessors. 1
The qualifying phrase, ‘‘while they are unbelievers’’, indicates that
there is a possibility of ‘return’ for a disobedient believer if he dies in
disobedience — but without arrogance or negligence. Of course, death
will make the idea of the servant’s repentance (his return to the fold of
servitude by his own choice) irrelevant, as described above. But Allāh’s
return to the servant with forgiveness and mercy may still happen
because of the intercessors’ intercession. This in itself is a proof that the
two verses primarily aim at describing Allāh’s return to His servant; if
they throw some light on the servants’ repentance, on their return to
Allāh, it is only incidentally and in passing.

QUR’ĀN: These are they for whom We have prepared a painful

chastisement: Again the demonstrative pronoun for distant objects has
been used. (The pronoun translated as ‘these’ literally means, ‘those’.)
This word, in this context, points to their distance from the courtyard of
proximity and honour. al-I‘tād ( ‫ = َاﻟِْﺎﻋْﺘَﺎ ُد‬to prepare; to promise).

ON REPENTANCE

Repentance, in its full significance as laid down in the Qur’ān, is

among those positive teachings which are exclusive property of the
Qur’ān. Repentance, in the meaning of belief after disbelief and
polytheism, was common in all divine religions, vis. the religions of
Mūsā and ‘Īsā (peace be on both); but it was seen as ‘belief’ and that was
that; there was nothing like analysing the reality of repentance and
extending it to the belief.

1
See the Eng. transl. vol.6, pp.235 — 7 (tr.)
62 AL-MĪZĀN

Not only that. It appears from the foundations on which the

Christianity was built as an independent religion, that repentance is
useless and man cannot gain any benefit from it. This may easily be seen
in the arguments offered for explaining the crucifixion and atonement; as
narrated in the third valume 1 of this book where we have discussed the
creation of Christ.
Nevertheless, the Church went so far in the matter of repentance that
it was selling indulgence certificates turning it into a merchandise; and
the priests were [and are] pardoning sins of those who confessed before
them. But as for the Qur’ān, it has analysed man’s condition seeing that
he has been invited to Allāh and provided with guidance; and looking at
the perfection, honour and felicity he is entitled to in the hereafter near
Allāh; which is indispensable in his intended journey to his Lord — and
that .analysis has found the man utterly poor in his person, empty-handed
in his entity. Allāh says: O men! you are the ones who stand in need of
Allāh, and Allāh is He Who is the Self-sufficient, the Praised One
(35:15). Also He says: ... and they control not for themselves any harm or
profit, and they control not death, nor life, nor raising (the dead) to life
(25:3).
Therefore, man has fallen in the pit of unhappiness, away from divine
proximity, isolated in his neediness, as the words of Allāh point to it:
Certainly We created man in the best make. Then We rendered him the
lowest of the low (95:4 — 5); And there is not one of you but shall come
down to it; this is a decided decree of your Lord. And We will deliver
those who were pious, and We will leave the unjust therein on their knees
(19:71 — 72); ... therefore let him not drive you both from the garden so
that you should be put to toil (20:117).
Consequently, if he wants to achieve the position of honour and enjoy
ever-lasting happiness, he must come out from that pit of unhappiness,
return from the far away station, and transfer himself to the proximity of
his Lord. It is what is called his returning to his Lord in the basic
happiness, i.e., true faith, and in secondary happiness, i.e., all good deeds.
This is what is called repentance and returning from root of happiness,
i.e., polytheism, and branches of unhappiness, i.e., evil deeds other than
polytheism. It is on repentance (i.e., returning to Allāh and removing all

1
See the Eng. transl. vol.6, pp.145 — 217 (ed.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 63

the pollutions of infelicity and disobedience) that settlement in the abode

of honour through true belief depends, as does enjoyment of various
bounties of obedience and proximity. In other words, man can reach
nearer to Allāh in the appointed abode of honour only if lie repents from
polytheism and all disobedience. Allāh says: ... and turn to Allāh all of
you, O believers! so that you may be successful (24:31). Thus repentance,
in the meaning of returning to Allāh, covers both types of repentance;
rather it covers these two and other kinds also, as we shall describe later,
Allāh willing.
Man is needy in himself and does not control for himself any good or
happiness except by favour of his Lord. Consequently, for this return too,
he needs a favour from his Lord and a divine help in his affairs. The
servant’s return to his Lord with feelings of servitude and dependence
needs first a return of his Lord to him with help and support; and it is a
return of Allāh to the servant that proceeds repentance of the servant to
his Lord, as Allāh has said: ... then He turned to them (mercifully) that
they might turn (to Him) ... (9:118). But repentance and return to Allāh is
of no use unless Allāh accepts it by forgiving his sins and cleansing him
of the pollution of separateness; and this is the second returning of Allāh
that follows the servant’s repentance, as Allāh has said in the verse under
discussion: so these it is to whom Allāh turns (mercifully) ...
On meditating deeply, it will be realized that this plurality of divine
returning occurs only when one looks at it vis-a-vis servant’s repentance.
Otherwise, it is actually a single return; that is, Allāh turns to His servant
with mercy and compassion; and it takes place when a servant repents
and returns to Allāh — and that mercy covers the servant from before his
repentance till after it. Moreover, that merciful divine turning sometimes
takes place even without the servant’s repentance, as we have earlier
inferred from the divine words: nor (for) those who die while they are
unbelievers. It has also been explained that granting intercession for
sinner servant on the Day of Resurrection is an example of turning
mercifully to him. The following verse points to that connotation: And
Allāh desires that He should turn to you (mercifully), and those who
follow (their) lusts desire that you should deviate (with) a great deviation
(4:27),
Nearness and remoteness are relative terms. Therefore, it is quite
possible that within circle of nearness some areas would be remoter than
64 AL-MĪZĀN

the others. In this way, ‘repentance’ may be used for even those good
servants who are nearer to Allāh, when they rise to a station that is even
higher and nearer than their previous place. This phenomenon is seen in
the verses where Allāh mentions ‘repentance’ of the prophets even
though they are sinless as other verses clearly say For example:
Then Adam received (some) words from his Lord, so He turned to
Him mercifully (2:37).
And (remember) when Ibrāhīm and Ismā‘īl were raising the
foundations of the House: ‘‘Our Lord! accept from us: ... and turn to
us (mercifully), surely Thou art Oft-returning (with mercy), the
Merciful.’’ (2:127 — 8).
... he (Mūsā, a.s.) said: ‘‘Glory be to Thee, I turn to Thee, and I am
the first of the believers.’’ (7:143).
Therefore be patient (O Prophet!); surely the promise of Allāh is true;
and seek pardon for your fault and sing the praise of your Lord in the
evening and the morning (40:55). Certainly Allāh has turned
(mercifully) to the Prophet and those who fled (their homes) and the
helpers who followed him in the hour of straitness ... (9:117).
This is the general ‘return’ of Allāh which is referred to by many
Qur’ānic verses, as for example: The Forgiver of the faults and the
Accepter of repentance ... (40:3); And He it is Who accepts repentance
from His servants .. (42:25).
The above discourse may be summarized as follows:
First: Bestowal of Allāh’s mercy on a servant by forgiving his sins
and removing the darkness of disobedience from his heart — whether
polytheism or other evils — is Allāh’s merciful returning to His servant;
and return of a servant to His Lord seeking pardon of his sins and
removal of his disobedience — whether polytheism or lesser evils — is
the servant’s repentance, and his return to his Lord.
It shows that a true Divine Call should be as much concerned with the
subject of sins as it should be with polytheism and disbelief; it should
invite men to a comprehensive repentance covering polytheism as well as
other sins.
Second: Return of Allāh to His servant both the first and the second
one — is a grace of Allāh like other bounties which He bestows on His
creatures without any coercion or constraint from anyone else. When it is
said that by reason it is obligatory for Allāh to accept repentance, its
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 65

connotation is not different from what is mentioned in many Qur’ānic

verses. See, for instance, the following verses: ... and the Accepter of
repentance ... (40:3); ... and turn to Allāh all of you, O believers ...
(24:31); ... surely Allāh loves those who turn much (to Him) ... (2:222); ...
so these it is to whom Allāh turns (mercifully) ... (4:17). These and other
such verses praise Allāh for His acceptance of repentance, call people to
repent, exhort them to seek forgiveness and turn to their Lord; as such
they contain promise of acceptance of repentance, either explicitly or
implicitly; and Allāh does not break His promise.
Obviously, Allāh is not under any compulsion to accept repentance;
His is the Kingdom and authority without any exception; He does what
He pleases to do and decides what He wishes. It is for Him to accept a
repentance according to His promise; or to reject that which He rejects,
as is clear from the divine words: Surely, those who disbelieve after their
believing, then increase in unbelief, their repentance shall never be
accepted ... (3:90). Possibly the same is the connotation of the following
verse: Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again believe
and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allāh will not forgive
them nor guide them in the (right) path (4:137).
A very strange interpretation has been advanced by a writer
concerning the Qur’ānic verses narrating the story of Pharaoh’s drowning
and repentance: ... until when drowning overtook him, he said: ‘‘I believe
that there is no god but He in Whom the children of Israel believe and I
am of those who submit.’’ What! now! and indeed you disobeyed before
and you were of the mischiefmakers (10:90 — 91).
His interpretation, in short, is as follows: The verse does not indicate
that Pharaoh’s repentance was rejected, nor is there anything in the
Qur’ān to show his ever-lasting perdition. It is difficult, for someone who
ponders on the spaciousness of God’s mercy and its precedence over His
wrath, to believe that Allāh would drive him away who was seeking
shelter at the door of His mercy and grace, abasing and humiliating
himself with abject desperation. Even a human being, after acquiring
natural good characteristics of generosity and benevolence, does show
mercy to such persons when they are really sorry for the evil deeds they
had done before. Then how much mercy will be shown by Him Who is
the Most Merciful of all, the Most Generous of all and Who is the Refuge
of the refuge-seekers?
66 AL-MĪZĀN

Reply: This hypothesis is rebutted by the divine words: And

repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death
comes to one of them, he says: ‘‘Surely, now I repent,’’ nor (for) those
who die while they are unbelievers. We have already explained that
repentance and regret at that late hour is a falsity; man shows that
remorse only because he now clearly sees the consequences of his sins,
and looks at the misfortunes of the next life rushing towards him.
Not every remorse is repentance, nor every repentance acceptable.
See how Allāh describes the condition of the guilty on the Day of
Resurrection: And they shall conceal regret when they shall see the
punishment (34:33). There are many other verses describing their regret
for what they had done and their plea to be sent back to this world in
order that they could do good deeds, and its rebuttal that even if they
were returned they would do what they were forbidden to and that they
were liars.
You should not imagine even for a moment that the earlier explained
Qur’ānic analysis of repentance is merely a mental exercise having no
relation with realities. If you contemplate on human felicity and
infelicity, goodness and wickedness, you will not get any result other
than repentance. Look at a normal man in society, keeping in view the
effect of education and bringing up on him. You will find that he by
himself is devoid of sociological good and evil; his psyche is capable of
accepting both imprints — without any preference to either. Now, let us
suppose that he wants to adorn himself with merit and virtue, to acquire
piety and righteousness. It will not be possible unless all necessary
factors join together to rescue him from the evil conditions he is
surrounded with. In spiritual context, it is like the first returning of Allāh
to His servant. Then comes the stage of taking himself out of, and away
from, the shabby condition and the fetters of tardiness. It is a repentance
like that of the servant returning to his Lord. Thereafter comes the final
step of removing the rust of mischief and depravity from his heart, so that
virtuous characteristics and light of goodness may take its place; because
the heart cannot accomodate goodness and vileness together. This is
equivalent to the acceptance of repentance and forgiveness — in the
context of the subject under discussion. The same process takes place in
the matters of collective good of society in which man lives according to
natural dictate. All the rules and effects which the religion considers
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 67

important in matters of repentance are applied in individual and social

context too, according to the natural trait which Allāh has created in man.
Third: As may be inferred from all the verses of repentance,
including the ones quoted in this discussion, repentance is a reality
having real effect on human psyche. It reforms and prepares it for human
good which contains felicity of this world and the next. In other words,
repentance proves effective — when it does — in removing spiritual
evils which pull man to all kinds of infelicity in this life and the hereafter
and prevent him from settling on the throne of felicity. But so far as the
rules of sharī‘ah and laws of religion are concerned they stay in their
place. No repentance can waive them as no disobedience can remove
them.
Nevertheless, there are some rules which have some links with
repentance, and are waived if one repents. This is ordained, keeping in
view the interest of the creation; but in no way it means that repentance,
per se, waives any of the divine laws. Allāh says: And as for the two who
are guilty of it (i.e., indecency) from among you, afflict them both; then if
they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allāh is Oft-
returning (to mercy), the Merciful (4:16); The punishment of those who
wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and strive to make mischief
in the land is only this, that they should be killed or crucified or their
hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be
imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the
hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement; except those who
repent before you have them in your power so know that Allāh is
Forgiving, Merciful (5:33 — 34). There are a few other verses of this
import.
Fourth: The basic purpose for which the institution of repentance has
been established, (as is clear from the above discourse) is to get
deliverance from perdition of sin and disaster of disobedience, because
repentance is a means of success and is instrumental in achieving felicity,
as is implied in the verse: ... and turn to Allāh all of you, O believers! so
that you may be successful (24:31).
One of its benefits, apart from the above, is this: It preserves the spirit
of hope, lest it be overwhelmed by desperation. Man cannot proceed
straight on the path of life unless there is a perfect balance between hope
and fear. It is this equilibrium that attracts him to what is beneficial to
68 AL-MĪZĀN

him and repulses him from what is harmful; otherwise he would have
perished. Allāh says: Say: ‘‘O my servants who have acted extravagantly
against their own souls, do not despair of the mercy of Allāh; surely He
is the Forgiving, the Merciful. And return to your Lord ...’’ (39:53 —
54). Any scholar of human psychology will tell you that man perseveres
in his efforts with zeal and ardour as long as his labour seems to bear
fruits. But if he finds his efforts going to waste, he feels dejected and
depressed, hope gives way to despair and his actions lose vigour and
vitality. Often he stops whatever he was doing, as he feels that he can in
no way achieve success; he loses heart and is overwhelmed by
pessimism. Repentance is the only cure for this disease; it revives his
heart even when he has reached the brink of disaster and perdition.
Some people have misunderstood repentance and said that
establishment of the institution of repentance and calling people to avail
themselves of its benefits was tantamount to inciting them to commit sins
and encouraging them to disobey Allāh. When man is sure that if he
committed a sin Allāh would accept his repentance, it will surely
embolden him to violate the sanctity of divine law, to dive headlong in
the abyss of sins and crimes. He will go on committing sin after sin
intending to repent after each transgression.
But, in view of what we have explained above, there is no room for
this misunderstanding. Apart from the fact that acquirement of virtues
depend on remission of sins, repentance is meant to keep the hope alive;
and this revival of optimism has its own good effects. There is no
question here of a man committing a sin thinking that he would repent
afterwards. This objection has missed the point altogether; because such
a repentance is totally devoid of the reality of repentance. Repentance is
renouncement of sins, and there is no renouncement in the situation
mentioned by the objector. Why? Because he had planned to repent
before the sin, and with the sin, and after the sin; and how can one feel
remorse (i.e., repentance) before the action? The fact is that, in such
cases, the whole activity — the sin and the so-called repentance — taken
together is one action with one intention; and that is trickery and
deception, with which he tries to deceive the Lord of the worlds. But evil
plan does not beset any except its authors.
Fifth: Sin is an evil stand of man and has bad effect on his life.
Consequently, he cannot repent, cannot turn away from it, unless first he
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 69

realizes, and is sure of, its evil. This knowledge and certainty cannot fail
to produce regret and remorse for it. Remorse is a particular
psychological response to committing an evil deed. When that remorse
takes hold, then man may change his direction to do some good deeds,
opposite to that evil one. This second step will be a proof that he has
really repented and returned to his Lord.
This forms the basis of all the formalities and manners of repentance
laid down by the sharī‘ah, e.g., expressing regret, asking for forgiveness,
acquiring habit of doing good deeds, discarding evil deeds, and other
related things described in the traditions and the books of ethics.
Sixth: Repentance means returning, by one’s free will and choice,
from evil and sin to obedience and servitude. As such, it can take place
only where man has free choice, i.e., in the life of this world. But where
there is no freedom to choose between good and bad, between felicity
and infelicity, there is no room for repentance. The preceding discourse
throws light on this aspect.
A field where repentance is ineffective and inadmissible, is violation
of other people’s rights; because repentance is beneficial concerning
Allāh’s rights only. If a sin has violated other people’s rights, more
repentance will do no good at all; the victims’ pleasure must be obtained
if the sinner wants to erase that sin. Allāh has given some rights to people
in their properties, honour and lives. According to the divine law, it is an
injustice and transgression to violate these rights. He cannot grant
remission if someone transgresses any of these rights. Otherwise it would
be tantamount to depriving the victims of their due rights without any
mistake on their part. Far be it from Him to do injustice when He has
forbidden us to do it; He has said: Surely Allāh does not do any injustice
to men (10:44).
Nevertheless, Islam — being repentance from polytheism — erases
every preceding evil, every past sin, which concerns the branches of
religion. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has said: ‘‘The Islam cuts away all (that
had happened) before it’’. This is the connotation of those verses which
declare that all sins will be forgiven. For example, Allāh says: Say: ‘‘O
my servant! who have acted extravagantly against their own souls, do not
despair of the mercy of Allāh; surely Allāh forgives the faults altogether;
surely He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. And return to your Lord and
submit to Him ... (39:53 — 54).
70 AL-MĪZĀN

Another example is the repentance of a person who originates an evil

custom or leads people astray. According to numerous traditions, his
chastisement will be equal to that of all those who followed him in that
evil custom or went astray. Obviously, reality of ‘return’ cannot take
place in such cases, because he had established something whose effect
would persist as long as that thing continues. Unlike those sins which are
confined between the servant and his Lord, it is almost impossible for an
originator of an evil custom to undo what he has done.
Seventh: No doubt, repentance. erases the sins where it is effective
and admissible, as Allāh says: To whomsoever then the admonition has
come from his Lord, then he desists, for him shall be what has already
passed, and his affair rests with Allāh (2:275), as has already been
explained in the second volume 1 . Also look at the following verse:
Except him who repents and believes and does a good deed; so these are
they of whom Allāh changes the evil deeds to good ones; and Allāh is
Forgiving, Merciful. And whoever repents and does good, he surely turns
to Allāh a (goodly) turning (25:70 — 71). Its apparent meaning,
especially in view of the second verse, shows that repentance, by itself or
in conjunction with belief and good deeds, causes evil deeds to change to
good ones.
All this is true. But the fact remains that keeping away from evil
deeds is far better than committing a sin and then erasing it through
repentance. Allāh has made it clear in His book that sins, of whatever
type they may be, ultimately have some links with Satanic insinuation
and temptation. On the other hand He has portrayed His pure-hearted
servants, those who are free from sins and evils, in a way that cannot be
equalled by all praises revealed for the others: [Satan] said: ‘‘My Lord!
because Thou hast left me to stray, I will certainly make (evil) fair-
seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to go
astray. Except Thy servants from among them, the freed ones.’’ He said:
‘‘This is a straight path with Me. Surely, as regards My servants, thou
hast no authority over them ... (15:39 — 42). Also Allāh says quoting
Iblis in the same story: ... and Thou shalt not find most of them thankful
(7:17).
So, these sinless people have a especial prestigious position in the

1
See the Eng. transl. vol.4, pp.279 — 82 (tr.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 71

circle of servitude that is not shared by other good repenting servants.

TRADITIONS

The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said, inter alia, in his last sermon:
‘‘Whoever repents one year before his death, Allāh will turn (mercifully)
to him.’’ Then he said: ‘‘Surely, a year is too long; whoever repents one
month before his death, Allāh will turn (mercifully) to him.’’ Then he
said: ‘‘Surely a month is too long; whoever repents one day before his
death, Allāh will turn (mercifully) to him.’’ Then he said: ‘‘Surely a day
is too long; whoever repents one hour before his death, Allāh will turn
(mercifully) to him.’’ Then he said: ‘‘Surely an hour is too long; whoever
repents while his soul has reached here’’ — and he pointed with his hand
to his throat — ‘‘Allāh will turn (mercifully) to him.’’ (Man lā
yahduruhu ’l faqīh)
as-Sādiq (a.s.) said when he was asked about the word of Allāh, And
repentance is not for those who go on doing evil deeds, until when death
comes to one of them, he says: ‘‘Surely now I repent’’: ‘‘That is, when he
looks at the affairs of the next world.’’

The author says: al-Kulaynī has narrated the first tradition in al-Kāfī
through his chain from as-Sādiq (a.s.); it is also narrated through the
Sunnī chains, and there are other traditions too of the same import.
The second tradition gives the explanation of the verse; also it
explains those traditions which say that repentance in presence of death is
not accepted. Accordingly ‘‘in presence of death’’ means ‘when man
knows that the process of death has begun, and sees the signs of the
hereafter’; it is at that point that the door of repentance is closed against
him. But if a man is unaware of his impending death, then there is no
snag in acceptance of his repentance. Some of the following traditions
have similar meaning.

Zurārah has narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said: ‘‘When the
soul reaches here’’, pointing to his larynx, ‘‘then there is no repentance
for the knower; but there is repentance for the ignorant.’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-
‘Ayyāshī)
72 AL-MĪZĀN

It is reported in ad-Durru ’l-manthūr that Ahmad, al-Bukhārī (in his

at-Tafsīr), al-Hākim and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from Abū Dharr,
that he said: ‘‘Surely the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘Surely
Allāh accepts repentance of His servant, or forgives His servant, until the
curtain comes down.’ It was asked: ‘And what is the coming down of
curtain?’ He said: ‘The soul goes out while a polytheist.’ ’’
Ibn Jarīr has narrated from al-Hasan that he said: ‘‘[A report] has
come to me that the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘Verily Iblīs said
when he found that Adam had cavity [in his body]: ‘‘By Thy honour! I
will not leave his cavity as long as there was soul inside him.’’ Then
Allāh, the Blessed, the High, said: ‘‘By My honour! I will not come
between him and repentance as long as there was soul inside him.’’ ’ ’’
(ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
‘Alī al-Ahmasī has narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said: ‘‘By
Allāh! None gets deliverance from sins except he who confesses them.’’
Also he has narrated from the same Imām (a.s.): ‘‘Enough is remorse for
repentance.’’ (al-Kāfī)
It is narrated in al-Kāfī through two chains from Ibn Wahb that he
said: ‘‘I heard Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) saying: ‘When the servant repents, a
sincere repenting, Allāh loves him and covers him.’ I said: ‘And how
does He cover him?’ He said: ‘He makes his two angels forget what they
had written against him; then He inspires his limbs and the areas of the
earth to conceal his sins. Thus he meets Allāh — when he meets Him —
and there is nothing to give evidence against him concerning his sins.’ ’’
Muhammad ibn Muslim has narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he
said: ‘‘O Muhammad ibn Muslim! sins of the believer are forgiven to
him when he repents from them. Therefore, the believer should perform
his deeds afresh after repentance and forgiveness. But, by Allāh! it is not
but for the people of faith.’’ ‘‘I said: ‘But what if he relapses into sins
after repentance and forgiveness, and then repents again?’ He said: ‘O
Muhammad ibn Muslim! do you think that a believer servant feels
remorse for his sin and asks forgiveness from Allāh for it and repents and
then Allāh will not accept his repentance?’ I said: ‘Then if he does so
repeatedly; commits sin and repents and asks forgiveness?’ Then he said:
‘Whenever the believer returns asking for forgiveness and repenting,
Allāh the High, returns to him with forgiveness; and surely Allāh is
Forgiving, Merciful; He accepts repentance and pardons the evils.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 17 — 18 73

Therefore, be careful, lest you make the believers lose hope of Allāh’s
mercy.’ ’’ (al-Kāfī)
Abū ‘Amr az-Zubayrī narrates from Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) about the
words of Allāh, And most surely lam most forgiving to him who repents
and believes and does good, then continues to follow the right direction
[20:82], that he (a.s.) said: ‘‘This verse has an explanation, which
explanation is proved [by the fact] that Allāh does not accept any deed
from any servant except from him who meets Him with fulfilment of that
explanation, and with that condition which Allāh has imposed on the
believers.’’ And he said: ‘‘Repentance with Allāh is only for those who
do evil in ignorance; Allāh means that every sin which the servant does
— although he may be aware of it — he is ignorant when he thinks in his
heart to disobey his Lord; and Allāh has spoken about it quoting the talk
of Yūsuf to his brothers: Do you know how you treated Yūsuf and his
brother when you were ignorant? [12:89]. So he charged them with
ignorance because they planned in their hearts to commit sin against
Allāh.’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)

The author says: The text of the narration is not free from confusion
and disarray. Apparently the ealier portion is meant to show that good
deed is accepted when the servant fulfils its condition and does not
destroy it. After all, repentance is acceptable only when it restrains and
prevents the repenter from sin — even for a limited time.
And probably the text, ‘‘And he said: Repentance with Allāh is only
for those ... ’’, is a new topic, to show that the word, in ignorance, in this
verse is an explanatory clause, and that sin in general is ignorance — it
has already been given as an alternative explanation in the commentary.
This latter part is narrated also in Majma‘u ’l-bayān from the same Imām
(a.s.).

*****
O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should inherit
women against (their) will; and do not straiten them in order that
you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are
guilty of manifest indecency; and live with them in a proper
manner; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing
while Allāh has placed abundent good in it (19). And if you wish
to have (one) wife in place of another and you have given one of
them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything; would you
take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong? (20).
And how can you take it when one of you has already gone in to
the other and they have made with you a firm covenant? (21). And
marry not women whom your fathers married, except what has

74
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 19 — 22 75

already passed; this surely is indecent and hateful, and it is an

evil way (22).

*****

COMMENTARY

The talk returns to the subject of women, guiding the Muslims about
some related matters. This piece contains the clause, and live with them
in a proper manner; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a
thing while Allāh has placed abundant good in it. It is a basic Qur’ānic
principle which regulates woman’s social life.

QUR’Ā: O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should
inherit women against (their) will: The Arabs of the era of ignorance
counted wives of a deceased person as part of his inheritance if the
woman was not the heir’s mother, as history and traditions have reported.
The heirs took the widow as part of their share; one of them threw a cloth
on her and she became his property. If he wished, he married her,
inheriting the deceased’s marriage — without giving her a fresh dowry.
If he disliked marrying her, he held her in his custody; then if he was so
pleased, he gave her in marriage to someone and used her dowry himself;
and if he wished, he kept her in straitened condition, not allowing her to
marry, until she died and he inherited her property, if she had any.
Apparently, the verse forbids some custom that was prevalent among
them; and as some exegetes have written, it could be the above-
mentioned system of inheriting the widows. But the clause, ‘‘against
(their) will’’, does not agree with this interpretation, whether we take it
as an explanatory clause or a restrictive one. If it were taken as
explanatory clause, it would imply that that inheritance was always
disliked by women, always happened against their will — and obviously
it was not so. If it were taken as a restrictive clause, it would mean that
that inheritance was unlawful nly if it took place against the woman’s
will, but there was no harm if she freely agreed to it — but this too is not
correct.
Of course, dislike and unwillingness was a certainty when the heirs
prevented them from re-marrying, coveting, in all or most cases, their
76 AL-MĪZĀN

property after taking their possession by inheritance. Obviously, it is this

factor — contriving to inherit the woman’s property against her will —
which this verse has forbidden.
As for marrying them by inheritance, this verse does not deal with it;
that is forbidden by a coming verse, which says: And marry not women
whom your fathers married ... So far as the custom of giving them in
marriage to someone else and usurpation of their dowry by the concerned
heir is concerned, it is forbidden by such verses as: and women shall
have the benefit of what they earn (4:32). Also the verse: ... then when
they have fully attained their term, there is no blame on you for what they
do for themselves in a proper manner (2:234), discredits the whole
custom, guiding the people to the Islamic way.
As for the words: and do not straiten them in order that you may take
..., they do not refer to the afore-mentioned prevention of their re-
marrying (with intention of getting their property on their death), because
the subsequent clause: in order that you may take part of what you have
given them, clearly speaks about taking away part of the dowry which the
oppressing husband himself had given her; it does not refer to any
property which she might have got from other sources.
In short, the verse stops men from inheriting women’s property
against their will; it is not concerned with the custom of taking women
themselves as part of inheritance. Accordingly, either the word, ‘women’,
metaphorically refers to their property, or the word, ‘property of’, is
implied before it.

QUR’ĀN: and do not straiten them in order that you may take part of
what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency:
The conjunctive, ‘and’, conjoins it either with the preceding: that you
should inherit, (in which case it should be translated: nor that you should
straiten them), or with: it is not lawful for you, (taking the negative
present tense as equivalent to prohibitive mood). al-‘Adl ( ُ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻌﻀْﻞ‬to
prevent, to straiten, to put in difficulty); al fāhishah ( ‫ﺸ ُﺔ‬ َ‫ﺣ‬
ِ ‫ = َاﻟْﻔَﺎ‬indecency;
it is mostly used for fornication); al-mubayyanah ( ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤ َﺒ ﱠﻴ َﻨ ُﺔ‬clear).
Sībawayh has reportedly said that abāna, istabāna, bayyana, tabayyana (
‫ﻦ‬
َ ‫ َﺗ َﺒ ﱠﻴ‬،َ‫ َﺑ ﱠﻴﻦ‬،َ‫ِاﺳْ َﺘﺒَﺎن‬،َ‫ ) َاﺑَﺎن‬all have the same meaning, and are used both as
transitive and intransitive — all of them are used to say, for example:
The thing became clear, or, I made the thing clear.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 19 — 22 77

The verse makes it unlawful to put the wife in straitened condition —

in any way — with intention of compelling her to pay back to the
husband a part of dowry for dissolution of marriage-tie, so that she may
extricate herself from that difficult life. Imposing such difficulties with
this intention is unlawful for the husband. Of course, if the wife commits
manifest indecency, i.e., adultery, then he may put restrictions on her,
keeping her in straitened condition, in order that she may pay him
something to obtain divorce.
This verse is not in conflict with the verse 229 of the chapter of ‘The
Cow’: and it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given
them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allāh;
then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allāh, there is
no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby. It is a
specification; the verse of the chapter of ‘The Women’ specifies the one
of the chapter of ‘The Cow’, by restricting it to the case of fornication.
Moreover, the payment mentioned in the chapter of ‘The Cow’ refers to
that which is given by mutual agreement, and that cannot particularize
this verse.

QUR’ĀN: and live with them in a proper manner; ... abundant good in
it: ‘‘al-Ma‘rūf’’ ( ُ‫ ) َاﻟْ َﻤﻌْﺮُوف‬is that thing or custom which people
recognize in their social structure, which they do not reject or disapprove.
As the order to live with them is qualified with al-ma‘rūf, it tells men to
live with women in a manner that is known and recognized by the
society.
The living together that is known and recognized by the people is as
follows:
Every individual is an integral part of society, having equal
importance with all other parts; they all together constitute human
society; and each of them has a responsibility to strive as much as he can
to make up the society's deficiencies. He earns and makes what is
beneficial, takes from it according to his requirements, and gives the
surplus to the society. If someone is treated in a different way, and is
oppressed in a manner that his identity as an integral part is nullified,
then he becomes a vassal, he is exploited but is given nothing in lieu of
his labour. But it is exceptional case.
Allāh has described in His book that all people — men and women
78 AL-MĪZĀN

alike — are branches of a single human root; parts and components of

one human species. Society, for its existence, needs males as much as it
needs females — in equal degree. Allāh has said: you are (sprung) the
one from the other (4:25).
There is nothing contradictory when we see that each sex has been
bestowed some distinct characteristics which are not found in the other.
For instance, men on the whole are distiguished for their strength and
hardiness; and women by nature are more endowed with sentiments and
soft-heartedness. Humanity, in its creative and social lives, needs
demonstration of strength and hardiness as much as it requires
permeation of love and mercy. The two qualities together represent the
forces of attraction and repulsion which are prevalent in human society.
Thus the two sexes are equally balanced in weight, effect and
influence; in the same way as individual males are equal in their affect
and influences on this structure, in spite of their difference in natural and
social matters, like strength and weakness, knowledge and ignorance,
intelligence and obtuseness, smallness and greatness, leadership and
subordination, mastership and servitude, nobleness and vileness, and so
on.
This is the social order emanating from perceptivity of a normal
society that continues on the natural way without deviation. Islam has
fulfilled all requirements of society and removed its deficiencies. No
wonder that it had to establish the system of equality in society; and it is
this equality that is called social freedom. It gives freedom to the women
like the men.
Man, per se, has got the faculty of understanding and free will; with
that independent will he chooses what is beneficial to him and discards
what is harmful. Living in society he has the right to choose whatever he
wants — as long as it does not go against the society’s well-being —
with independent will without any hindrance from anyone; he is not
bound to opt for someone else’s choice without any will of his own. But,
as you have seen, this principle is not in conflict with specialization that
some classes, or a few members of the same class, should be distiguished
with some especial qualities — or should be particularly devoid of some
qualities. As for example, Islam has reserved judiciary, administration
and jihād for men; also they have been given responsibility of
maintaining the women. Or, as minor children are not competent to make
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 19 — 22 79

any acknowledgement or deal, and are exempted from the sharī‘ah’s

obligations. These examples show that different classes and individuals
are governed by different laws — which are based on difference of their
weight in society — although all of them are equal in their basic value in
human social structure, where the only criterion is that all are human
beings having understanding and free will.
Such restrictions and exclusions are not peculiar to the Islamic laws;
they are found, in varying degrees, in all civil codes; nay, in all human
systems, even in primitive customs. The clause, that encompasses all
these meanings, is the word of Allāh: and live with them in a proper
manner, as explained above.
As for the words of Allāh: then if you hate them, it may be that you
dislike a thing while Allāh has place abundant good in it, it presents a
known and definite fact in the shape of a doubtful matter. Often this style
is used to.prevent incitement of antagonism and prejudice in the
audience. The same style is seen in the following verses: Say: ‘‘Who
gives you the sustenance from the heavens and the earth?’’ Say: ‘‘Allāh.
And most surely we or you are on a right path or in manifest error.’’
Say: ‘‘You will not be questioned as to what we are guilty of, nor shall
we be questioned as to what you do.’’ (34:24 — 25).
At the time when the Qur’ān was revealed, human societies did not
accord the women the status of human being; they were not considered as
integral component of humanity. Some welladvanced civilizations treated
them as an appendage — beyond the human circle — whose only
purpose was to be used and exploited by man. Others recognized that
women were human beings, but of inferior quality; they were deficient in
humanity, like children and idiots, but with one difference: While
children’s or idiot’s deficiency was removable (after adulthood or by
treatment, respectively) women could never attain full human status.
Consequently, it was necessary for them to live as a dependent under
total authority of men for ever. It is interesting to note that Allāh has not
said: if you dislike their marriage; He has ascribed the dislike and hate
directly to their person: ‘‘if you hate them’’; probably this expression
was used keeping the above-mentioned social norm in view.

QUR’ĀN: And i f you wish to have ... manifest wrong?: al Istibdāl

(ُ‫ = َاﻟِْﺎﺳْ ِﺘﺒْﺪَال‬to seek a substitute); it is used here for replacement of a wife
80 AL-MĪZĀN

with another; or it implies taking a wife in place of another by

substitution. That is why ‘‘you wish’’ has been used with the istibdāl,
although the latter’s paradigm itself gives the meaning of wishing and
wanting. Accordingly, the meaning is as follows: And if you wish to take
one wife in place of another by substitution.
al-Buhtān ( ُ‫ ) َاﻟْ ُﺒﻬْﺘَﺎن‬is what stuns and bewilders someone; it is
generally used in meaning of false accusation. Grammatically, it is al-
masdar, but in this verse it has been used for an action, i.e., taking back a
part of dowry. Syntactically it describes state of the verb, ‘‘would you
take it’’; and so does the phrase, ‘‘manifest wrong’’. The question shows
disapproval.
The meaning: If you wish to divorce a wife and marry another in her
place, do not take back from the divorced wife any part of the dowry
which you had paid her — even if the amount you had given her was
huge and you want to take only a small portion.

QUR’ĀN: And how can you take it ... a firm covenant? ...: The question
creates a sense of astonishment. ‘‘al-Ifdā’ ’’ ( ‫ = َاﻟْ ِﺎﻓْﻀَﺂ ُء‬to reach, to arrive
at) is used for intimate touching; it is derived from al fadā’ ( ‫= َاﻟْ َﻔﻀَﺂ ُء‬
space, vastness).
As taking back a portion of dowry is an oppression and injustice, and
the parties had lived in intimacy and union, it was really an amazing
situation. Marriage and the resulting intimate sexual relation makes
husband and wife like one being; and it is really strange that one should
oppress one’s own self, or one part of a body should oppress the other
part.
Apparently, the clause, ‘‘and they have made with you a firm
covenant’’, refers to the union which the man had firmly established
through marriage-tie; and one of whose concomitants is the dowry fixed
at the time of marriage and which the woman receives from the man by
right.
Someone has said that the firm covenant refers to the promise taken
from man for woman that he would either retain her in a proper way or
let her go with fairness, as Allāh has mentioned [in 2:231]. Someone else
has said that it refers to their becoming lawful to each other as a result of
marriage. But quite obviously, these interpretations are far-fetched, as the
words of the verse show.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 19 — 22 81

TRADITIONS

Hāshim ibn ‘Abdillāh narrates from as-Sariyy al-Bajalī that he said:

‘‘I asked him about the word of Allāh, and do not straiten them in order
that you may take part of what you have given them: Then he quoted a
talk and then said: ‘As the Nabateans say that when he threw a cloth on
her, he restrained her, so that she could not marry anyone else. It was a
custom in the (era of) ignorance.’ ’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
Abu ’l-Jārūd narrates from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) about the word of Allāh,
O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should inherit women
against (their) will: ‘‘It was [a custom] in the [era of] ignorance [and]
when the Arab tribes first accepted Islam, that when a relative of a man
died leaving a woman, that man threw his cloth on her and thus inherited
her marriage by the same dowry which the [deceased] relative had given
her; the man inherited her marriage as he inherited his (the deceased’s)
property. When Abū Qays ibn al-Aslat died, Muhassan son of Abū Qays
threw his cloth on the woman of his father; and she was Kubayshah bint
Mu‘ammar ibn Mu‘bad. So, he inherited her marriage; then he left her —
he neither went in to her nor spent on her (maintenance). So, she came to
the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh! Abū
Qays ibn al-Aslat died and his son, Muhassan, inherited my marriage.
Now he does not come to me, nor does he spend on me, nor does he
release me so that I may join my own people.’ The Messenger of Allāh
(s.a.w.a.) said: ‘Go back to your house; and if Allāh ordains something
concerning your matter, I will inform you.’ Then it was revealed: And
marry not women whom your fathers married, except what has already
passed; this surely is indecent and hateful, and it is an evil way. Thus she
joined her own people. Also there were (other) women in Medina whose
marriage, like that of Kubayshah, was inherited; but they were inherited
from sons. Then Allāh revealed: O you who believe! it is not lawful for
you that you should inherit women against (their) will.’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-
Qummī)

The author says: The ending clause of the tradition is not free from
muddle and confusion. However, several Sunnī traditions too have
narrated this story and that the verse was revealed in that connection. All
82 AL-MĪZĀN

or most of the traditions say that the verse; O you who believe! it is not
lawful for you that you should inherit women ... , was revealed about the
above-mentioned event. But you have seen in the commentary that the
wording of the verse does not agree with this claim. However, there is no
doubt that the said event had happened, and that the verses are somehow
related to it and to the prevalent custom of the era of ignorance.
Therefore, what we have written earlier should be relied upon.

at-Tabrisī has written about the clause, unless they are guilty of
manifest indecency, that it is better to apply this word to every sin; and
has said that it is narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.). (Majma‘u ’l-bayān)
ash-Shaybānī has said: ‘‘Indecency is adultery, and the verse means
that if man comes to know of her indecency, then he may take ransom
(from her); and it is narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.).’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-
Burhān)
Ibn Jarīr has narrated from Jābir: ‘‘Verily, the Messenger of Allāh
has said: ‘Fear Allāh about women; because you have taken them in
Allāh’s trust, and have made their bodies lawful (to you) by the word of
Allāh; and it is your right on them that they should not let anyone you
dislike trample your bed; if they do so then you (may) hit them (but) not
violently; and they have a right on you for their maintenance and clothing
in a proper way.’ ’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Ibn Jarīr has narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that he said: ‘‘Verily, the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘O people! Verily, the women near
you [i.e., your wives] are [like] conscript labour [i.e., they are joined to
you for ever]; you have taken them in Allāh’s trust, and have made their
bodies lawful (to you) by the word of Allāh. So you have got right on
them, and it is among your rights on them that they should not let anyone
trample your bed, nor should they disobey you in any good (thing); and
when they do so [i.e., fulfil these rights] then they have got right of
maintenance and clothing in a proper way.’ ’’ (ibid.)

The author says: The meaning of these traditions may be understood

from ealier explanations.

Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) has said about the word of Allāh, and they have
made with you a firm covenant: ‘‘Covenant is the word with which
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 19 — 22 83

marriage is contracted ...’’ (al-Kāfī; at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)

at-Tabrisī has said: ‘‘Firm covenant is.the commitment made by the
husband at the time of marriage that he will either retain her properly or
let her go in fairness. This meaning is narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.).’’
(Majma‘u ’l-bayān)

The author says: This meaning is narrated from several early

exegetes like Ibn ‘Abbās, Qatādah and Abū Malīkah. The wording of the
verse is not out of tune with it, because this also is a covenant women
make with men; although more obviously it means the marriage formula
which is recited to establish marriage-tie.

az-Zubayr ibn Bakkār has narrated in al-Muwaffaqiyyāt from

‘Abdullāh ibn Mus‘ab that he said: ‘‘ ‘Umar said: ‘Do not give to women
a dowry more than forty ūqiyyah 1 . If anyone exceeds [this limit] I will
put the excess amount in the treasury.’ A woman said: ‘You have no such
authority.’ He said: ‘Why?’ She said: ‘Because Allāh says: ‘‘... you have
given one of them a heap of gold ...’’ ’ Thereupon ‘Umar said: ‘A woman
hit the mark and a man missed.’ ’’ (ad Durru ’l-manthūr)

The author says: as-Suyūtī has also narrated it from ‘Abdu ’r-
Razzāq and Ibnu ’l-Mundhir from ‘Abdu ’r-Rahmān as-Salamī; and from
Sa‘īd ibn Mansūr and Abū Ya‘lā through a good chain from Masrūq (and
that tradition says ‘‘four hundred Dirhams’’ in place of ‘‘forty
ūqiyyah’’); and also from Sa‘īd ibn Mansūr and ‘Abd ibn Hamīd from
Bakr ibn ‘Abdillāh al-Muzanī; and all traditions have nearly the same
meaning.

Ibn Jarīr has narrated from ‘Ikrimah that he said about the word of
Allāh, And marry not women whom your fathers married, that it was
revealed about Abū Qays ibn al-Aslat who took Umm Ubayd bint
Damrah who was the widow of his father, al-Aslat; and about al-Aswad
ibn Khalaf who had taken the daughter of Abū Talhah ibn ‘Abdi ’l-‘Uzzā
ibn ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Abdi ’d-Dār, who was the widow of his father, Khalaf;

1
A weight of varying magnitude. Nowadays it ranges from 37.44 gr. in
Egypt to 320 gr. in Aleppo. (tr.)
84 AL-MĪZĀN

and about Fākhitah, daughter of al-Aswad ibn al-Muttalib ibn Asad, who
was the wife of Umayyah ibn Khalaf and then she was taken by his son,
Safwān ibn Umayyah; and about Manzūr ibn Rabāb who had taken
Malīkah daughter of Khārijah, who was the widow of his father, Rabāb
ibn Sayyār. (ibid.)
Ibn Sa‘d has narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka‘b al-Qurazī that he
said: ‘‘When a man died leaving a woman, his son had the right to marry
her if he so wished — provided she was not his own mother — or to give
her to someone else in marriage. When Abū Qays ibn al-Aslat died, his
son, Muhassan, succeeded him and inherited the marriage of his widow;
but he did not give her maintenance nor he gave her any property as [her
husband’s] inheritance. Thereupon, she came to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
and described the situation to him. He said: ‘You go back; perhaps Allāh
will send down something about you.’ Then it was revealed: And marry
not women whom your fathers married ...; also it was revealed, ... it is not
lawful for you that you should inherit women against (their) will.’’ (ibid.)

The author says: We have already given Shī‘ī traditions of the same
meaning.

Ibn Jarīr and Ibnu ’l-Mundhir have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that he
said: ‘‘The people of [the era of] ignorance prohibited [marriage with] all
whom Allāh has prohibited except the father’s wife and having two
sisters together as wives. Then Allāh revealed: And marry not women
whom your fathers married; and, [it is unlawful] that you should have
two sisters together.’’ (ibid.)

The author says: There are other traditions also of the same
meaning.

*****
86
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 87

Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your
sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and
brother’s daughters and sister’s daughters and your mothers that
have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your
wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship,
(born) of your wives to whom you have gone in but if you have not
gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them) and
the wives of your sons who are of your own loins, and that you
should have two sisters together, except what has already passed;
surely Allāh is Forgiving (23). And all married women except
those whom your right hands possess; (this is) Allāh’s ordinance
to you; and lawful for you is (all) besides that — that you seek
(them) by means of your wealth taking (them) with chastity, not
committing fornication. Then as such of them with whom you
have mut‘ah, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is
no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is
appointed; surely Allāh is Knowing, Wise (24). And whoever
among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry
free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your
right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and
Allāh knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the
other; so marry them with the permission of their people, and give
them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor
receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then
if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the
punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women. This is for him
among you who fears falling into evil; and that you abstain is
better for you, and Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful (25). Allāh
desires to explain to you, and to guide you into the ways of those
before you, and to turn to you (mercifully), and Allāh is Knowing,
Wise (26). And Allāh desires that He should turn to you
(mercifully), and those who follow (their) lusts desire that you
should deviate (with) a great deviation (27). Allāh desires that He
should make light your burdens, and man is created weak (28).

*****
88 AL-MĪZĀN

COMMENTARY

These are decisive verses which anumerate the women with whom
marriage is prohibited — and those who are allowed. The preceding
verse, which prohibited marriage with fathers’ wives, is connected in
theme with these verses; but its style was more in agreement with the
preceding verses; that is why we included it in the preceding
commentary, as it had some thematic relevance with those verses also.
The verses give a list of all those women with whom marriage is
absolutely prohibited without any condition or exception. This is clear
from the words immediately after enumeration of prohibited relatives:
and lawful for you is (all) besides that ... That is why all scholars
unanimously say that the verse prohibits son’s daughter and daughter’s
daughter as well as father's mother and mother’s mother; and that the
verse: do not marry women whom your fathers married, prohibits
grandfather’s wife too. From this, we may easily understand the Qur’ānic
view about sons and daughters and that who are included in these terms
according to the sharī‘ah, as will be explained later, Allāh willing.

QUR’ĀN: Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and
your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and
brother’s daughters and sister’s daughters: It is the list of those who are
prohibited by blood-relation; they are seven in number. ‘Mother’ is a
woman from whom man is born, either direct or through an intermediary,
like father’s mother or mother’s mother, how high so ever. ‘Daughter’ is
a woman who is born of the man, either direct or through an
intermediary, like son’s daughter or daughter’s daughter, how low so
ever. ‘Sister’ is a woman having affinity with the man by common birth
from the same father and mother, or same father or same mother without
any intermediary. ‘Paternal aunt’ is father’s sister, as well as paternal or
maternal grandfather’s sister. ‘Maternal aunt’ is mother’s sister, as well
as paternal or maternal grandmother’s sister.
Prohibition of mothers and the others described in the verse, means
prohibition of marriage with them, as is understood from the subject and
the order. It is not different from other such expressions; for example:
Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood and flesh of swine
... (5:3), i.e., eating it; and the words: ... So it shall surely be forbidden to
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 89

them for forty years. (5:26), i.e., living in it. Such metaphorical
expressions are very common in every language.
Nevertheless, it seems a bit difficult to say that it is ‘marriage’ which
is implied by the word, ‘forbidden’, because of the exceptional clause
coming later: except those whom your right hands possess. Sexual
intercourse with one’s slave women is lawful without marriage.
Therefore, it would seem more appropriate if prohibition is taken to refer
to sexual intercourse, and not to marriage alone, as will be explained
later. The same is the implication of the words: that you seek (them) by
means of your wealth ..., as will be described afterwards. Thus the fact
emerges that the implied word after ‘forbidden’ is cohabitation, or
another similar word, not marriage. Allāh has avoided mentioning it
explicitly, because the divine speech refrains from such words and
maintains a high moral decorum.
The talk is addressed to men. It does not say: Forbidden to women
are their sons, or, for example, there is no marriage between woman and
her son. It is because by nature it is the man who seeks the woman and
proposes marriage.
The verse addresses the men (in plural), and also the prohibited
women are mentioned in plural, e.g., ‘mothers’ and ‘daughters’, etc. It
implies comprehesive distribution. In other words, it means: Forbidden to
each man among you is his mother and his daughter, etc. Obviously, it
does not mean that the whole group of these women is forbidden to the
whole group of men. Nor does it mean that every woman who happens to
be a mother or a daughter is forbidden to every man. Otherwise, it would
result in abrogation of the institution of marriage altogether. The verse,
therefore, means that each man is forbidden to marry his mother,
daughter and sister, etc.

QUR’ĀN: and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-
sisters: Now begins the list of the women prohibited by other than blood-
relationship. They too are seven — six are mentioned in this verse and
one in the preceding one: and marry not women whom your fathers
married.
The style of the verse establishes motherhood and sonship between a
woman and the child whom she suckles; likewise it creates brotherhood
and sisterhood between man and his foster-sister; note how it uses the
90 AL-MĪZĀN

words ‘mothers’ and ‘sisters’ for them as an accepted reality. Therefore,

according to the sharī‘ah, breast-feeding creates relationship parallel to
blood-relationship; and as will be described later, it is a special feature of
the Islamic laws.
Both sects have narrated a correct tradition from the Prophet that he
said: ‘‘Verily Allāh has prohibited through suckling what He has
prohibited through blood-relationship.’’ It follows that suckling creates
prohibition parallel to the prohibited blood-relationship, that is, foster-
mother, foster-daughter, foster-sister, foster paternal aunt, foster maternal
aunt, daughter of foster brother and daughter of foster-sister — a total of
seven groups.
How the suckling relationship is established; what conditions are
necessary concerning its quantity, quality and duration, to create the
prohibition; and other relevant rules — these topics are explained in the
Islamic jurisprudence, and are outside the scope of this book.
The words translated as, ‘‘and your foster-sisters’’, literally means,
‘and your sisters from suckling’, and the phrase refers to those sisters
whom the man’s mother had suckled with the milk flowing because of
his father.

QUR’ĀN: and mothers of your wives: It makes no difference whether

the man had established sexual relation with that wife or not. The word
‘women’, when used in genitive construction with ‘man’, means wives
— unconditionally. This generality is clearly proved from the condition
mentioned in the next sentence: ... (born) of your wives [lit. ‘women’] to
whom you have gone in; but if you have not gone in to them ...

QUR’ĀN: and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship,

(born) of your wives to whom you have gone in; but if you have not gone
in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them): ar-Rabā’ib
(ُ‫ ) اَﻟ ﱠﺮﺑَﺎ ِﺋﺐ‬is plural of ar-rabībah ( ‫ ;) اَﻟ ﱠﺮ ِﺑﻴْ َﺒ ُﺔ‬it means daughter of a man’s
wife from a previous husband; because it is the present husband who
looks after the children whom his wife brings with her. It is he who in
most, if not all, cases looks after them and brings them up.
The clause translated as, ‘‘who are in your guardianship’’, literally
means, ‘who are in your lap’. This too denotes majority of cases,
although not all step-daughters grow up in laps of their step-fathers. That
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 91

is why it is said that the words, ‘‘who are in your guardianship’’, merely
denote general situation, because step-daughter is forbidden whether she
grows up in the lap of her mother’s husband or not. The clause, therefore,
is explanatory, not restrictive.
It is possible to maintain that the clause, ‘‘who are in your
guardianship’’, points to the underlying reason of the law prohibiting
women of blood- and other relations, as will be described later. There is
continuous and constant mingling between men and these women; they
are almost always together in the homes. Consequently, it would have
been impossible to avoid incest (merely with prohibition of fornication)
if they were not prohibited for ever — as will be explained later.
Accordingly, the clause, ‘‘who are in your guardianship’’, indicates
that the criterion and underlying reason of prohibition is applicable to
your step-daughters as validly as it is to other groups of prohibited
women, because mostly these daughters grow up in your laps and live
with you together.
In any case, the clause, ‘‘who are in your guardianship’’, is not a
restrictive proviso to limit the prohibition. In other words, it does not
mean that a step-daughter is lawful to her step-father if she is not in his
guardianship; let us say, if there is an adult daughter whose mother has
married another husband. Note for proof the clear wordings of the next
clause, ‘‘but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in
marrying them)’’. Obviously, establishing sexual relation with her
mother has a bearing on the law of prohibition, and, therefore, its absence
negates the prohibition. If the daughter’s being in the step-father’s
guardianship had any bearing on the prohibition, it was necessary to
describe it in the same way.
There is a phrase, that is, ‘in marrying them’, implied after the words,
‘‘there is no blame on you’’. It was deleted for brevity's sake as the
context had made the meaning clear.

QUR’ĀN: and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins: al-
Halā’il ( ‫ﻞ‬
ُ ‫ﻼ ِﺋ‬
َ‫ﺤ‬َ ْ‫ ) َاﻟ‬is a plural of al-halīlah ( ‫ﺤِﻠﻴَْﻠ ُﺔ‬
َ ْ‫) َاﻟ‬. It is written in Majma‘u
’l-bayān: ‘‘al-Halā’il is plural of al-halīlah which is a synonym of al-
muhallalah ( ‫ﺤﻠﱠَﻠ ُﺔ‬ َ ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤ‬lawful); it is derived from al-halāl ( ‫ل‬ ُ‫ﻼ‬
َ‫ﺤ‬َ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬legal,
lawful); its masculine gender is al-halīl ( ‫ﻞ‬ ُ ْ‫ﺤِﻠﻴ‬َ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬lawful) and its plural is
ahillah ( ‫ﺣﱠﻠ ُﺔ‬ِ ‫ ) َا‬on the paradigm of ‘azīz and a‘izzah ( ٌ‫اَﻋِ ﱠﺰة‬،ٌ‫= ﻋَﺰِﻳْﺰ‬
92 AL-MĪZĀN

powerful). Husband and wife were given this name because each of them
is lawful to his/her spouse. There is another view that it is derived from
al-hulūl ( ‫ل‬
ُ ْ‫ﺤُﻠﻮ‬
ُ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬to enter into something), because each spouse enters
into bed with his/her partner.’’
The word, ‘sons’, denotes male child begotten by a human being
through birth, either direct or through a son or daughter, [how low so
ever]. The conditional clause, ‘‘who are of your loins’’, excludes wives
of the so-called sons of adoption.

QUR’ĀN: and that you should have two sisters together ...;: It ordains
prohibition of marrying sister of a wife as long as the wife is alive and is
married to the man. It is the best and the shortest construction to express
this idea. The expression makes it clear that man is forbidden to have
both sisters together in his marriage at the same time. There is no
hindrance if a man marries a woman and then, after her divorce or death,
marries her sister. The proof may be seen in the well-established conduct
of the Muslims going back to the Prophet’s time.
The exceptional clause: except what has already passed, has the same
implication here as it had in the preceding verse: And marry not women
whom your fathers married, except what has already passed. It looks at
the custom, prevalent among the Arabs of [the era of] ignorance, of
having two sisters in marriage together. This clause proclaims pardon to
what they had done in the past — before this verse was revealed. It does
not mean that such marriages — if they were contracted earlier — could
continue even after the revelation. The verse clearly shows that from now
such marriages, being prohibited and unlawful, cannot continue. We have
quoted in the ‘‘Traditions’’, under the verse: And marry not women
whom your fathers married, except what has already passed, how the
Prophet had separated between the sons and the wives of their fathers, at
once after that verse was revealed, although the marriages had been
contracted before its revelation.

Question: What is the use of pardoning a previous marriage which

was dissolved soon after revelation of the verse, and did not continue?
What was the benefit of saying that that past union was not prohibited —
was lawful — when it had already ceased to exist?
Reply: It had great benefits, because the effects of that marriage were
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 93

continuing even after the marriage was dissolved, like legitimacy of

children, recognition of various relationships and other related matters.
In other words, there is no use in saying that a past marriage, which
had joined two sisters together, was lawful or unlawful — when both or
one of them had died, or both or one of them had been divorced. But it is
quite meaningful to declare that that past conjunction was not unlawful at
that time. It was necessary for the welfare of the offspring of such
marriages, as it gave them legitimacy and established relationship
between the children and their natural fathers and other relatives, which
in its turn had bearing on inheritance, marriage and other so many family
affairs.
Accordingly, the clause:‘‘except what has already passed’’,
regularize the resulting legal aspects of that marriage — not the marriage
itself which had anyhow ceased before this legislation. It shows that both
sides of this exception are inter-related, are not of two different
categories, as many exegetes have written.
Also it is possible to apply this exception to all the clauses mentioned
in the verse — without restricting it to the last clause, ‘‘and that you
should have two sisters together’’. It is true that the Arabs did not marry
any of the women mentioned in the verse, except having two sisters
together; they did not marry their mothers, daughters or other prohibited
relatives. But, at the time of the revelation of these verses, there were
many societies, like the Persians, the Romans and several other civilized
and uncivilized nations, which married various prohibited women, each
society following its own custom. Islam recognizes the validity of the
prevalent marriage-systems of non-Muslim societies — provided it was
considered lawful by their religion or tradition. Thus, the exception
confirms the legitimacy of their children and recognizes the validity of
their relationships even when they enter into the fold of Islam.
Even so, the first explanation is more obvious.

QUR’ĀN: surely Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful: It explains the reason of

the above-mentioned exception. It is one of those places where divine
forgiveness refers to the external effects of a deed, and not to the sins and
disobedience.

QUR’ĀN: And all married women except those whom your right hands
94 AL-MĪZĀN

possess,: al-Muhsanāt ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ﺼﻨَﺎ‬

َ ْ‫ ) َاﻟْ ُﻤﺤ‬is the nomen patientis (passive
participle) of al-ihsān ( ‫ن‬ ُ ‫ = َاﻟِْﺎﺣْﺼَﺎ‬to make inaccessible); they say: al-hisn
al-hasin ( ‫ﻦ‬
ُ ْ‫ﺼﻴ‬
ِ ‫ﺤ‬
َ ْ‫َاﻟ‬،ُ‫ﺤﺼْﻦ‬
ِ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬invulnerable fortress). When this verb is
ascribed to woman as, for example, ahsanati ’l-mar’ah ( ‫ﺖ اﻟْ َﻤﺮَْأ ُة‬ ِ ‫ﺼ َﻨ‬
َ ْ‫) َاﺣ‬, it
gives one of the following three connotations: i) The woman, being
chaste, protected herself and abstained from illicit sexual relations, as
Allāh says: ... who guarded her chastity (66:12); ii) The woman married,
so her husband, or her marriage, protected her from others; in this sense,
the verb may be used in passive voice; also iii) She is a free woman and
it keeps her away from illicit sexual relations — because fornication was
common among slave women.
Obviously, the word, al-muhsanāt, in this verse, has the second
connotation, i.e., married women. It cannot have the first or the third
meaning, because apart from the fourteen groups (mentioned in the
preceding two verses), the only thing prohibited is marriage with a
married woman; there is no snag at all in marrying other women, whether
they be chaste or unchaste, free or slave. There is, therefore, no reason
for interpreting the word, al-muhsanāt here as chaste women (because
the prohibition is not confined to the chaste women) and then attaching to
the verse a condition that they should not be in other’s marriage. Nor is
there any justification for explaining the said word as free women
(because the rules about slave women are the same as those for free ones)
and then attaching to the verse a condition of their being un-married.
Such interpretations are not agreeable to good literary taste.
al-Muhsanāt, therefore, means married women, i.e., those who are
presently married to a husband. The word is in conjunction with your
mothers and your daughters ... The meaning: Forbidden to you are all
married women as long as their present marriage continues.
Consequently, the exceptional clause, ‘‘except those whom your right
hands possess’’; will exclude one’s married slave girl from this
prohibition. It has been narrated in traditions that the master of a married
slave woman may take away that woman from her husband, keep her
untouched for the prescribed term, then have sexual relation with her, and
thereafter return her to her husband.
Some exegetes have opined: The exception, ‘‘except those whom
your right hands possess’’, means, except those chaste women whom you
possess by marriage or as slave. Possession thus implies the right of
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 95

having sexual pleasure.

But this opinion is not correct, because:
First: It interprets the word, al-muhsanāt ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ﺼﻨَﺎ‬
َ ْ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤﺤ‬married
women) as chaste women, and you have already seen how wrong that
interpretation is.
Second: The Qur’ān always uses the phrase, ‘‘those whom your right
hands possess’’, for slaves; not for any other right of benefitting from
something.
Likewise, someone has said: The phrase refers to unbeliever married
women imprisoned in jihād. A tradition from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī is
offered in support, in which he says: ‘‘This verse was revealed about the
captives of Awtās, where the Muslims had captured some women of the
polytheists, whose husbands were in (their) non-Muslim region. When
this verse was revealed, an announcer announced on behalf of the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) ‘Be careful! The pregnant ones should not
be approached for sexual intercourse until they deliver, nor the non-
pregnant ones until they complete (their) waiting period.’ ’’
But apart from weakness of this tradition, it amounts to
particularization of the verse without a particularizer.
Therefore, only the meaning given by us is to the point.

QUR’ĀN: (this is) Allāh’s ordinance to you: The phrase, ‘‘Allāh’s

ordinance to you’’, means: Adhere to Allāh’s command which is
ordained and prescribed for you. The exegetes have said: ‘‘Allāh’s
ordinance to you’’ is a cognate accusative of an implied verb. The
original sentence is supposed to be: Allāh has ordained an ordinance for
you; the verb was then deleted and the accusative — ordinance —
attached to the subject — Allāh — in a genitive construction, taking the
place of the subject. They have not taken the phrase, ‘‘to you’’, as verbal-
noun [in the meaning of, ‘It is incumbent on you’]; because the
grammarians say that this phrase, as a verbal-noun, is weak in effect and
its object cannot precede it [as it does in this verse].’’

QUR’ĀN: and lawful for you is (all) besides that: [The construction, mā
warā’a dhālikum ( ‫ = ﻣَﺎ َورَﺁ َء ذِﻟ ُﻜ ُﻢ‬what is besides that) requires careful
consideration.] It uses, mā ( ‫ = ﻣَﺎ‬what) which is obviously used for ‘un-
rational’ things; the demonstrative pronoun, dhālikum, is used for
96 AL-MĪZĀN

masculine singular object. Also the phrase is followed by the words: that
you seek by means of your wealth. All these factors together make it clear
that the relative and demonstrative pronouns refer to the same thing
which was implied by the beginning word, ‘‘Forbidden’’, i.e., sexual
intercourse, or words like that. Meaning: It is lawful for you to have it
with other than what has been described above, that is, to have sexual
intercourse after marriage with other than the fifteen prohibited groups
— or after obtaining in slavery some other women. In this way the
appositional substantive (that you seek them by means of your wealth ...)
will perfectly enmesh with the rest of the sentence.
Many exegetes have explained this exceptional clause in very
amusing ways. One says that the clause, ‘‘and lawful for you is (all)
besides that’’, means that all other relatives are lawful to you. According
to another, it means that it is lawful for you to have less than five — i.e.,
four or less — women that you seek them for marriage by means of your
wealth. A third one opines that, it is lawful for you to have slave women
outside the mentioned fifteen groups. Still another says that it means:
Lawful for you is all besides the prohibited relatives — provided the
number does not exceed four — that you seek by means of your wealth
to marry them or purchase them in slavery.
All these interpretations are simple absurd, because none is supported
by the wordings of the verse. Moreover, all of them apply the relative
pronoun, ‘what’, to rational beings, without any justification, as you have
seen above. Apart from that, the verse aims only at explaining as with
whom conjugal relations cannot be established. In this context, it
anumerates the prohibited groups of women — without looking at their
number. There is no reason why the exceptional clause should be
explained in term of numbers. The fact is that the verse aims at
describing permission for the acquisition of women — other than those
mentioned in the preceding two verses — by marriage or by possession.

QUR’ĀN: that you seek (them) by means of your wealth, taking (them)
with chastity, not committing fornication: The clause is neither an
appositional substantive standing for the preceding clauses, (all) besides
that; or is in explicative apposition with that. In any case, it explains the
lawful way of approaching women and having sexual intercourse with
them. The preceding exceptional clause: and lawful for you is (all)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 97

besides that, if left at that, could be applied to three things: Marriage,

possession by slavery and fornication. This clause, ‘‘that you seek ...’’,
forbids fornication and restricts permission to the remaining two:
marriage and possession by slavery. Then it attaches importance to
seeking them by means of one’s wealth: In marriage, it is dowry, which
is one of its chief elements; in possession, it is price, which is the main
procedure of acquiring slaves. The meaning now will be as follows:
Apart from the above-mentioned prohibited categories, you are allowed
to seek other women by spending your wealth on dowry of those whom
you marry, or on price of slave girls — in all this you have to remain
chaste and avoid illicit sexual relations.
It is now clear that the word, muhsinīn ( ‫ﻦ‬ َ ْ‫ﺼ ِﻨﻴ‬
ِ ْ‫ ) ُﻣﺤ‬in this clause
denotes chastity; it cannot imply being married or free. The phrase ‘‘seek
(them) by means of your wealth’’, covers marriage and possession both;
there is no reason to restrict it to marriage: therefore, the word, muhsinīn,
should not be restricted here to married ones. Also chastity does not
mean celibacy; otherwise, the word would be irrelevant here. The word,
chastity, as used here is opposite of illicit sexual relations of all types. It
tells men to restrain themselves from unlawful sexual activities and
restrict themselves to what Allāh has allowed of the sexual enjoyment —
to which man is attracted by natural instinct.
Someone has said that the clause, ‘‘that you seek (them)’’, means ‘in
order that you may seek them’. But this view is not correct. This clause
explains the same thing which was said by the preceding one: and lawful
for you is (all) besides that. Therefore, it is appositional substantive
standing for the preceding clause; it does not mention anything that
springs from the preceding one, or which is the effect of that.
Likewise, another writer has opined that the verb, al-musāfahah (
‫ﺤ ُﺔ‬
َ ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤﺴَﺎ َﻓ‬to spill or shed something; metaphorically used in meaning of
fornication) used here in the form of ghayra musāfihīn ( ‫ﻦ‬ َ ْ‫ﺤﻴ‬
ِ ‫ﻏﻴْ َﺮ ُﻣﺴَﺎ ِﻓ‬
َ =
translated here as, not committing fornication) has actually been used in
its literal sense, and the verse forbids merely ejaculating semen in womb,
without intending to achieve the goal for which Allāh has created the
natural sexual urge in man, i.e., without wanting to establish a family and
procreate. Conversely, al-ihsān ( ‫ن‬ ُ ‫ﺼﺎ‬
َ ْ‫ ) َاﻟِْﺎﺣ‬implies permanent marriage
which aims at producing children.
Reply: The only thing that can be said about the writer is that he is
98 AL-MĪZĀN

confused. Generally, there are two ways of discussing a law: Sometimes

one looks at its underlying reason and benefit; at other times, talk is
focused at the law itself. That writer has muddled the two together,
inadvertently putting himself in a corner.
Discussion about underlying reason of a law is rational in nature,
based on intellect; while discussion of the law itself — togetherwith its
subject, concomitants, conditions and impediments — is based on its
wordings, and its expansion or constriction depends entirely on that of
the phraseology chosen by the Law-giver. Of course, there is no doubt
that all the divinely ordained laws are based on genuine reasons and
benefits. The ordainment of marriage laws too is based on real benefit,
genuine underlying reason, and that is procreation. We also know that the
system of creation wants human species to continue through successive
existence of its individual members — as long as Allāh wished. To
achieve that goal, human body has been equipped with procreative
organs; which take a minute part of human bodies, nurture and develop it
until it becomes a new human being, ready to take the place of the
preceding generation. In this way the species continues without
interruption. At the same time, sexual urge was ingrained in human
beings in order that they should not neglect using the said organs. It is
because of this urge that each group — male and female — is attracted to
the other and establishes sexual relations. All this was perfected with the
power of understanding, which prevents human beings from subverting
this process to which the system of creation invites.
Even so, although the natural system has achieved its goal, that is,
continuation of human species, we know that not every sexual
intercourse between man and woman achieves that goal. Cohabitation is
the initial step on that path. But not every union is blessed with child, nor
every sexual intercourse results in pregnancy, nor every lust brings about
that effect. Not every man or woman, nor every marriage, is inexorably
pushed to cohabitation and procreation. These things happen in many,
but not in all, cases.
The natural faculty exhorts man to marry, seeking procreation
through sexual urge; and the reason ingrained in him restrains him from
indecency, from unlawful carnal activities, as such deviation spoils
felicity of life, demolishes foundation of family and desrupts procreation.
This composite benefit — procreation and prevention of indecency
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 99

— is the underlying reason (which takes place in most of the cases), on

which the institution of marriage is based in Islam. But this ‘appearance
in most of the cases’, this generality, governs the underlying reason only.
So far as the related ordained laws are concerned, they are not for ‘most’,
but for all, human beings and for all times.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that marriage or cohabitation should
be lawful or unlawful depending on whether or not the afore-said benefit
can be obtained from it. It will be absurd to claim that marriage is not
lawful without intention of procreation. Otherwise, such people will have
to say that: marriage of an infertile man or woman is unlawful; marriage
of a woman in menopause is unlawful; marriage of a minor girl is
unlawful; marriage of a fornicator is unlawful; intercourse with a
pregnant wife is unlawful; intercourse without ejaculation is unlawful;
marriage, before establishing a household is unlawful; and so on and so
forth. 1
The fact is that marriage between male and female is a lawful
institution, and it has its own permanent rules and regulations [which
apply to the whole mankind for all times to come — without any
exception]. This institution was established for protection of common
benefits which are obtained from it in most cases, as you have seen. But
it is meaningless to make this ordained institution dependent on that
benefit for its existence [or lawfulness], or to say that every marriage or
its every rule or aspect that did not lead to procreation was unlawful.

QUR’ĀN: Then as to such of them with whom you have mut‘ah give
them their dowries as appointed; ...: Probably, the word, mā ( ‫= ﻣَﺎ‬
translated here as ‘such’) is relative pronoun; the verb,‘‘you have

1
The Vatican seems oblivious of this simple difference between
underlying reason of a law and the law itself. That is why it has totally
prohibited use of contraceptives, on the plea that it goes against the
philosophy of marriage. But does Vatican have the conviction of courage to
take this ‘argument’ to its logical end? Is it prepared to forbid intercourse
with a pregnant wife, or ban marriage of infertile men or women? They
should have banned these and other examples given in the text because they
too cannot produce pregnancy. The prelates of the Roman Catholic Church
— all unmarried men — are perhaps unaware that lawful satisfaction of
sexual urge is in itself a valid underlying reason of marriage. (tr.)
100 AL-MĪZĀN

mut‘ah’’ is its antecedent; the pronoun in bihi ( ‫ = ﺑِﻪ‬with whom) refers to

the relative pronoun, and the words, ‘‘of them’’ to the antecedent.
Meaning: Then as to Such of the women with whom you have mut‘ah.
Another possible grammatical explanation: The pronoun in bihi (with
which) refers to cohabitation (which was implied in the clause: and
lawful for you is (all) besides that; ‘mā’ then would denote time and
mean ‘whenever’; and the words, ‘of them’, would be connected to the
verb, istamta‘tum ( ْ‫ ) ِاﺳْ َﺘﻤْ َﺘﻌْ ُﺘﻢ‬which may literally be translated as, ‘you
seek to enjoy’. In this case, the translation would be as follows: Then
whenever you seek to enjoy (sexually) with any of them, give them their
dowries as appointed.
This sentence, ‘‘Then as to such of them ...’’, undoubtedly branches
out from the preceding talk — as the letter, fa ( ‫ف‬ َ = then) shows — as a
component is described after the whole, or a particular is explained after
the general. As was explained, the preceding sentence: that you seek
(them) by means of your wealth ..., is certainly a branching of a
component or particular from a whole or general concept.
Such branching is very common in the divine book. For example: For
a counted Number of days; then whoever among you is sick or on a
journey ... (2:184); ... when you are secure, then whosoever enjoys by the
‘umrah until the hajj ... (2:196); There is no compulsion in relgion; truly
the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever
disbelieves in the rebels (false deities) and believes in Allāh ... (2:256);
there are many such examples.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the word, al-istimtā‘ ( ‫ع‬ ُ ‫ﺳ ِﺘ ْﻤﺘَﺎ‬
ْ ‫= َا ْﻟِﺎ‬
lit., to enjoy) used in this verse means mut‘ah marriage. The verse is
Medinite, and a part of the chapter of ‘The Women’, that was revealed in
the first half of the Prophet’s life at Medina, as the majority of its verses
indicate; and in that period this type of marriage, i.e., mut‘ah, was,
without any doubt, a common practice, a prevalent custom among the
Muslims — and the traditions unanimously accept this fact. It makes no
difference whether or not it was Islam which had originated this system;
what is important is the fact that this marriage was in vogue within the
sight and hearing of the Prophet; and it had this very name, mut‘ah; no
other word was used to denote this type of marriage. Accordingly, there
is no escape from applying the clause, fa-māsta‘tum bihi minhunna ( ‫َﻓﻤَﺎ‬
‫ ) اﺳْ َﺘﻌْ ُﺘﻢْ ﺑِﻪ ِﻣﻨْ ُﻬﻦﱠ‬to the mut‘ah marriage. There were so many customs,
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 101

practices and cohabits prevalent among the Arabs at the period of the
revelation, which had their own well-known and well-understood names;
and whenever a verse was revealed concerning them using their names
— whether it was confirmation or rejection, order or prohibition — there
was no other way but to apply that nomenclature to their usual meanings
— i.e., to the customs concerned; nobody ever thought of interpreting
those names in their literal sense. For example, Qur’ān has used the
words, hajj, trade, interest, profit, booty, and many similar names, but no
one could ever think that, for instance, hajj of the House meant planning
to go to the Ka‘bah; nor were other such names ever explained in their
literal meanings. Likewise, the Prophet (s.a. w.a.) brought many items of
the sharī‘ah, and they spread with their given religious names, like salāt,
sawm (fast), zakāt, hajju’t-tamattu‘, etc. After the establishment of these
names, nobody would think of applying these words, when they appear in
the Qur’ān, to their original literal meanings — once the words have been
established for their terminological meanings — in the usage of the
religion or the people of religion.
Therefore, the only possible way is to apply the word, al-istimtā‘, of
this verse, on the mut‘ah marriage, because it was known with this very
name when this verse was revealed. It is quite irrelevant whether or not
the mut‘ah marriage was later abrogated by the Qur’ān or tradition.
In short, the verse speaks about an aspect of the mut‘ah marriage; and
it is the explanation which is narrated from the ancient exegetes among
the Companions and their disciples, like Ibn ‘Abbās, Ibn Mas‘ūd, Ubayy
ibn Ka‘b, Qatādah, Mujāhid, as-Suddī, Ibn Jubayr, al-Hasan and others.
The same is the madhhab of the Imams of the Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.).
This shows the incorrectness of the following two interpretations:
Some exegetes have written that al-istimtā‘ (lit., to seek enjoyment)
means marriage, because marriage-tie is established in order to get
enjoyment from it.
Someone else has said that istamta‘tum ( ْ‫ ) ِاﺳْ َﺘﻤْ َﺘﻌْ ُﺘﻢ‬actually means
tamatta‘tum ( ْ‫ = َﺗ َﻤ ﱠﺘﻌُْﺘﻢ‬you enjoy); and ‘s’ and ‘t’ ( ‫ ت‬،‫ ) س‬have been
added only for emphasis, [not to indicate seeking of something].
But both opinions are wrong, because prevalence and currency of
rnut‘ah marriage (with this very name) among them does not leave any
room to its literal meaning to enter the hearers’ minds.
Moreover, if we accept [for the sake of argument] that the verse
102 AL-MĪZĀN

means seeking enjoyment, or enjoying, then this conditional clause

would not agree with the resulting clause. It will be wrong to say that
when you enjoy (sexually with) or seek to enjoy with, a woman, then
give her dowry to her. The wife becomes entitled to dowry just on
recitation of the formula of marriage; it does not depend on sexual
relation, nor on the pursuit of the same (a term which may apply even to
proposal of marriage, recitation of marriage formula, foreplay and sexual
intercourse, etc.). Of course, half of the dowry is payable on recitation of
the formula and the balance on coition.
Apart from that, many verses, which were revealed before it, had
fully established the obligatoriness of paying dowry, with all its various
propositions. Accordingly, there was no reason to repeat the order of its
obligatoriness here. Vide, for example:
And give women their dowries as a free gift (4:4).
And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of another and you have
given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything ...
(4:20 — 21).
There is no blame on you if you divorce women while yet you have
not touched them or appointed for them a dowry, and make provision
for them, on the wealthy according to his means and on the straitened
in circumstances according to his means, ... And if you divorce them
before you have touched them and you have appointed for them a
dowry, then (pay to them) half of what you have appointed, unless
they remit or he remits in whose hand is the marriage-tie; and it is
nearer to piety that you should remit;... (2:236 — 7).
Someone has proposed that this sentence may be aiming at putting
emphasis on the law of dowry. But the above-mentioned verses, and
especially the ending clauses of the verses: And if you wish to have (one)
wife in place of another ..., are much more forceful and stronger than the
verse under discussion. Therefore, how can this verse be supposed to put
emphasis on those verses?
Now, a look at the question of abrogation:
It has been said that this verse was abrogated by the following verses
of the chapter of ‘The Believers’:... And who guard their private parts,
except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for
they surely are not blameable; but whoever seeks to go beyond that, these
are they that exceed the limits (23:5 — 7).
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 103

Another suggestion: It was abrogated by the verse of al-‘iddah ( ‫َاﻟْ ِﻌ ﱠﺪ ُة‬

= waiting period after divorce or death of husband): O Prophet! when
you divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed time, and calculate
the number of the days prescribed (65:1); And the divorced women
should keep themselves in waiting for three monthly courses ... (2:228).
Their argument: The marriage is dissolved by means of divorce and
waiting period, but mut‘ah marriage has neither.
A third suggestion: It was abrogated by the verse of inheritance: And
you shall have half of what your wives leave ... (4:12). There is no
inheritance in mut‘ah marriage.
Fourth suggestion: It is abrogated by the verse of prohibition:
Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters ... (4:23), as this
verse is about marriage.
Fifth: It is abrogated by the verse of number: ... then marry such
(other) women as seem good to you, two and three and four ... (4:3).
Others have said that the verse of mut‘ah is abrogated by tradition.
[But they seem unable to agree on its details:]
It is said that the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) abrogated the mut‘ah
marriage in the year of Khaybar [i.e., 7 A H].
Others say: It was abrogated in the year of the Conquest [of Mecca,
i.e., 8 AH].
Third claim: It was abolished in the Last Hajj [i.e., 10 A H].
A fourth claim is that mut‘ah was allowed, then forbidden; and this
alternate permission and prohibition happened twice or thrice, and the
last order was of prohibition.
Let us look at the claims of abrogation by the Qur’ān:
1. As for the verse of the chapter of ‘The Believers’, first of all it
cannot abrogate the verse of mut‘ah, because it is of Meccan period while
the verse of mut‘ah is of Medinite period, and a Meccan verse cannot
abrogate a Medinite one.
Second: The claim that mut‘ah is not a marriage, or a woman married
in mut‘ah is not a wife, is totally unacceptable. You will see the truth if
you just look at the sayings of the Prophet and wordings of the early
Muslims, including the Companions and their disciples, who always
called it mut‘ah marriage. 1

1
A part from that, the arguments about the mut‘ah are intended to
104 AL-MĪZĀN

2. As for the claim of abrogation by the verses of inheritance, divorce

or number, the relation between these and the verse of mut‘ah is not that
of abrogator and abrogated. It is the relation that exists between general
and particular, or between unrestricted and restricted. Let us look, for
example, at the verse of inheritance; it is general and covers all wives
whether married in parmanent marriage or temporary one; and then the
tradition particularizes it by removing some groups from its jurisdiction,
i.e., it excludes wives of mut‘ah marriage from inheritance. 1 The same is
obviously the case with the verses of divorce and number. Probably those
who claimed abrogation could not distinguish the two relations.
Of course, some scholars of the Fundamentals of Jurisprudence have
said that if a particular order is given then a contradictory general order
follows, it abrogates the previous particular one. But apart from
weakness of this view (as has been explained in its place), it cannot be
applied to this case, because:
The verse of divorce (the general order) is in the chapter of ‘The
Cow’, which is the first Medinite chapter revealed before the chapter of
‘The Women’ which contains the verse of mut‘ah.
Likewise, the verse of number, a part of the same chapter of ‘The
Women’, precedes [and is not preceded by] the verse of mut‘ah; the same
is the case with the verse of inheritance, which comes before the verse of
mut‘ah in one uninterrupted sequence and context in the same chapter.
The particular order, therefore, was given later than the general one, in
any case.
3. The claim, that this verse was abrogated by this very verse of
prohibition is most astonishing of all. First, because the whole verse

establish whether mut‘ah is a valid form of marriage or not; whether the

woman of mut‘ah is a lawful wife or not. Now to assume that the word,
‘mates’ (or wives), used in this verse excludes the mut‘ah wife, is to beg the
question. (tr.).
1
There are other examples where a wife is not entitled to her husband’s
inheritance. For example, if she is a slave or has killed the husband, she is
debarred from his inheritance. Likewise, the Sunnīs allow marriage with a
Jewish or Christian woman, but she, being an unbeliever, does not get any
share in the husband’s inheritance. Nobody would suggest that this exclusion
affects her status as wife in any way. (tr.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 105

containing details of prohibited women and permission of mut‘ah is one

single speech, having one context; its sentences are interlinked, its parts
interconnected. How could it be imagined that one of its clauses would
legalize the mut‘ah marriage and the preceding sentences would revoke
this subsequent order?
Second: This whole verse says nothing, explicitly or implicitly, about
prohibition of temporary marriage. It only aims at describing the
categories of the women who are prohibited to man, and then at declaring
that all other women are lawful to them, either with marriage or
possession; and as we have explained, mut‘ah is a marriage. The two
things are not contradictory to each other, so that it could lead to
abrogation or revocation.

Objection: The clauses: and lawful for you is (all) besides that —
that you seek (them) by means of your wealth, taking (them) with
chastity, not committing fornication, makes it difficult to interpret this
verse in terms of mut‘ah. The former has made lawfulness of women
conditional on dowry and on marriage without fornication; and there is
no marriage in mut‘ah; that is why if a man (who has a mut‘ah wife)
commits adultery, he is not stoned, because he is not considered as
married.
Reply: First, this argument is not based on solid grounds. We have
already described (while explaining the phrase, taking [them] with
chastity, not committing fornication) that al-ihsān in this context means
chastity, not marriage, because the phrase covers union with one’s slave
girls as well.
Second: There will be no difficulty even if we agree, for the sake of
argument, that al-ihsān refers here to marriage. It would only mean that
the law of stoning an adulterer was not applicable to a man who had a
wife of mut‘ah, and that this exclusion was based on the tradition, not on
the Qur’ān. After all, the law of stoning itself is not mentioned anywhere
in the Qur’ān.
4. As for the claim of abrogation by tradition, we shall discuss it in
detail under the ‘‘Traditions’’. At this juncture, it is enough to point out
that such abrogation is invalid ab initio, as it goes against the mutawātir
traditions ordering the Muslims to judge the traditions with the help of
the Qur’ān and reject what does not agree with it.
106 AL-MĪZĀN

QUR’ĀN: And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness
of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those
whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens;:at-
Tawl ( ‫ل‬ُ ْ‫ = اَﻟﻄﱠﻮ‬riches; ampleness of ability); either meaning fits in the
context. al-Muhsanāt ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ﺼﻨَﺎ‬
َ ْ‫ ) َاﻟْ ُﻤﺤ‬in this verse means free women,
because it has been used in contrast to slave women; this also shows that
it has not been used in the meaning of chaste; otherwise it would have
been contrasted with unchaste. Obviously, it does not refer to married
women either, because they cannot be married again [as long as their
present marriage continues]; nor does it mean Muslim women; otherwise
there was no need to qualify it with the adjective, ‘believing’.
The words, ‘‘those whom your right hands possess’’, actually means
slaves of other believers than him who intends to marry, because a man is
not allowed to ‘marry’ his own slave girl — such a marriage is void.
Possession has been ascribed to all the believers — not excepting the
suitor — because Islam counts all believers as one body, not separate
from one another, inasmuch as their religion is one and their benefits are
one; it is as though they were one person.
The words, ‘free women’ and ‘maidens’, have been qualified with the
adjective, ‘believing’. It indicates unlawfulness of marriage with non-
believing woman, be she a Jewish, a Christian or a polytheist. This topic
has a supplement which will be found in the beginning of the fifth
chapter, ‘The Table’, Allāh willing.
The verse says that whoever among you is unable to marry free
believing woman, inasmuch as he does not have means to pay dowry and
meet her expenses, then he may marry believing slave-girls, in order that
he should not face difficulties (because of his inability to marry free
women) and should not put himself in danger of indecency and spiritual
infelicity.
The marriage, in this verse, refers to permanent marriage. The verse
provides an alternative (of an inferior category), i.e., if you are unable to
do that, then do this. The talk has been confined to only one group of the
higher category, i.e., to the permanent marriage, to the exclusion of the
temporary one, because it is the permanent marriage which is more
popular and which a man — who wants to establish a house, procreate
and leave an heir — naturally opts for. As for the mut‘ah (temporary)
marriage, it is a facility provided by the religion, which Allāh has used to
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 107

lighten the burden of His servants, in order that the path of indecency
should be closed and social evils be uprooted.
Not infrequently, the Qur’ān narrows an ongoing talk to its well-
known aspects which generally come to mind at the first glance — and
especially so in ordaining the sharī‘ah’s rules and regulations. For
example, Allāh says:
... so whoever of you witness the month, he shall fast therein, and
whoever is sick or on a journey, (he shall fast) the same number of other
days (2:185). But we know that genuine reasons of postponing a fast are
not confined to sickness and journey.
... and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the
privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake
yourselves to clean earth ... (4:43). As you see, the verse mentions only
the more common and well-known causes of at-tayammum ( ‫ = اَﻟﺘﱠﻴَﻤﱡ ُﻢ‬ritual
ablution with earth). There are many examples of this style.
This explanation has been written keeping in sight the general view
that this verse refers to the permanent marriage. But its wordings can
easily be applied to marriage in general — permanent and temporary
alike — as will be shown in explanation of the rest of the clauses.
What we have shown here is that even if we apply the word
‘marriage’ here to permanent one, and look at the inferior alternative it
provides and the latitude it gives, it does not necessarily follow that the
marriage in preceding verse should exclusively refer to the permanent
one and that the verse: Then as such of them with whom you have mut‘ah
..., should have nothing to do with mut‘ah marriage — as some people
have said. The fact is that both sides of this latitude — the original order
and the alternative — are found in this very clause, ‘‘And whoever
among you has not within his power ampleness of means ... then (he may
marry) of those whom your right hands possess ...’’. There is no need to
go further back to explain this verse.

QUR’ĀN: and Allāh knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one
from the other;:As this order was conditional on belief; and belief is a
matter of heart, the reality of which cannot be known by others. There
was a possibility for people to think that the permission was conditional
on something difficult or next to impossible; this could have prevented
them from making use of it. Therefore, Allāh declared that He knows the
108 AL-MĪZĀN

faith of His believing servants. It implies that people are required to base
their mutual dealings on apparent signs that point to the faith, like the
two witnessings, attending congregational prayers and discharging
common religious duties. Thus, the criterion is the apparent belief, not its
reality.
The direction given to non-affluent Muslims to marry slave-girls, had
another apparent disadvantage, which could affect compliance: Common
people looked down at slaves, who generally suffered from disrespect
and dishonour, indignity and humiliation. This created in the people a
sort of disinclination towards mingling and mixing with them socially,
and particularly towards establishing marriage-ties with them, which is a
lifelong partnership and unites both parties in heart and body.
[To erase that aversion] Allāh has said, ‘‘you are (sprung) the one
from the other’’. It is a clear reality which would, if pondered upon,
remove this wrong impression, this prejudice. Slave is as much a human
being as is a free man;there is no difference between them in any aspect
of humanness. The only difference is in some laid down rules which were
necessary for maintenance of human society, so that they could lead to
people’s felicity. But such distinctions have no validity before Allāh.
What is recognized there is the piety with which man finds honour before
Allāh. It is not good for the believers to be influenced by such imaginary
allusion which would remove them from knowledge, the real knowledge
that ensures their success and happiness in both worlds. It should not be
forgotten that deviation from the straight pathway — even if it looks
slight in the initial stages — continues to take man further and from the
path of guidance until it throws him into the valley of perdition.
It is now clear that the sequence in the beginning of the verse that
contains a condition and implies a sort of concession and latitude
(whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to
marry free believing women, then [he may marry] of those whom your
right hands possess ...), is just a way of talking, using the same style
which the audience generally did under the influence of its habit and
custom. But it is not an obligatory condition that the believers must
follow this sequence. In other words, it is not that one has to be too poor
to marry a free woman before he is allowed to marry a slave girl. It is just
that the Qur’ān has addressed the people in their own language. That is
why it has said that if you are unable to marry free women, you should
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 109

marry slave girls without any hesitation. Then it has drawn their attention
to the fact that the free and the slave both are members of the same
humanity, each of them is related to the other.
It also shows incorrectness of what someone has written under the
clause, ‘‘and that you abstain is better for you’’, that it means: if you
abstain from marrying slave women and remain chaste, it is better for
you than marrying them — as it may bring disgrace and indignity to you.
The fact is that the clause, ‘‘you are (sprung) the one from the other’’,
contradicts such interpretations.

QUR’ĀN: so marry with the permission of their people and give them
their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving
paramours;: In this paragraph, al-muhsanāt refers to chaste women; it
cannot mean married ones, because there is no question of marrying them
while they are married. al Musāfihāt ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤﺴَﺎ ِﻓﺤَﺎ‬fornicating women) is
placed parallel to the phrase, ‘‘receiving paramours’’. al-Akhdān ( ‫ن‬ ُ ‫ﺧﺪَا‬
ْ ‫)َا ْﻟَﺎ‬
is plural of al-khidn ( ‫ن‬ُ ْ‫ﺨﺪ‬
ِ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬friend, paramour); it is used for masculine
as well as faminine, and for singular as well as plural; this verse uses the
plural form to clearly point to numerousness; when one takes a paramour
for fornication, one generally does not stop at one or two, because man’s
appetite does not stop at any point once it exceeds the limit.
It is looking at this contraposition that someone has said: The word,
fornication, as used in this verse, means open illicit sexual relation, and
receiving paramour implies secret liaison. Such secret affairs were
commonplace in Arabia; even among free women it was not frowned
upon; while open fornication was criticized if done by other than slave
girls.
The clause, ‘‘so marry them with the permission of their people’’,
advises them to marry slave women provided it is done with permission
of their masters; because the rein of their affairs is held by none other
then their masters. The masters have been called their ‘people’ in
accordance with the preceding clause: you are (sprung) the one from the
other; thus the slave girl is a member of the family of her master, and the
master is her guardian, her people.
One has to give them their dowries in a proper way. In other words,
the suitor should fix her dowry according to prevalent standard; paying it
to her actually means paying it to her master. The clause guides the
110 AL-MĪZĀN

people to appoint and pay their dowries without reduction, without delay
and without hurting the feelings.

QUR’ĀN: and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of
indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon
free women: The verb uhsinna ( ‫ﺼﻦﱠ‬ ِ ْ‫ = ُاﺣ‬they are taken in marriage) is in
passive voice; some have recited it in active voice, and that recitation is
rather preferable.
If al-ihsān refers to their marriage, then it was included in the
conditional clause just because the preceding talk had circled around
their marriage. [It has no legalistic significance] because if a slave
fornicates, she gets only half the punishment of a free woman who is
guilty of the same offence; and it makes no difference whether the slave-
girl is married or not; her being married does not increase her sentance in
any way.
But if al-ihsān refers to their being Muslims — which the recitation
of active voice would support — then the meaning will fit the wordings
effortlessly. They shall suffer half the punishment of the free women, no
matter whether they are married or not.
The punishment refers to flogging, not stoning, because stoning
cannot be halved. This in its turn proves that the word, al-muhsanāt
(translated here as ‘free women’) refers to unmarried ones, and not to the
married ones who are mentioned by the same word, in the beginning of
the verse [24: And all married women ...]. The definite article in ‘the
punishment’, refers to the well-known punishment. The meaning: If
believing slave women commit indecency, i.e., fornication, they shall be
given half the punishment of unmarried free women, that is, they shall
receive fifty stripes.
Another possible explanation: al-Ihsān may imply chastity. The salve
girls in those days were not free to do as they liked; they had to obey the
orders of their masters, especially in indecency and debauchery. When
they indulged in prostitution, it was usually by the order of their masters
who exploited them and used them as a source of income. The masters
sold their slaves’ honour to increase their wealth. This aspect is implied
in the prohibition contained in the verse: and do not compel your slave
girls to prostitution when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the
frail good of this world’s life (24:33). Obviously when they sold their
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 111

bodies and indulged in prostitution, it was done by the order of their

masters, without any choice left to them. If the masters did not compel
them for fornication, then the believing slaves among them would have
observed Islamic piety, at least in appearance, and would have preserved
their chastity as was expected of a believer. But if they indulged in
fornication after that, then they would be given half the punishment of
free women. It is this aspect to which the verse points, ‘‘and when they
are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall
suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women’’.
But if the word uhsinna ( ‫ﺼﻦﱠ‬ ِ ْ‫ ُاﺣ‬translated here as, ‘‘taken in
marriage’’),is taken to indicate chastity [‘and when they become chaste’],
then the conditional clause would be superfluous, because if they were
not chaste then they would be under duress, compelled to do as their
masters said. Likewise, there would be no meaning in the words: and do
not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep
chaste (24:33), because if they do not want to be chaste, there is no
question of compulsion by the masters — they would indulge in
fornication willingly. Think over it.

QUR’ĀN: This is for him among you who fears falling into evil ...
Forgiving, Merciful: al-‘Anat ( ‫ﺖ‬ ُ ‫ ) َاﻟْ َﻌ َﻨ‬literally means affliction, hardship
and perdition; in this context, it implies fornication, which takes place
when man is afflicted by lust, suffers from hardship of sexual desire and
thus falls in perdition. The demonstrative pronoun, ‘This’, reportedly
refers to the marriage with slave girls mentioned in this verse.
Accordingly, the next clause, ‘‘and that you abstain is better for you’’;
would mean: If you abstain from marrying slave girls, or from
fornication, it is better for you. Also, possibly the pronoun refers to
obligatoriness of marriage with slave girls, or marriage in general — if
such ideas could be inferred from the context of the preceding verse; and
Allāh knows better.
However, abstinence and patience is better, in any case. If it indicates
abstaining from marrying slave girls, it is because of the rights their
masters have on them and on their offspring — as described in books of
jurisprudence; and if it implies abstaining from illicit sexual relations,
then it looks at the purity of character that the patience and abstinence
create, and at the trait of piety which is strengthened when man refuses to
112 AL-MĪZĀN

yield to his lustful desires — no matter whether he is married or not;

‘‘and Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful’’: He erases, through His forgiveness,
the effects of evil thoughts from the minds of His pious servants, and has
mercy on them.

QUR’ĀN: Allāh desires to explain to you: This sentence and the

subsequent ones indicate and explain the ultimate goal of various laws
ordained in the preceding three verses; and the benefits that are derived
when society follows them scrupulously. The meaning, accordingly, will
be as follows: Allāh desires to explain to you the rules of His religion, as
it leads you to the good of this world and the next one, and contains
many underlying benefits and reasons. According to this explanation, the
object of this verb was deleted to show its greatness and importance.
Another possibility: The verbs, ‘‘to explain to you’’, and ‘‘to guide
you’’, may be having a common object, i.e., ‘the ways of those before
you’.

QUR’ĀN: and to guide you into the ways of those before you: That is,
the life-styles of the prophets and the good people, who spent their days
seeking Allāh’s pleasure, and through it enjoyed the happiness of this
world and the hereafter. If this interpretation is correct, then ‘‘the ways’’
would indicate their way of life in general terms, not all their customs
and traditions with all their details and particulars. Accordingly, there
would be no room for the objection, that the ancients had some laws
which these very verses have revoked, like marriage between brothers
and sisters in Adam’s time, and having two sisters together (in the
sharī‘ah of Ya‘qūb, who, according to some reports, had two sisters
together — Leah, mother of Judah, and Rachel, mother of Joseph). 1
There is another interpretation offered by some people: The clause
speaks about guiding to the ways of all previous societies, no matter
whether they were on the right path or the wrong. Accordingly, it means:

1
We have already shown that the hypothesis of marriage between
Adam’s immediate sons and daughters was not correct; [see note, vol.7,
p.222]. As for Ya‘qūb (a.s.) having two sisters together, it is reported in the
Old Testament, and we have described in vol.6 how unreliable those writings
of dubious origin are. It is unrealistic to base one's argument on such
writings. (tr.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 113

We have explained to you all the previous customs — right and wrong,
all — in order that you may have an insight into them, adopt the right
customs and reject the wrong ones.
There is no difficulty in accepting this meaning, except that guidance
has not been used in this meaning in the Qur’ān. It has always been used
for conveyance to the truth or to show the truth. Allāh says: Surely you
cannot guide whom you love, but Allāh guides whom He pleases (28:56);
Surely We have shown him the way; he may be thankful or unthankful
(76:3). It is more appropriate to the Qur’ānic taste to express such ideas,
as given by that exegete, with the words, explanation or narration, etc.
Nevertheless, if the verb, ‘‘to explain to you’’ and ‘‘to guide you’’
are taken to have the common object, ‘‘the ways of those before you’’;
and the subsequent verb, ‘‘to turn to you (mercifully)’’, is also taken to
refer to the same, then the above explanation will fit the verse properly.
The meaning, then, would be as follows: ‘Allāh explains to you the ways
of those before you, and guides you to the correct ones among them, and
turns mercifully to you concerning the wrong customs which you had
adopted.’ The preceding verses have mentioned previous people’s
customs — right and wrong both — and have proclaimed pardon for the
wrong practices of the past.

QUR’ĀN: and to turn to you (mercifully), and Allāh is knowing, Wise:

at-Tawbah ( ‫ ) اَﻟﺘﱠﻮْ َﺑ ُﺔ‬here refers to Allāh’s turning to His servant with
favour and mercy, ordaining the sharī‘ah and explaining the reality, and
guiding him to the right path. All these are various facets of Allāh’s
turning, as is the acceptance of the servant’s repentance and erasure of
sin’s effects and consequence from him.
The ending clause, ‘‘and Allāh is Knowing, Wise’’, covers all the
clauses of the verse. Had it been connected only to the last one, it would
apparently have been more appropriate to say: and Allāh is Forgiving,
Merciful.

QUR’ĀN: And Allāh desires that He should turn to you (mercifully) and
those who follow (their) lusts desire ... a great deviation: The verse
reiterates Allāh’s turning to the believers to indicate that the following
sentence, i.e., ‘‘and those who follow (their) lusts desire that you should
deviate (with) a great deviation’’, stands face to face with the only last of
114 AL-MĪZĀN

the three clauses of the preceding verse. If there were no repetition, the
sentence, ‘‘and those who follow ...’’, would have looked as standing
parallel to all three preceding clauses, and would have seemed irrelevant.
The great deviation implies transgression of Allāh’s limits described
in these verses: Having incestuous relations; disregarding the effects of
blood-and marriage-relationships; licentiousness and debauchery; and
refusal to follow the right path laid by Allāh.

QUR’ĀN: Allāh desires that He should make light your burdens, and
man is created weak: Man is weak. Why? Because desire is an integral
part of his creation; it unceasingly incites him to indulge in lust, and thus
creates an internal turmoil. Allāh in His mercy and favour, has made
lawful for them the ways to calm down their desire, i.e., He has ordained
the institution of marriage to lighten their burdens and lessen their
hardships, as He has said: and lawful for you is (all) besides that. This
includes marriage and possession; in this way He has guided them to the
ways of those who were before them. Then He has given them another
concession by legalizing the mut‘ah marriage, as it does not entail as
much hardships as the permanent marriage does, i.e., heavy dowry,
regular maintenance, etc.
Someone has said: The lightening of burdens refers to the permission
of marrying slave girls in times of need. But this explanation is not to the
point. Arabs used to marry slave girls at times of need even in pre-
Islamic days; this custom was prevalent among them, although they did
not like it, and , considered it degrading to themselves. What these verses
have done is to erase that stigma and removes that dislike and aversion,
by explaining that a slave girl is as much a human being as a free woman
is, without there being any difference between them in any way. The
status of slavery does not make a slave unworthy of social mingling and
family ties.
Undeniably, the verses are clearly addressed to the believers of this
ummah. Accordingly, the said lightening of burdens concerns this ummah
only, and it means what we have described.
Now, the given reason that, ‘‘man is created weak’’, is not confined
to this ummah; it is common to all humanity, be they of this ummah or of
the previous ones; while the lightening of burdens was ordained for this
ummah only. The verse, thus, gives a general cause but keeps silent about
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 115

what restricts its effect. It is as though it was saying: We have lightened

your burdens, because the weakness pervading the mankind was always
demanding this lightening; but there were always some impediments
there, which prevented it from taking effect — the impediments which
hindered lightening of burdens and spreading of mercy in previous
nations. Then came your turn and the divine mercy has now
encompassed you and its effects are now appearing among you. Now the
said cause has brought its effects into being and Allāh has reduced your
burdens — although the previous nations were not allowed this
concession. This fact may be gleaned from the following two verses:
‘‘Our Lord! do not lay on us a burden as Thou didst lay on those before
us’’ (2:286); He has chosen you and has not laid upon you any hardship
in religion (22:78).
It appears from the above that this general cause also aims at showing
that all the favours bestowed on humanity have appeared in their
complete form in this ummah.

TRADITIONS

The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘‘Verily, Allāh has forbidden by reason

of breast-feeding what He has forbidden by reason of blood-
relationship.’’
Also he (s.a.w.a.) has said: ‘‘Suckling is a relationship like blood-
relationship.’’
Mālik and ‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq have narrated from ‘Ā’ishah that she
said: ‘‘Among what was revealed of the Qur’ān was (the verse of) ten
known sucklings; then it was abrogated by (the verse of) five known
(sucklings); and the Messenger of Allāh expired and those (verses) were
a part of what was recited of the Qur’ān.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

The author says: as-Suyūtī has narrated in his above book other
traditions from ‘Ā’ishah, through other chains. But they are among the
traditions which imply distortion and alteration of the Qur’ān; such
reports are totally rejected because of their inconsistency with the
Qur’ān.
‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq, ‘Abd ibn Hamīd, Ibn Jarīr, Ibnu ’l-Mundhir and al-
116 AL-MĪZĀN

Bayhaqī (in his as-Sunan) have narrated through two chains from ‘Amr
ibn Shu‘ayb, from his father, from his grandfather from the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) that he said: ‘‘When a man marries a woman, then it is not
lawful to him to marry her mother, whether he has gone into that girl (his
wife) or not; on the other hand, if he marries the mother and divorces her
before going into her, then he may marry (her) daughter, if he so
wishes.’’ (ibid.)

The author says: This meaning is narrated through the Shī‘ī chains
from the Imams of Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.), and it is their known madhhab, and
the same is inferred from the Qur’ān, as was explained in the preceding
Commentary. But the Sunnīs have narrated from ‘Alī (a.s.) that there was
no harm in marrying the mother of the wife (if one divorces the latter)
before establishing sexual relations with her; and that she was in this
respect like the step-daughters; also that it was not unlawful for a man to
marry his step-daughter if she was not under his guardianship. But such
assertions are contrary to all that is narrated from them (Imāms, a.s.)
through the Shī‘ī chains.

al-Kulaynī has narrated through his chains from Mansūr ibn Hāzim
that he said: ‘‘I was with Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) when a man came and
asked him about a man who had married a woman, but she died before he
could establish sexual relations with her — ‘Can he marry her mother?’
Thereupon, Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) said: ‘A man of us had done so and had
not considered it objectionable.’ Then I said: ‘May I be made your
ransom! The Shī‘ah do not boast except by the judgment of ‘Alī (a.s.)
concerning this (problem) about al-mashīkhah 1 , about which Ibn Mas‘ūd
had given a rulling that there was no snag in it. Then he came to ‘Alī
(a.s.) and asked him. ‘Alī (a.s.) said to him: ‘‘From where [i.e., on what
authority] will he take her?’’ 2 He said: ‘‘From the word of Allāh, the

1
Probably the correct word is ash-Shamakhī ( ‫ﺸﻤَﺨﻲ‬ ‫ = اَﻟ ﱠ‬one belonging to
the tribe of ash-Shamakh ْ‫ﺸ َﻤﺦ‬
‫) اَﻟ ﱠ‬. Some Sunnī traditions say that he was a
man from the tribe of ash-Shamakh. Or, the correct text may be: ‘about the
woman from the tribe of ash-Shamakh concerning whom Ibn Mas‘ūd had
given a rulling.’. (Author’s Note)
2
The text of al-Wāfī says: ‘From where did he take it?’ (Author’s note)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 117

Mighty, the Great: and your step-daughters who are in your

guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in; but if you
have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them).’’
‘Alī (a.s.) said: ‘‘This is conditional, while that (i.e., prohibition of the
mother-in-law) is unconditional.’’ ’ Then Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) said to the
man [who had asked the question]: ‘Do you not hear what this (man)
narrates from ‘Alī (a.s.)?’
‘‘Thereafter when I stood up, I felt remorse and said (to myself):
‘What have I done? He [i.e., the Imām, a.s.] says: ‘‘A man of us had done
so and had not considered it objectionable’’, and then I [contradict him
and] say: ‘‘ ‘Alī (a.s.) had given such rulling on this (matter)’’.’ So I met
him afterwards and said: ‘May I be made your ransom! Concerning that
man’s enquiry, it was a mistake on my part that I spoke as I did; so what
do you say in this respect?’ He said: ‘O Shaykh! You inform me that ‘Alī
(a.s.) had decided this matter and then you ask me what I say about it!’ ’’
(al-Kāfī)

The author says: The story of his judgment concerning the rulling of
Ibn Mas‘ūd, as narrated in ad-Durru ’l-manthūr from as-Sunan, is as
follows: A man from (the tribe of) Banū Shamakh married a woman, but
before establishing sexual relations with her, he saw her mother and liked
her. He asked Ibn Mas‘ūd about it; and he told him to leave (i.e., divorce)
the said wife and then marry her mother. He did so, and got children
from her. Then Ibn Mas‘ūd came to Medina and was told that she was
not lawful (for him). Therefore, on returning to Kūfah he informed the
man that she was forbidden to him; and he separated from her.
But this story does not ascribe that judgment to ‘Alī (a.s.). It rather
says that he had asked the Companions of the Prophet about it. Another
text says that he had asked ‘Umar about it. A third narration says that he
was informed that his rulling was not correct and that that condition
applied to the step-daughters only.
[ash-Shaykh narrates] through his chains from Ishāq ibn ‘Ammār
from Ja‘far (a.s.) from his father (a.s.) that ‘Alī (a.s.) used to say: ‘‘The
step-daughters are forbidden to you (who are born) of the mothers with
whom you have cohabited, no matter whether they are in your
guardianship or not; and (the wives’) mothers are (forbidden)
unconditionally, whether sexual intercourse was established or not.
118 AL-MĪZĀN

Therefore, treat as unlawful and unconditional what Allāh has kept

unconditional.’’ (al-Istibsār)

The author says: Some Sunnī traditions ascribe to ‘Alī (a.s.) that
prohibition of step-daughters was conditional on their being in one’s
guardianship. But this is rebutted by the traditions narrated from the
Imāms of Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.), and as was explained earlier, the latter was
in conformity with the connotation of the verse.
al-Mubhamāt ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤﺒْ َﻬﻤَﺎ‬translated above as ‘unconditionally,) is
derived from al-buhmah ( ‫) َاﻟْ ُﺒﻬْ َﻤ ُﺔ‬, which implies a thing that has a single
colour, unmixed with another colour. This adjective is used for those
categories of prohibited women whose prohibition is general and
unconditional, that is, mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal aunts,
maternal aunts, brother’s daughters and sisters’s daughters, as well as
foster relatives, mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law.

Zurārah narrates from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he asked him about a man
who has a slave girl with whom he has cohabited — ‘‘Is it lawful for him
to marry her daughter?’ The Imām (a.s.) said: ‘No. She is as Allāh has
said: and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship ...’ ’’ (ibid.)
Abū ‘Awn has reported that he heard Abū Sālih al-Hanafī saying: ‘‘
‘Alī (a.s.) said one day: ‘Ask me (whatever you wish to ask).’ Ibn al-
Kawwā’ said: ‘Tell me about the daughter of the foster sister, and about
two sisters in possession (of one master).’ (The Imām, a.s.) said: ‘Surely
you are wan dering;(better) ask about that which concerns you or may be
useful to you.’ Ibn al-Kawwā’ said: ‘We ask you only about what we do
not know; as for that which we know, we do not ask you about.’ Then
(the Imām, a.s.) said [inter alia]: ‘As for the two slave sisters, one verse
makes them lawful, while another prohibits them; and I neither allow
them nor forbid them; but I do not do it nor does anyone of my
household.’ ’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
It is narrated from Mu‘ammar ibn Yahyā ibn Sālim that he said: ‘‘We
asked Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) about what the people narrate from the Leader of
the faithful (a.s.) concerning somethings which he neither allowed nor
prohibited except his own self and his children; and I said: ‘How is it
possible that he said, ‘‘One verse allows it and another forbids it’’.’ We
said: ‘First of all, either, one of them had abrogated the other, or both
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 119

were decisive which should be followed.’ (The Imām, a.s.) then said: ‘He
made the matter clear to them when he forbade himself and his children.’
We said: ‘What prevented him from explaining it [in clear words] to the
people?’ He said: ‘He was afraid that his (orders) would not be obeyed;
because if the Leader of the faithful could firmly establish his authority,
he would have enforced the Book of Allāh, all of it, and the truth, all of
it!’ ’’ (at-Tahdhīb)
The author says: The tradition of ‘Alī (a.s.), referred to, is the one
narrated from him through the Sunnī chains. It is quoted in ad-Durru ’l-
manthūr from al-Bayhaqī and others that ‘Alī (a.s.) said about two sister
slave girls: ‘‘One verse makes them lawful while another one prohibits
them; and I neither allow (it) nor disallow (it); nor do I make them lawful
or unlawful; and I do not do it, nor do the people of my household (do
so).’’ The same book narrates from Qubaysah ibn Dhu’ayb that someone
asked ‘Alī (a.s.) about it and he said: ‘‘If I had any authority and had
found anyone doing it, I would have made him a warning example (i.e.,
would have given him exemplary punishment).’’

‘Abdullāh ibn Sinān said: ‘‘I heard Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) saying: ‘If a
man has two [slave] sisters in his possession, and has sexual relations
with one of them, and then wishes to have the same [relations] with the
other, it is not allowed to him to do so, until the former goes out of his
possession — either he gifts her (to someone) of sells her. Thus it will be
sufficient if he gives her as a gift to his son.’ ’’ (at-Tahdhīb)
‘Muhammad ibn Muslim said: ‘‘I asked Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) about the
word of Allāh: and all married women except those whom your right
hands possess. He said: ‘It is [like] this, that a man orders his slave
(whom is married to his slave girl), and tells him, ‘‘Put aside your wife
and do not go near her’’. Then he keeps her confined until she sees her
blood; after that he touches her. There after when she again sees blood
after his touching her, he returns her to him [i.e., to her slave husband]
without [any need of a new] marriage.’ ’’ (al-Kāfī; at-Tafsīr, al-
‘Ayyāshī)
Ibn Muskān has narrated through Abū Basīr, from one of the two
Imāms (a.s.), about the word of Allāh: And all married women except
those whom your right hands possess, that he said: ‘‘They are the women
having husbands except those whom your right hands possess. If you
120 AL-MĪZĀN

have given your slave girl in marriage to your slave boy, you may
remove her from him if you so wish.’’ ‘‘I said: ‘Do you see, if he has
given her in marriage to other than his own slave boy?’ He said: ‘(Then)
he has no right to remove (her from him) until she is sold away; then if
he sells her, her affair is transferred to other than him (i.e., to the buyer);
then the buyer may separate (her from her husband) if he so desires, and
may reconfirm (the marriage) if he so wishes.’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
as-Suyūtī has narrated from Ahmad, Abū Dāwūd, at-Tirmidhī (who
has said that the tradition is good) and Ibn Mājah, from Fīrūz ad-
Daylamī, that he entered into Islam and there were two sisters under him
(i.e., he had gathered two sisters in marriage); so the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
said to him: ‘‘Give divorce to whomever you wish (to leave) of the two.’’
(ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Ibn ‘Abdi ’l-Barr has narrated in al-Istidhkār, from Ayās ibn ‘Āmir
that he said: ‘‘I asked ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib and said: ‘I have two sisters
among my slaves, with one of whom I have established sexual relations
and she has borne children for me; then I am attracted to the other; now
what should I do?’ He said: ‘You should emancipate the one you had
cohabited with, then you (may) cohabit with the other.’ Then he said:
‘Surely, all the categories of free women forbidden to you in the Book of
Allāh, are also forbidden to you from among those whom your right
hands possess, except the number (or he said, ‘except the limit of four’)
and all the categories forbidden to you in the Book of Allāh through
kinship, are also forbidden to you through breast-feeding.’ ’’ (ibid.)

The author says: as-Suyūtī has narrated it from ‘Alī (a.s.) through
other chains too.

Abū Hurayrah said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘A

woman and her paternal aunt are not gathered together, nor are a woman
and her maternal aunt.’ ’’ (as-Sahīh, al-Bukhārī, Muslim)

The author says: This theme is found also in some Sunnī traditions
narrated through other chains; but the traditions of the Imāms of Ahlu ’l-
bayt (a.s.) refute it, and the Qur’ān supports them.

at-Tayālisī, ‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq, al-Fariyābī, Ibn Abī Shaybah, Ahmad,

 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 121

‘Abd ibn Hamīd, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, at-Tirmidhī and an-Nasā’ī; as

well as Abū Ya‘lā, Ibn Jarīr, Ibnu ’l-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Hātim, at-Tahāwī,
Ibn Hibbān and al-Bayhaqī (in his as-Sunan) have narrated from Abū
Sa‘īd al-Khudrī that he said: ‘‘Verily, the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
sent an army, on the day of Hunayn, to Awtās. They met the enemy and
defeated them. after a fight and took captives. Some companions of the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) refrained from cohabiting with them,
because they had their polytheist husbands. Then Allāh revealed: And all
married women except those whom your right hands possess, that is,
except those whom Allāh has given to you as booty. So we treated them
as lawful to us on that authority.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

The author says: The same book narrates it through at-Tabarānī

from Ibn ‘Abbās.

‘Abd ibn Hamīd has narrated from ‘Ikrimah: ‘‘This verse in the
chapter of ‘The Women’, i.e.: And all married women exept those whom
your right hands possess, was revealed about a woman, called Ma‘ādhah,
who was married to an old man of Banū Sadūs, named Shujā‘ ibn al-
Hārith. There was his other wife with her, who had borne to him
children, [now grown-up] men. Shujā‘ went to Hajar to get provisions for
his family. In the meantime, a cousin of Ma‘ādhah passed from there, and
she said to him: ‘Take me away to my people, because there is no good
with this old man.’ So he carried her away with him. (Their departure
almost) coincided with the old man’s arrival. He went to the Messenger
of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh, and the most
excellent of the Arabs! I had gone out in [the month of] Rajab to get
provisions for her; and and she fled away; and she is the worst dominator
for anyone who is dominated; she saw a boy sitting on the hump; there is
a desire in her and in him.’ The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said:
‘Bring (them) to me! Bring (them) to me! If the man has opened her cloth
(i.e., committed adultery with her), then stone her; otherwise, return to
the old man his wife.’ So Mālik, son of Shujā‘ from the other wife, went
out in pursuit and and brought her back and she came down to her
house.’’ (ibid.)

The author says: It has repeatedly been mentioned that such stories
122 AL-MĪZĀN

purpoting to describe the occasion when a verse was revealed — and

especially those dealing with some parts or clauses of a verse — are
merely the attempts of the narrators to fit some events to some verses or
sentences; they do not give the real reasons of revelation.

as-Sādiq (a.s.) was asked about the word of Allāh, And all al-
muhsanāt ( ‫ت‬ُ ‫ﺼﻨَﺎ‬
َ ْ‫ ) َاﻟْ ُﻤﺤ‬women: He said: ‘‘It means those who are
married.’’ Then he was asked about the words, and al-muhsanāt from
among those who have been given the Book before you [5:5]; he said:
‘‘The chaste women.’’ (Man lā yahduruhu ’l-faqīh)

The author says: al-‘Ayyāshī too has narrated it from the same
Imām (a.s.).

at-Tabrisī has explained the words, And whoever among you has not
within his power ampleness of means, as ‘‘whoever among you does not
have riches’’; and according to him it is narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.).
(Majma‘u ’l-bayān)
as-Sādiq (a.s.) said: ‘‘Today a free man should not marry a slave girl.
It was (allowed) as Allāh has said, And whoever among you has not
within his power ampleness of means; and ampleness of means refers to
dowry, but today the dowry of a free woman is (just like) the dowry of a
slave girl or even less.’’ (al-Kāfī)

The author says: Wealth and riches is one connotation of

‘ampleness of means’, as was explained earlier. The tradition does not
show more than undesirability of such marriages.

Abu ’l-‘Abbās al-Baqbāq has said: ‘‘I said to Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.):
‘Can a man marry a slave girl without the permission of her people?’ He
said: ‘It is fornication. Surely Allāh says: so marry them with the
permission of their people.’ ’’ (at-Tahdhīb)
Ahmad ibn Muhammad ib Nasr says: ‘‘I asked ar-Ridā (a.s.): ‘Can
mut‘ah be done with a slave girl with the permission of her people?’ He
said: ‘Yes. Surely Allāh, the Mighty, the Great, says: so marry them with
the permission of their people.’ ’’ (ibid.)
Muhammad ibn Muslim says narrating from one of the two Imāms
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 123

(a.s.): ‘‘I asked him about the word of Allāh regarding the salve girls,
and when they are taken in marriage — ‘What was the connotation of al-
ihsān ( ‫ن‬ ُ ‫ ) َاﻟِْﺎﺣْﺼَﺎ‬here?’ He said: ‘Consummation of marriage.’ I said:
‘Then if the marriage is not consummated, there is no [fixed] punishment
prescribed for them?’ He said: ‘Certainly.’ ’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
Harīz said: ‘‘I asked him about al-muhsin ( ‫ﻦ‬ ُ‫ﺼ‬
ِ ْ‫) َاﻟْ ُﻤﺤ‬. He said: ‘He
who has that which suffices him.’ ’’ (ibid.)
Muhammad ibn Qays narrates from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said:
‘‘The Leader of the faithful (a.s.) used to sentence slave men and women,
if any of them committed fornication, to be flogged fifty stripes —
whether he/she be a Muslim or unbeliever or Christian; and he/she was
not to be stoned or banished.’’ (al-Kāfī)
Abū Bakr al-Hadramī narrates that Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) said about a
slave who defamed a free man [of fornication]: ‘‘He shall be flogged
eighty stripes; it is among the rights of the people; as concerning that
which is among the rights of Allāh, the Mighty, the Great, he shall be
given half of the prescribed punishment.’’ ‘‘I said: ‘What are the things
among the rights of Allāh, the Mighty, the Great?’’ He said: ‘When he
fornicates or drinks liquor; it is among those rights for which he shall be
given half of the punishment.’ ’’ (ibid.)
Barīd al-‘Ijlī narrates from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said about a slave
girl who commits fornication: ‘‘She shall be given half the prescribed
punishment, no matter whether she has a husband or not.’’ (at Tahdhīb)
Ibn Jarīr has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: ‘‘al-Musāfihāt (
ُ ‫) َاﻟْ ُﻤﺴَﺎ ِﻓﺤَﺎ‬refers to those who commit fornication openly; and
‫ت‬
muttakhidhāt akhdān ( ‫ن‬ ٍ ‫ت َاﺧْﺪَا‬
ُ ‫ﺨﺬَا‬
ِ ‫) ُﻣ ﱠﺘ‬, to those who have only one
paramour.’’ Also he said: ‘‘The people of the (era of) ignorance
considered fornication unlawful if it was done openly; but what remained
concealed was treated as lawful. They used to say: ‘What becomes
known is ignoble, but there is no blame in that which remains secret.’
Then Allāh revealed: and do not draw near to indecencies, those of them
which are apparent, and those which are concealed.’’ [6:151], (ad-Durru
’l-manthūr)

The author says: There are numerous traditions on the themes

described above; but we have quoted only a few of them as samples.
124 AL-MĪZĀN

A REVIEW OF TRADITIONS ABOUT

MUT‘A MARRIAGE

Abū Basīr says: ‘‘I asked Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) about the mut‘ah. He said:
‘It has been revealed in the Qur’ān: Then as to such of them with whom
you have mut‘ah, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no
blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed.’ ’’
(al-Kāfī)
Ibn Abī ‘Umayr narrates through his narrator from Abū ‘Abdillāh
(a.s.) that he said: ‘‘It was revealed (as follows): Then as to such of them
with whom you have mut‘ah — for a fixed period — give them their
dowries as appointed.’’ (ibid.)

The author says: This recital has been narrated by al-‘Ayyāshī from
Abū Ja‘far (a.s.); also the Sunnis have narrated it by various chains from
Ubayy ibn Ka‘b and ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Abbās, as will be described below.
Probably, such traditions aim at describing the intended meaning of the
verse, rather than asserting that the actual revelation contained these
words.
Zurārah said: ‘‘ ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umayr al-Laythī came to Abū Ja‘far
(a.s.) and asked: ‘What do you say about mut‘ah with women?’ He
replied: ‘Allāh has made it lawful in His Book and on the tongue of His
Prophet; therefore, it is lawful upto the Day of Resurrection.’ He said: ‘O
Abū Ja‘far! (a person) like you says this while ‘Umar had prohibited and
made it unlawful?’ He said: ‘Even if he did so.’ Then (al-Laythī) said: ‘I
seek Allāh’s protection for you that you should consider a thing lawful
which ‘Umar had made unlawful.’ ’’
Zurārah says: ‘‘Then the Imām said to him: ‘Well, you adhere to the
word of your companion, while I am on the word of the Messenger of
Allāh (s.a.w.a.). Well, come on, let me utter imprecations against you
that the (right) word is that which the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) had
said, and that false is that which your companion had uttered.’ Thereupon
‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umayr turned to him and said: ‘Would you like it if your
women, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your cousins did it?’ ’’
Zurārah says: ‘‘ ‘Then Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) turned away from him when he
mentioned his women and cousins.’’ (ibid.)
Abū Maryam narrates that Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) said: ‘‘As for the
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 125

mut‘ah, the Qur’ān was revealed for it (i.e., the Qur’ān allowed it), and
the tradition of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) put it in force.’’ (ibid.)
‘Abdu ’r-Rahmān ibn Abī ‘Abdillāh said: ‘‘I heard Abū Hanīfah
asking Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) about mut‘ah. (The Imām, a.s.) said: ‘About
which mut‘ah you are asking?’ He said: ‘I have already asked you about
the mut‘ah of hajj [i.e., hajju ’t-tamattu‘]; now tell me about the mut‘ah
of women, is it right?’ Then (the Imām, a.s.) said: ‘Allāh be praised!
Have you not read the Book of Allāh: Then as to such of them with whom
you have mut‘ah, give them their dowries as appointed?’ He said: ‘‘By
Allāh! (It seemed as if) it was a verse I had never read.’ ’’ (ibid.)
Muhammad ibn Muslim narrates from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said:
‘‘Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh has narrated from the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
that they [i.e., the Muslims] went on an expedition with him [the Holy
Prophet], and he made mut‘ah lawful for them and (then) did not prohibit
it; and ‘Alī used to say: ‘Had not the son of Khattāb (i.e., ‘Umar) gone
ahead of me in this matter [i.e., had he not forbidden it before I came to
power], none would have committed fornication except a scoundrel’ 1 ;
and Ibn ‘Abbās used to say: ‘Then as to such of them with whom you
have mut‘ah — for a fixed period — give them their dowries as
appointed; and these people deny it, while the Messenger of Allāh
(s.a.w.a.) had allowed it and not forbidden it.’ ’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
Abū Basīr narrates from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said about mut‘ah:
‘‘The verse was revealed; then as to such of them with whom you have
mut‘ah, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on
you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed.’’ Then he
said: ‘‘There is no blame if you increase her (dowry) and she increases
your (period), when the period (fixed) between you two expires. You
may say, with her consent, ‘I make you lawful for me for another (fixed)
period.’ But she is not lawful for other than you until her waiting period
expires; and her waiting period is two monthly courses.’’ (ibid.)
ash-Shaybānī narrates from Abū Ja‘far and Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) that
they said regarding the verse, and there is no blame on you about what
you mutually agree after what is appointed: ‘‘It means that he increases
her dowry or she increases his (fixed) period.’’

1
Another version says: ‘except the most scoundrel.’ (Author’s Note)
126 AL-MĪZĀN

The author says: There are mutawātir or nearly mutawātir traditions

narrated from the Imāms of Ahlu ’l-bayt on the above themes; but we
have quoted only a few of them. Anyone wanting to study the lot, should
refer to the collections of traditions.
[Traditions on the Recitation: ‘‘For a Fixed Period’’]
Ibn Abī Hātim has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās, that he said: ‘‘The
mut‘ah of women was in the beginning of Islam. A man . used to arrive at
a town; there was none with him to mend his things or to look after his
property. Therefore, he married a woman for as long as he thought his
work (there) would last; and she looked after his property and mended
his things.’’ And he [Ibn ‘Abbās] used to recite: ‘‘Then as to such of
them with whom you have mut‘ah — for a fixed period.’’ ‘‘It was
abrogated by the words: with chastity, not committing fornication. 1 And
marriage-tie was in the hand of man, he kept (her) as long as he wished,
and let (her) go when he wished.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
al-Hākim narrates through his chains from Abū Nadrah, that he said:
‘‘I recited before Ibn ‘Abbās, Then as to such of them with whom you
have mut‘ah, give them their dowries as appointed; Ibn ‘Abbās said:
‘Then as to such of them with whom you have muta‘ah — for a fixed
period.’ I said: ‘‘We do not read it like that.’ Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘By Allāh!
Allāh had revealed it like that.’ ’’ (al-Mustadrak)

The author says: This tradition has also been narrated in ad-Durru
’l-manthūr from al-Hākim, ‘Abd ibn Hamīd, Ibn Jarīr and Ibnu ’1-Anbārī
(in al-Masāhif).

‘Abd ibn Hamīd and Ibn Jarīr have narrated from Qatādah that he
said: ‘‘Ubayy ibn Ka‘b used to recite: Then as to such of them with whom
you have mut‘ah — for a fixed period.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Muhammad ibn Ka‘b narrates from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: ‘‘The
mut‘ah was in the beginning of Islam. A man used to arrive at a town
which he did not know. So, he married a woman for as long as he thought
he would stay there; so she looked after his property and mended his
things. (It continued) until the verse was revealed: ... except before their

1
How can a preceding phrase of the same verse abrogate the clause of
mut‘ah which comes after it? (tr.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 127

mates or those whom their right hands possess’’ [23:6]; Ibn ‘Abbās said:
‘‘Now every woman except these two (categories) is unlawful.’ ’’ (as-
Sahīh, at-Tirmidhī)
The author says: It implies that the mut‘ah was abrogated in Mecca
[before hijrah], because the purportedly abrogating verse is of Meccan
period!
‘Abdullāh ibn Abī Malīkah says: ‘‘I asked ‘Ā’ishah (r.a.) about the
mut‘ah of women. She said: ‘The Book of Allāh is between me and you.’
Then she recited: And who guard their private parts, except before their
mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not
blameable, [23:5 — 6]; but whoever seeks to go beyond what Allāh has
given in his marriage or in his possession, he surely exceeds the limit.’’1

[Some Traditions showing that the Mut‘ah

was abrogated by the Qur’ān]
Abū Dāwūd (in his an-Nāsikh), Ibnu ’l-Mundhir and an-Nahhās have
narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that the verses, Then as to such of them with
whom you have mut‘ah, give them their dowries as appointed, was
abrogated by the verses, O Prophet! when you divorce them for their
prescribed time [65:1]; And the divorced women should keep themselves
in waiting for three monthly courses [2:228]; And (as for) those of your
women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their
prescribed time shall be three months [65:4]. (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Abū Dāwūd (in his an-Nāsikh), Ibnu ’1-Mundhir, an-Nahhās and al-
Bayhaqī have narrated from Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab that he said: ‘‘The
verse of inheritance has abrogated the mut‘ah.’’ (ibid.)
‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq and Ibnu ’'l-Mundhir have narrated from ‘Alī, that
he said: ‘‘Ramadān abrogated every (other) fast; and az-zakāt abrogated
every (other) alms; and mut‘ah was abrogated by divorce, waiting period
and inheritance; and the sacrifice (of hajj) abrogated every (other)
slaughter.’’ (ibid.)

1
As the author has commented above, such claim would antedate the
supposed prohibition of mut‘ah prior to hijrah, which even the Sunnīs do not
claim. Moreover, as I have noted earlier, the whole argument for or against
mut‘ah is meant to establish whether a women of mut‘ah is a lawful wife or
not. Now to assume that the word, ‘mates’, used in this verse excludes the
mut‘ah wife is begging the question. (tr.)
128 AL-MĪZĀN

[Some Traditions showing that the Mut‘ah

was abrogated by the Sunnah]
‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq, Ahmad and Muslim have narrated from Sabrah al-
Juhanī that he said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) allowed us, in the
year of the Conquest of Mecca, to marry women in mut‘ah. So I went out
with a man of my tribe; I was his better in beauty while he was almost
ugly. Each of us had a garment; my garment was worn and shabby, while
my cousin’s was brand new and fresh. When we reached upper region of
Mecca, a girl came before us — like a beautiful young she-camel. We
said (to her): ‘Do you agree that one of us should marry you in mut‘ah?’
She said: ‘And what will you pay?’ So each of us spread his garment.
She kept looking at two of us. When my companion saw her (hesitation),
he said: ‘Surely, his garment is old and worn; and my garment is new and
fresh.’ She kept replying: ‘Even his garment is not bad.’ So, I did mut‘ah
with her. We had not even departed from Mecca when the Messenger of
Allāh (s.a.w.a.) prohibited it.’’ (ibid.)
Mālik, ‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq, Ibn Abī Shaybah, al-Bukhārī, Muslim, at-
Tirmidhī, an-Nasā’ī and Ibn Mājah have narrated from ‘Alī ibn Abī
Tālib: ‘‘Verily, the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) forbade the mut‘ah of
women on the day of Khaybar; and (the same day, prohibited) eating the
flesh of domesticated donkeys.’’ (ibid.)
Ibn Abī Shaybah, Ahmad and Muslim have narrated from Salamah
ibn al-Akwa‘ that he said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) allowed us
to do mut‘ah with women, in the year of Awtās for three days, then he
forbade it.’’ (ibid.)
Ibnu ’1-‘Arabī writes in his Commentary of Sahīh at-Tirmidhī:
‘‘Ismā‘īl narrates from his father, from az-Zuhrī, that Sabrah said that the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) prohibited it in the Last Pilgrimage. It has been
narrated by Abū Dāwūd, ... and it has been narrated by ‘Abdu ’l-‘Azīz
ibn ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdi ’l-‘Azīz from ar-Rabī‘ ibn Sabrah from his father, in
which he says that it was in the Last Pilgrimage, after it was allowed, and
that it was [marriage] for a fixed period; and al-Hasan has said that it was
(forbidden) in the ‘Umrah of al-Qadā’.’’
The same book narrates from az-Zuhrī that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
forbade mut‘ah in the expedition of Tabūk.

The author says: As you see, the traditions contradict each other in
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 129

identifying the time when the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) prohibited the mut‘ah.
Some say it was prior to hijrah;others that it was after hijrah. A group
says it was abrogated by the verses of marriage, divorce, waiting period
and inheritance, while others claim that it was prohibited by the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) in the battle of Khaybar [Rajab, 7 AH], or at the ‘Umrah of al-
Qadā’ [end of 7 AH], or in the year of Awtās or the Conquest of Mecca
[8 AH], or the year of Tabūk [9 AH], or after the Last Pilgrimage [end of
10 AH]. That is why the Sunnī scholars say that it was prohibited several
times, and each of the above traditions describes one or the other of the
occasions. But some of the narrators, like ‘Alī, Jābir and Ibn Mas‘ūd,
were too great to remain unaware of the Prophet’s orders — especially
when we remember that they were constantly with him (s.a.w.a.) and
knew every big and small matter of his life. 1

al-Bayhaqī narrates from ‘Alī (a.s.) that he said: ‘‘The Messenger of

Allāh (s.a.w.a.) forbade mut‘ah. It was only for him who did not get
[means for permanent marriage]; but when (verses of) marriage, divorce,
waiting period and mutual inheritance (rights) of husband and wife were
revealed, it was abrogated.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
an-Nahhās has narrated that ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib said to Ibn ‘Abbās:
‘‘Surely, you are a straying man; verily, the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
had forbidden mut‘ah.’’ (ibid.)
al-Bayhaqī narrates from Abū Dharr that he said: ‘‘The mut‘ah was
allowed for the companions of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) only for
three days; then the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) forbade it.’’ (ibid.)
Abū Jamrah says that Ibn ‘Abbās was asked about mut‘ah, and he
allowed it. Thereupon a slave of his said to him: ‘‘Surely it was (allowed)
when the number of women was small and the condition was hard.’’ Ibn
‘Abbās said: ‘‘Yes.’’ (as-Sahīh, al-Bukhārī)

1
Other scholars say that it was allowed and disallowed repeatedly.
Muslim has given the following heading to the chapter of ‘‘Mut‘ah’’ in his
as-Sahīh: ‘‘Chapter of the mut‘ah marriage, and that it was allowed, then
abrogated, then again allowed, and then abrogated ...’’ ash-Shāfi‘ī says: ‘‘I
do not know anything in Islam that was allowed, then prohibited, then
allowed and then prohibited.’’ Some have said that it was allowed and
abrogated three times; others have said, more than three times. Vide Tafsīr
Mazharī, by Qādī Thanā’ullāh Pānīpatī, p.72. (tr.)
130 AL-MĪZĀN

al-Bayhaqī has narrated that ‘Umar delivered a lecture in which he

said: ‘‘How is it that some men marry (in) this mut‘ah form, and the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) had forbidden it? None will be brought
before me who had married (in) this (form) but I shall stone him.’’ (ad-
Durru ’l-manthūr)
Ibn Abī Shaybah, Ahmad and Muslim have narrated from Sabrah that
he said: ‘‘I saw the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) standing between the
Rukn and the door [of the Ka‘bah], and he was saying: ‘O people! I had
allowed you to marry in mut‘ah form; well, Allāh has prohibited it upto
the Day of Resurrection. Now, if anyone has got any (woman) from
them, he should let her go, but do not take back anything from what you
have given them.’ ’’(ibid.)
Ibn Abī Shaybah narrates from al-Hasan that he said: ‘‘By Allāh!
Mut‘ah was not but only three days, the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
had permitted them in that (period); it was not before that, nor after
that.’’ (ibid.)

[Some Traditions of some Companions and their Disciples

about Lawfulness of the Mut‘ah]
Mujāhid has said about (the verse), Then as to such of them with
whom you have mut‘ah: ‘‘It is the mut‘ah marriage.’’ (at-Tafsīr, at-
Tabarī)
as-Suddī said about this verse: ‘‘It is mut‘ah; a man marries a woman
on the condition of a fixed period; and when the term expires, he has no
authority on her and she is free of him; but she is obliged [to observe the
waiting period] to be sure of what is in her womb; and there is no
inheritance between them, neither will inherit the other.’’ (ibid.)
It is narrated in as-Sahīh, al-Bukhārī and as-Sahīh, Muslim, and
reported in ad-Durru ’l-manthūr from ‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq and Ibn Abī
Shaybah, from Ibn Mas‘ūd that he said: ‘‘We used to go on expeditions
with the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), and our women were not with us.
So we said: ‘Should not we castrate ourselves?’ But (the Prophet)
forbade us to do so; and allowed us to marry a woman on (dowry of) a
garment for a (fixed) period.’’ Then ‘Abdullāh recited: O you who
believe! do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allāh has made
lawful for you [5:87].
Ibn Abī Shaybah narrates from Nāfi‘ that Ibn ‘Umar was asked about
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 131

mut‘ah, and he said that it was unlawful. It was said to him: ‘‘Verily, Ibn
‘Abbās declares it as lawful.’’ He said: ‘‘Why did not he open his mouth
in the reign of ‘Umar?’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Ibnu ’l-Mundhir, at-Tabarānī and al-Bayhaqī have narrated from
Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr that he said: ‘‘I said to Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘What have you
done? Travellers have carried your ruling (far and wide), and poets have
composed poems about it.’ He said: ‘And what have they said?’ I said:
‘They have said:
‘‘I say to the old man, as he has stayed a long time,
O my companion! Are you interested in the rulling of
Ibn ‘Abbās?
Would you like to have a chubby unmarried girl?
Who would be your resting place, until the people depart
[from here].’’ ’
(Ibn ‘Abbās) said: ‘Surely, we are Allāh’s, and to Him we shall surely
return. No, By Allāh! I have not given this ruling, nor is this which I have
meant. I have not allowed it but to one who is hard-pressed; and I have
not allowed of it except what Allāh has allowed of dead body, blood and
flesh of swine.’ ’’ (ibid.)
Ibnu ’l-Mundhir narrates from ‘Ammār (slave of ash-Sharīd) that he
said: ‘‘I asked Ibn ‘Abbās regarding the mut‘ah, whether it is marriage or
fornication. He said: ‘Neither marriage nor fornication.’ I said: ‘Then
what is it?’ He said: ‘It is mut‘ah, as Allāh has said.’ I said: ‘Does it have
a waiting period?’ He said: ‘Its waiting period is one monthly course.’ I
said: ‘Do they inherit each other?’ He said: ‘No.’ ’’ (ibid.)
‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq and Ibnu ’l-Mundhir have narrated through ‘Atā’
from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: ‘‘May Allāh have mercy on ‘Umar. Mut‘ah
was but a mercy from Allāh, which He had bestowed on the ummah of
Muhammad. If he (‘Umar) had not forbidden it, none but the most
wicked would have needed fornication.’’ Also he said: ‘‘It is that which
is in the chapter of ‘The Women’: Then as to such of them with whom
you have mut‘ah to such and such a period on such and such a dowry.’’
Again he said: ‘‘There is no inheritance between them. If they decide to
agree after the term [to extend it], then, yes; and if they separate, then,
yes; and there is no [permanent] marriage between them.’’ ‘Atā’ said that
he heard from Ibn ‘Abbās that in his opinion it was lawful (even) now.
(ibid.)
132 AL-MĪZĀN

It is narrated in at-Tafsīr, at-Tabarī and also in ad-Durru ’l-manthūr

from ‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq and Abū Dāwūd (in his an Nāsikh) from al-Hakam
that he was asked about this verse [of mut‘ah] whether it was abrogated.
He said: ‘‘No.’’ Also ‘Alī (a.s.) has said: ‘‘If ‘Umar had not forbidden
mut‘ah, none but a scoundrel would have committed fornication.’’

[Some Traditions showing that it was ‘Umar

who had forbidden the Mut‘ah]
Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh said: ‘‘We used to do mut‘ah on a handful of date
and flour, for fixed days, in the time of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
and Abū Bakr — until ‘Umar disallowed it in the affair of ‘Amr ibn
Hurayth.’’ (as-Sahīh, Muslim)
The author says: This tradition has also been quoted in Jāmi‘u ’l-
usūl (of Ibnu ’l-Athīr),Zādu ’l-ma‘ād (of Ibnu ’l-Qayyim), Fathu ’l-bārī
(of Ibn Hajar) and Kanzu ’l-‘ummāl.

Mālik and ‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq have narrated from ‘Urwah ibn az-
Zubayr that Khawlah bint Hakīm came to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb and said:
‘‘Rabī‘ah ibn Umayyah had done mut‘ah with a woman of not pure Arab
blood, and she had become pregnant from him.’’ [Hearing this] ‘Umar
ibn al-Khattāb came out, trailing his robe in dismay, and said: ‘‘This is
mut‘ah! Had I gone ahead about it [i.e., Had I forbidden it before], I
would have stoned (the person concerned).’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

The author says: It has also been reported from ash-Shāfi‘ī (in his
Kitābu ’l-umm) and from al-Bayhaqī (in his as-Sunan).

Sulaymān ibn Yasār narrates from Umm ‘Abdillāh, daughter of Abū

Khaythamah, that a man came from Syria and stayed with her. Then he
said: ‘‘Verily, bachelorhood has become hard for me to bear; therefore,
find for me a woman with whom I should do mut‘ah.’’ She says: ‘‘So, I
led him to a woman and he made conditions with her, and got men of
probity as witnesses for it. He remained with her as long as Allāh wished
him to; and then he went away. Then ‘Umar was informed of it. He
called for me and asked: ‘Is it correct what I have been told?’ I said:
‘Yes.’ He said: ‘If he comes (back), let me know.’ When he came back, I
informed ‘Umar; and he called for him and asked: ‘What made you to do
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 133

what you did?’ He said: ‘I did so in the days of the Messenger of Allāh
(s.a.w.a.) and he did not forbid us to do so until Allāh took him (to
Himself); then (we did it) in the days of Abū Bakr, and he too did not
forbid us to do so, until Allāh took him away; then (we did so) during
your days and you did not issue to us any prohibition against it.’ Then
‘Umar said: ‘Well, by Him in Whose hand my soul is, if I had gone
ahead with its prohibition, I would have stoned you; announce it, in order
that marriage might be distinguished from fornication.’ ’’ (Kanzu ’l-
‘ummāl)
‘Atā’ has said: ‘‘Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh came for ‘umrah; so we went to
him at his staying place, and people asked him regarding various things,
then they mentioned mut‘ah. He said: ‘We did mut‘ah in the time of the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and Abū Bakr and ‘Umar.’ ’’ Ahmad’s
narration adds: ‘‘until it was the last period of ‘Umar’s (r.a.) caliphate.’’
(as-Sahīh, Muslim; Musnad, Ahmad)
Nāfi‘ reports that ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar was asked about mut‘ah and
he said: ‘‘(It is) forbidden. Why, look, if ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb had
caught anyone doing it, he would have stoned him.’’ (as-Sunan, al-
Bayhaqī)
Ibnu ’l-Jawzī says: ‘‘ ‘Umar (r.a.) used to say: ‘By Allāh! Nobody
will be brought before me, (accused of) practising mut‘ah, but I shall
stone him.’’ (Mir’ātu ’z-zamān)
Ibn Rushd narrates from Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh that he said: ‘‘We did
mut‘ah in the days of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), and Abū Bakr,
and during half the reign of ‘Umar; then ‘Umar forbade people to do so.’’
(Bidāyatu ’l-mujtahid)
Ibn al-Kalbī has said: ‘‘Verily, Salamah ibn Umayyah ibn Khalaf al-
Jumahī did mut‘ah with Salmā, slave girl of Hākim ibn Umayyah ibn al-
Awqas al-Aslamī, and she bore from him a child, but he denied (paternity
of) her child. This news reached ‘Umar; therefore he forbade mut‘ah.’’
(al-Isābah)
Ayyūb says: ‘‘ ‘Urwah said to Ibn ‘Abbās: ‘Do you not fear Allāh,
that you allow mut‘ah?’ Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘Ask your mother, O ‘Urwah!’
Then ‘Urwah said: ‘But Abū Bakr and ‘Umar did not do it!’ Thereupon,
Ibn ‘Abbās said: ‘By Allāh! I do not think you will stop (in your
arrogance) until Allāh chastises you. We talk to you from the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.), and you talk to us from Abū Bakr and ‘Umar.’ ’’ (Zādu ’l-
134 AL-MĪZĀN

ma‘ād)

The author says: The mother of ‘Urwah [mentioned in the above

tradition] was Asmā’, daughter of Abū Bakr, who was married in mut‘ah
form by az-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām, from whom she bore ‘Abdullāh ibn
az-Zubayr and ‘Urwah.

ar-Rāghib writes: ‘‘ ‘Abdullāh ibn az-Zubayr reproached ‘Abdullāh

ibn ‘Abbās because the latter considered mut‘ah as lawful. ‘Abdullāh ibn
‘Abbās told him: ‘Ask your mother how the censers glowed between her
and your father?’ So he asked her and she replied: ‘I did not give birth to
you but in mut‘ah’ ’’(al-Muhādarāt)
Muslim al-Quriyy says: ‘‘I asked Ibn ‘Abbās about mut‘ah; and he
allowed it; but Ibn az-Zubayr used to reject it. So (Ibn ‘Abbās) said:
‘This is the mother of Ibn az-Zubayr, who narrates that the Messenger of
Allāh had allowed it; so go to her and ask her.’ ’’ Muslim says: ‘‘So we
went to her and, lo! she was a stout blind woman. She said: ‘The
Messenger of Allāh has allowed it.’ ’’ (as-Sahīh, Muslim)

The author says: The context shows that the question was about the
mut‘ah of women; and other traditions too give the same meaning.

Abū Nadrah said: ‘‘I was with Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh when someone
came to him and said: ‘Ibn ‘Abbās and Ibn az-Zubayr have differed about
the two mut‘ahs [i.e., mut‘atu ’l-hajj and mut‘ah of women].’ Jābir said:
‘We did both with the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), then ‘Umar forbade
us both, but we did not deviate from them.’ ’’ (as-Sahīh, Muslim)

The author says: Reportedly al-Bayhaqī too has narrated it in his as-
Sunan; and the same theme has been narrated in as-Sahīh of Muslim, in
three places with different wordings, one of which reports Jābir as
saying: ‘‘But when ‘Umar stood up [i.e., came to power], he said: ‘Surely
Allāh used to allow for His Messenger whatever He wished in any way
He wished. Therefore, you complete the hajj and the ‘umrah, as Allāh
has ordered, and stop marrying these women. No man shall be brought to
me who would have married a woman for a [fixed] period but I shall
stone him.’
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 135

Also this theme has been narrated by al-Bayhaqī in his as-Sunan and
al-Jassās in his Ahkamu ’l-Qur’ān; also it is reported in Kanzu ’l-‘ummāl
and ad-Durru ’l-manthūr, as well as in at-Tafsīr of ar-Rāzī and Musnad
of at-Tayālisī.

al-Qurtubī has narrated, in his at-Tafsīr, from ‘Umar that he said in

his lecture: ‘‘Two mut‘ahs were [practised] in the time of the Messenger
of Allāh (s.a.w.a.); but I forbid them and shall inflict punishment on
them; the mut‘ah of hajj and the mut‘ah of women.’’

The author says: This lecture of his is among the things unanimously
accepted by all narrators; and they have reported it as an undisputed fact.
Vide, for example, at-Tafsīr of ar-Rāzī, al-Bayān wa ’t-tab’īn, Zādu ’l-
ma‘ād, Ahkāmu ’l-Qur’ān, [at-Tārīkh of] at-Tabarī and of Ibn ‘Asākir
among other references.

at-Tabarī has narrated from ‘Umar that he said: ‘‘There were three
things in the time of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.); but I am
forbidding them; and shall give punishment on them: mut‘ah of hajj, and
mut‘ah of women, and hayya ‘alā khayri ’l-‘amal in the adhān (call for
prayer).’’ (al-Mustabīn)
‘Imrān ibn Sawādah says: ‘‘I prayed dawn (prayer) with ‘Umar; he
recited (the chapter of) Subhān and another one with it; then he returned
and I stood with him. He said: ‘(Do you have) any work (with me)?’ I
said: ‘(Yes,) there is (some) work.’ He said: ‘Then join (me).’ I joined
him. When he entered (his house), he gave permission to me. I found him
on a bare bed-stead which had nothing on it. I said: ‘(I have come with) a
sincere advice.’ He said: ‘Welcome to the adviser, day and night.’ I said:
‘Your people blame (you) for four things.’ (Hearing this) he put the
handle of his whip under his chin and its tip on his thigh, and said: ‘Let
me hear it.’ I said: ‘They say that you have prohibited ‘umrah during the
months of hajj, while neither the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) nor Abū
Bakr (r.a.) had done so, and it is lawful (in sharī‘ah).’ He said: ‘Is it
lawful? If they do ‘umrah during the months of hajj, they will think it
suffices them from hajj; and will go out at once like a chick from it shell;
and the hajj (days) will be empty (of people), while it is a splendour from
Allāh’s spleandours; and I have done right.’
136 AL-MĪZĀN

‘‘I said: ‘Also they say that you have prohibited the mut‘ah of
women, while it was a permission from Allāh. We used to do mut‘ah on
a handful [of date, etc.] and separate after three (days).’ He said: ‘Surely,
the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) had allowed it at a time when there was
need (of it), then the people did get affluence; thereafter, I do not know
any Muslim who did it or resorted to it. Now let anyone who so wishes
marry [permanently] on a handful [of date] and separate the third day by
divorce; and I have done right.’
‘‘Then I said: ‘You have granted freedom to a slave girl if she
delivers a child, even without being emancipated by her master.’ He said:
‘I have joined honour with honour; and I did not mean but good; and I
ask pardon of Allāh.’
‘‘I said: ‘And they complain against your reviling the public and your
harsh demeanour.’ (Hearing this,) he drew the whip and wiped it until he
came to its end, then said: ‘I am a travelling-companion of Muhammad
and was his travelling-companion in the expedition of Qarqaratu ’l-Kidr.
By Allāh! I put (animals) to pasture until I satiate, and I give (them) drink
until I quench their thirst; I hit the unruly camel and restrain the untamed
one; and I defend my cooking-pot and drive my steps; and gather
obdurate ones, and join slow ones; and I often admonish but seldom
strike; and make a show of whip but repulse by hand. (Even) if it had not
been so, I would have had an excuse.’ ’’
(‘Imrān) said: ‘‘This narrative reached Mu‘āwiyah, and he said: ‘He
was, by Allāh, knowledgeable of his subjects.’ ’’ (at-Tārīkh, at-Tabarī)

The author says: Ibn Abi ’1-Hadīd has narrated it in his Sharh Nahji
’l-balāghah from Ibn Qutaybah.
These are some of the traditions regarding the topic of mut‘ah of
women.

A discerning scholar, looking at them, cannot fail to see:-

First: The contradictions and irreconcilibility so glaringly found in
them. The scholar cannot reach at any conclusion from them except that
it was ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb who, during his reign, forbade and
prohibited it because of his personal opinion, which he formed after
hearing the stories of ‘Amr ibn Hurayth and Rabī‘ah ibn Umayyah ibn
Khalaf al-Jumahī. As for the claim of its abrogation by the Qur’ān or
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 137

tradition, you have already seen that it has no leg to stand on. It is quite
apart from the fact that whatever stand one takes, some traditions
contradict the others. The only point of agreement is that it was ‘Umar
ibn al-Khattāb who prohibited it and enforced his prohibition, who
decided that the action was forbidden and laid down the punishment of
stoning for him who did it.
Second: That it was a custom that was prevalent in the time of the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) by his permission; it makes no difference whether he
had established that custom, or had let an old custom continue. Also that
it was practised by such of his companions who cannot be accused of
fornication, by any stretch of imagination. For instance, Jābir ibn
‘Abdillāh, ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd, az-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwām and Asmā’,
daughter of Abū Bakr, who had given birth to ‘Abdullāh, son of az-
Zubayr through this very mut‘ah marriage.
Third: That there were among the companions and their disciples,
people who continued to believe and declare that mut‘ah was lawful, like
Ibn Mas‘ūd, Jābir, ‘Amr ibn Hurayth and others (among the
companions); and Mujāhid, as-Suddī, Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr and others [among
the disciples].
This open and clear conflict among the traditions has led the Sunnī
scholars, first to disagree among themselves whether mut‘ah was lawful
or unlawful, and then compelled the protagonists of prohibition to opt for
diverse opinions as to how it was prohibited. In all, they have adopted not
less than fifteen views — each different from the others and all amazing.
One may discuss this topic from many angles, but we are concerned
here with some of them only. There is a sectarian polemic going on
between the Sunnīs and the Shī‘ahs. There is a jurisprudential aspect,
whether mut‘ah is lawful or not. Lastly, there is the exegetical angle,
dealing with the exegesis of the verse: Then as to such of them with
whom you have mut‘ah ...: Does it ordain the lawfulness of the mut‘ah? If
yes, then was it abrogated by any other verse, like that of the chapter 23
(The Believers) or those of marriage, prohibition, divorce, waiting period
or inheritance? Or was it abrogated by the sunnah of the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.)? Also, if it was legalized, had Islam initiated a new system? Or
had it just confirmed an old custom? And so on and so forth.
It is this third aspect, i.e., exegetical, that we shall discuss in this
book. We have already explained these matters in the Commentary; but
138 AL-MĪZĀN

here we shall give some more details, by drawing the readers’ attention to
what has been said [by some non-Shī‘ahs] against the verse’s implication
regarding the mut‘ah marriage and its legislation.

[An Exegete’s Claims and our Comments]

A writer, after insisting that the verse only implies that one should
pay dowry in full in permanent marriage, expresses his views as follows:
‘‘The Shī‘ahs say that the verse refers to the mut‘ah marriage, i.e.,
marrying a woman for a fixed term, e.g., one day, one week or one
month. They argue by an irregular recital of the Qur’ān which is narrated
from Ubayy, Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with
them), and by the reports and traditions that have been narrated about
mut‘ah.
‘‘As for the recital, it is irregular, which is not proved to be [a part of]
the Qur’ān. It has been explained earlier that if there are correct traditions
as khabaru ’l-wāhid in such matters, then the added words are treated as
explanation; and it shows what the man concerned had understood [from
the verse]; but understanding of a companion is not a proof in matters of
religion, especially when the sequence and context [of the verse] rejects
it — as it does here. Because the man who marries in mut‘ah for a fixed
term does not intend chastity instead of fornication; rather his first
intention is sexual satisfaction. Therefore, even if there is a sort of
chastity for man (as it prevents him from free indulgence in fornication),
there is surely nothing of chastity for the woman who hires out her body
every now and then to a new man; she becomes, as has been said:
A ball that is struck by bats
And is dealt with by man after man.’’

COMMENT: He claims that the Shī‘ahs argue by a recital of Ibn

Mas‘ūd and others. But anyone who refers to the Shī‘ī books and
arguments will see that, when they mention that recital, they do not do so
because they think it to be a reliable and independent proof in itself. How
can they do so when they do not accept the authoritativeness of irregular
recitals, even if they are attributed to their own Imāms? How can they
argue by something they do not accept as authoritative against someone
who does not accept its authority? Such an idea is nothing but a joke.
The Shī‘ahs’ actual argument is this: Those companions of the
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 139

Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to recite the verse in that way. It means that they
believed it to be the verse’s connotation. It is irrelevant whether they
recited it as a part of the Qur’ān, or just as its explanation which showed
that they had understood this meaning from the wordings of the verse.
This argument is useful to the Shī‘ahs in two ways:
First: It shows that a number of the companions believed as the
Shī‘ahs do. As the reports show, a number of the companions and their
disciples believed in the lawfulness of the mut‘ah, and if one wants to
verify it, one is free to consult the relevant books.
Second: It proves that the verse means exactly what the Shī‘ahs say,
and the recital of those companions supports it. Not only that. Even the
claim that the verse was later abrogated, clearly shows that the claimants
accepted that the verse proved the lawfulness of the mut‘ah marriage;
otherwise, there was no need for them to say that it was abrogated or to
narrate traditions of its abrogation. There are a lot of such traditions, a
number of which was quoted above. The Shī‘ahs make use even of the
traditions of abrogation in the same way as they do with the above-
mentioned irregular recital. It does not mean that they accept authority of
irregular recitals, as it does not mean that they accept the verse’s
abrogation. What they want to prove is that those reciters and narrators
believed that the verse spoke about the lawfulness of the mut‘ah
marriage.
As for the claim that the context of the verse does not agree with this
meaning, his whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that
the verb, al-musāfahah ( ‫ﺤ ُﺔ‬ َ ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤﺴَﺎ َﻓ‬fornication) has been used in this verse
in its literal sense, i.e., ejaculation of semen, and then he links this
meaning with its intention. Thus he claims that the temporary marriage
for satisfaction of sexual desire is as-sifāh ( ‫ح‬ ُ ‫ﺴﻔَﺎ‬
‫ = اَﻟ ﱢ‬fornication), and not
an-nikāh ( ‫ح‬ُ ‫ = اَﻟ ﱢﻨﻜَﺎ‬marriage). He seems unaware of the fact that even an-
nikāh literally means sexual intercourse. It is written in Lisānu ’l-‘Arab:
‘‘al-Azharī says: ‘The basic meaning of an-nikāh in Arabic is to have
sexual intercourse.’ ’’ Therefore, it will be necessary for him to say that
even an-nikāh was fornication! Thus, his supposed contraposition
between an-nikāh and as-sifāh loses its bearing.
Moreover, if the intention of satisfying sexual urge turns the
temporary marriage into . fornication, then what if someone marries
permanently with the same intention? Surely that permanent marriage too
140 AL-MĪZĀN

must turn into fornication. But is there any Muslim prepared to say so?
May be someone will say: There is a difference between permanent
and temporary marriages. The permanent marriage by its very nature is
meant to maintain chastity, procreate children and establish a household.
But it is not so in a temporary marriage.
But it is just superciliousness. All the benefits attributed to the
permanent marriage are obtainable from the temporary one; protects from
fornication, saves the geneology from mix-up; children may be born and
cared for, and a house-hold may be established. That is apart from the
added benefit which this ummah could derive from it because it is much
more easier to do; and even he who because of various reasons (poverty,
inability to maintain a wife permanently, being on a journey or other such
reasons) is unable to marry permanently, may utilize this permission and
save himself from sin.
On the other hand, all presumed defects of the temporary marriage —
which have led him to say that mut‘ah was fornication — may be found
in the permanent marriage too, like the intention of satisfying sexual
desire by ejaculating semen in the woman. Therefore, the claim that
permanent marriage was made in its very nature for the claimed benefits,
while temporary marriage was made in its very nature for the supposed
defects, is just a claim that is not supported by any evidence and whose
incorrectness is crystal clear.
Another claim: Mut‘ah marriage is as-sifāh (ejaculation); therefore it
is fornication that is opposite of marriage. But when you interpret as-
sifāh as ejaculation of semen, then it will cover not only fornication but
permanent marriage also — especially if the latter was done for
satisfaction of sexual desire.
It is really emazing to read his claim that even if there is a sort of
chastity for the man, there is no chastity for the woman. Would that I
knew what was the difference between man and woman in this respect.
How is it that a man can preserve his chastity and protect himself from
fornication through the mut‘ah, but a woman cannot? Is it anything
except foolhardiness?
Now we come to the poetry lines quoted by him. The discourse is on
a serious subject, by which we are trying to discover a religious reality
which has very important bearing on the life of this world and the next —
no matter whether at the end mut‘ah is proved lawful or unlawful. What
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 141

is the use of poetry in such a discourse? Poetry is just an imaginary

composition;it recognizes falsehood more than it does truth; and has
more affinity with error than with guidance.
One wonders why did he not recite these lines when discussing the
above-mentioned traditions, and especially after the words of ‘Umar (in
the tradition of at-Tabarī quoted above): ‘‘Now let anyone who so wishes
marry [permanently] on a handful [of date] and separate the third day by
divorce.’’
And who is the real target of his calumination except Allāh and His
Messenger who had legalized this type of marriage, either as a new
institution or by endorsement of an established custom? After all, it was
undeniably a system prevalent among Muslims in the early Islam within
the sight and hearing of the Prophet.

Question: The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had allowed it in exigency, because

in those days the Muslims were poor, and poverty overwhelmed the
ummah; also they had to participate in expeditions, as some of the above-
quoted traditions imply.
Reply: Once you admit that mut‘ah was prevalent among the people
in the early days of Islam, and that it was known by the names of mut‘ah
marriage, or istimtā‘, there is no escape from admitting that the verse
shows its lawfulness; that it is an unconditional verse and no other verse
or tradition has capability of abrogating it. In this background, the claim
that it was somehow abrogated is nothing but a willful misinterpretation
without any proof.
Let us accept [for the sake of argument] that it was allowed by the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as a matter of exigency. Now let us ask ourselves: Was
the need during the time of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) greater and more
pressing than in the post-Prophetic era? Especially during the reigns of
the ‘rightly-guided’ caliphs, when the armies of the Muslims in their
thousands were always on move to the east and the west? What was the
difference between the first and the second halves of the caliphate of
‘Umar in this respect? How had the exigency vanished? Were there no
poor Muslims in those days? Or had they stopped going to wars or
journeys, etc.? Why one type of need had justified its legislation, but
other types could not?
Compare the situation of the Muslim societies today with that of the
142 AL-MĪZĀN

time of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the first half of the ‘‘rightly-guided
caliphs’’. Is not the need that justified its legislation greater and more
pressing now that it was in those days? Backbreaking poverty reigns over
the Muslim countries, and the colonial governments and imperial powers
as well as the Pharaohs who rule these places are sucking the blood of the
masses, and usurping all green and dry produce of their labour.
Today licentiousness manifests itself everywhere; libertinism appears
in ever-more attractive and eye-catching garb; there is ever more
effective exhortation to indulge in carnality and debauchery. This trend is
spreading its tentacles wider and wider; the trouble is reaching every
corner of the world and infecting more and more people. Immorality,
illicit sexual behaviour, is engulfing all the youths — be they students,
soldiers or factory workers — and this group constitutes the majority of
the human population.
Nobody can ever be in doubt about the basic needs which push these
youths to fornication, homosexuality and all types of sexual aberrations.
They are unable to establish and run a household; they are engaged in
temporary occupations, or posted to a base for a fixed term, and it does
not allow them to establish a home and marry permanently — no matter
whether they are in service or studies or journey, etc. Now, how is it that
these necessities could legalize mut‘ah marriage in the early days of
Islam — when they were comparatively less prevalent and much easier to
bear, but cannot make it lawful in other times even when the calamity has
overwhelmed the mankind, and mischief has greatly increased?
The said writer has further written: ‘‘Furthermore, the mut‘ah goes
against what has been established in the Qur’ān about this subject [of
marriage]. Allāh, the Mighty, the Great, says praising the believers: And
who guard their private parts, except before their mates or those whom
their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable; but whoever
seeks to go beyond that, these are they that exceed the limits (23:5 — 7).
That is, they exceed the limit of what Allāh has made lawful for them,
and go into what He has forbidden. These verses are not in conflict with
the verse under discussion, i.e.: Then as to such of them with whom you
have mut‘ah ... [which he takes to mean, with whom you have
cohabited]; they are rather of the same connotation, and there is therefore
no abrogation. The woman in mut‘ah is not a wife, who could have rights
on man similar to man’s rights on her, as Allāh has said. It has been
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 143

reported from the Shī‘ahs that they themselves do not apply the rules of
marriage on her, nor do they give her the concomitants of matrimony:
They do not count her among the four wives a man is allowed to have
together in marriage (if there is no danger of injustice); they rather allow
him to marry in mut‘ah a lot of women. Likewise, they do not prescribe
the punishment of stoning for a fornicator when he has a mut‘ah wife —
because they do not count him as married; it shows their conviction that
the words of Allāh about those married in mut‘ah, taking them with
chastity, not committing fornication, [which he interprets as, ‘in
marriage, not committing fornication’] is not applicable to him — and it
is a clear contradiction in term. Also some exegetes have narrated from
them that a woman of mut‘ah is not entitled to inheritance or
maintenance; and that there is no divorce or waiting period for her. In
short, the Qur’ān is far away from this opinion, and there is certainly no
proof, or even a quasi-proof, for it in this verse.’’

COMMENT: His claim, that the mut‘ah goes against what has been
established in the Qur’ān, boils down to this: First, the verses of the
chapter of ‘The Believers’: And who guard their private parts ..., confine
the lawfulness to the wives, and a woman in mut‘ah is not a wife;
therefore, the verses refute the lawfulness of the mut‘ah. Second, these
verses do not permit the verse, Then as to such of them with whom ..., to
be interpreted as speaking about mut‘ah.
As for the claim that the verses of the chapter ‘The Believers’
prohibit the mut‘ah, he has ignored the fact that these are Meccan verses,
while mut‘ah was prevalent even after hijrah. The question arises: When
the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) allowed the mut‘ah [after hijrah], was
he allowing what the Qur’ān had prohibited? But the Qur’ān itself
declares that the Prophet’s words were final authority of religion, so there
seems to be a contradiction in terms in the Qur’ān itself. Or, had his
legalization abrogated the verses of [presumed] abrogation (And who
guard their private parts ...), and then the mut‘ah was forbidden again
(either by the Qur’ān or the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), thus reviving the
prohibiting verses after their death? Did this verse (of The Believers)
become decisive after its abrogation? It is such an alternative which no
Muslim would ever agree to, nor anyone has ever said so; nor is it ever
possible to say.
144 AL-MĪZĀN

This analysis is in itself a good proof that the woman of mut‘ah is a

wife, that the mut‘ah is a marriage, and that these verses, of the chapter
of ‘The Believers’, prove that mut‘ah marriage is a proper matrimonial
state: Otherwise, it will follow that the said verses were abrogated by the
permission the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) gave for mut‘ah, [but nobody would
admit it]. Therefore, the said verses actually prove the lawfulness, not
prohibition, of the mut‘ah.
Let us explain it in another way:
The verses of the chapters, ‘The Believers’ [23:5 — 7] and ‘The
Stairway’ [70:29 — 31], i.e.: And those who guard their private parts,
except before their mates ..., are the strongest of all the verses to prove
the lawfulness of the mut‘ah. It is agreed by all that these verses are
decisive and unabrogated; and that they are of the Meccan period. Also,
it is crystal clear from history and traditions that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
had allowed mut‘ah. If the woman of mut‘ah was not a wife, then
obviously the Prophet’s permission would abrogate the said verses — but
they are not abrogated. The only conclusion is that the mut‘ah was a
lawful marriage. Now that it is clear from the above that the said verses
prove lawfulness of the mut‘ah, then the claim, that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
[subsequently] prohibited it, is also proved wrong, because such claim
goes contrary to the Qur’ānic verses and would entail the verses’
abrogation; but, as you know, all are agreed that these are decisive ones
and were never abrogated.
In any case, the woman married in mut‘ah is a wife, and mut‘ah is a
nikāh (marriage), contrary to what its detractors claim. It is enough, in
this respect, to draw your attention to the traditions quoted above, in
which the companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their disciples have
used the name, ‘mut‘ah marriage’, for this union. Even ‘Umar ibn al-
Khattāb has used the same name in the traditions which describe his
prohibition; for example, see the report of al-Bayhaqī narrated from
‘Umar (quoting his lecture), and the tradition of Muslim narrated from
Abū Nadrah. Not only that. Even ‘Umar’s words (quoted in the tradition
of Kanzu ’l-‘ummāl from Sulaymān ibn Yasār), ‘‘announce it, in order
that marriage may be distinguished from fornication’’, are based on the
same nomenclature; as it implies that the mut‘ah is a marriage but is not
distinguished from fornication; therefore it is incumbent upon Muslims to
announce it; they should solemnize a marriage that is known and
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 145

distinguishable from fornication. This connotation is inferred from his

order to ‘announce it’.
In short, there is no room for any doubt that, according to the
language of the Qur’ān and that of the companions and their disciples,
mut‘ah is nikāh (marriage) and the woman so married is wife. It was only
after ‘Umar’s prohibition that the two words, an-nikāh and at-tazwīj (
‫ﺞ‬
ُ ْ‫اَﻟ َﺘﺰْ ِوﻳ‬،ُ‫ = اَﻟ ِﻨﻜَﺎح‬marriage), became [gradually] reserved for the permanent
marriage, because mut‘ah marriage went out of practice, and the people
performed permanent marriage only. Thus there remained no other
application for the two words, and the permanent marriage became the
only meaning that immediately came to the minds. The case of the two
words is not different from many other words that have acquired a new or
restricted meaning in the language of the Muslims.
The above also shows baselessness of what the said writer has written
later that the Shī‘ahs themselves do not apply the rules of marriage on the
woman of mut‘ah. We have a right to ask him what he means by the
word, ‘wife’. If he uses the word as it is used in the language of the
Qur’ān, then the Shī‘ahs apply all its rules on the mut‘ah wife — without
any exception. But if he means the wife as is understood in the language
of the Muslims — as explained above — which they use in their
jurisprudence, then the Shī‘ahs do not apply all its rules on her — but
there is no harm in it.
Now we come to his argument that ‘the Shī‘ahs do not prescribe
stoning for a fornicator who has a mut‘ah wife, and it shows their
conviction that the words of Allāh, muhsinīn ghayr musāfihīn ( ‫ﻦ‬ َ ْ‫ﺼ ِﻨﻴ‬
ِ ْ‫ُﻣﺤ‬
‫ﻦ‬
َ ْ‫ﺤﻴ‬
ِ ‫ﻏﻴْ َﺮ ُﻣﺴَﺎ ِﻓ‬َ = which he interprets as ‘in marriage’) are not applicable to
him; and it is a clear contradiction in term.’
First of all, we have explained in the commentary of this verse that,
because this clause includes conjugal union with one’s slave girls too, it
obviously means ‘chastity’, not marriage. Even if we accept that
muhsinīn ( ‫ﻦ‬ َ ْ‫ﺼ ِﻨﻴ‬
ِ ْ‫ ) ُﻣﺤ‬means ‘in marriage’, not, ‘in chastity’, [as translated
by us] , then the verse includes mut‘ah marriage in any case. As for non-
stoning of the fornicator who has a mut‘ah wife (apart from the fact that
stoning is not a Qur’ānic law), it is based on explanation or restriction by
the sunnah, like other matrimonial laws — inheritance, maintenance,
divorce and waiting period.
To put the above statement more clearly, if a verse relating to laws is
146 AL-MĪZĀN

taken to be vague — because it only aims at ordaining the basic rule —

then whatever restrictions are attached, they will amount to its
explanation; they will not be counted as a restriction or a condition. If, on
the other hand, the said verse is taken to be a general or unconditional
one, then the explanations given in the sunnah will be counted as
restrictions or conditions. There will not arise any question of
contradiction in terms in such cases. See for details the books on the
Principles of Jurisprudence.
These verses of inheritance, divorce and maintenance, like other
verses, are not free from restrictions and conditions. An apostate wife is
debarred from inheritance, and separates without any divorce; the
husband may cancel the marriage without giving divorce, if the wife has
certain defects; a recalcitrant wife loses her right of maintenance. With
all these restrictions, what objection is there if a few other rules are
restricted because of the mut‘ah? The statements that remove the mut‘ah
marriage from the rules of inheritance, divorce and waiting period are
either restrictions or conditions.
As for the fact that, in the language of the Muslims, the words, an-
nikāh and at-tazwīj are now exclusively used for permanent marriage, it
creates no difficulty for our stand, even if the said writer thinks
otherwise. When a jurist says: ‘A permanently married (al-muhsin,
ُ‫ﺼ‬
‫ﻦ‬ ِ ْ‫ ) َاﻟْ ُﻤﺤ‬fornicator shall be stoned;’and then says: ‘A fornicator who has
a mut‘ah wife shall not be stoned because he is not al-muhsin’; it only
shows that in his terminology al-ihsān ( ‫ن‬ ُ ‫ ) َاﻟِْﺎﺣْﺼَﺎ‬implies permanent
marriage that has certain especial effects. But it does not effect the
language of the Qur’ān in which al-ihsān has been used together for both
— permanent and temporary — marriages; and which establishes
especial rules for each.
As for his claim that the Shī‘ah do not prescribe waiting period for a
mut‘ah wife, it is a shameless slander. There are the collections of Shī‘ī
traditions and the tomes of their jurisprudence, all of which clearly say
that the waiting term of a wife of mut‘ah is two monthly courses. Some
relevant traditions narrated through Shī‘ī chains from the Imāms of Ahlu
’l-bayt have earlier been quoted in this discourse.
The said writer further writes: ‘‘The traditions and ahādīth that have
been narrated on this subject, all together show that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
used to allow mut‘ah to his companions in some expeditions, then he
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 147

forbade them, then again allowed it to them once or twice, then

prohibited them to do so — a perpetual prohibition.
‘‘He had allowed it only because he knew that it was difficult for
them to abstain from fornication when they were away from their wives.
Thus the mut‘ah was a sort of lesser evil. It was much better if a man
married an unmarried girl for a fixed term and stayed with her during the
agreed period, rather than being occupied in fornication with any woman
he could seduce.’’

COMMENT: What he has said that the traditions on the whole show
that it was allowed in some expeditions, then disallowed, then again
allowed once or twice, then prohibited for ever, does not agree with any
of the traditions with all their mutual contradictions and irreconcilability.
Just have a look at them (and we have quoted earlier most of them) and
you will find that they all together refute word by word what he has
offered as a way of reconciliation amongst them.
He has further written: ‘‘The Sunnīs are of the opinion that the
permission of mut‘ah, once or twice, was a sort of a gradual step in final
prohibition of fornication, as had been done in the case of intoxicants.
Both these evils were wide-spread in the era of ignorance, but fornication
was prevalent in the slave girls, not the free women.’’

COMMENT: His claim, that permission of mut‘ah was a step by step

approach to the final prohibition of fornication, implies that in their eyes
mut‘ah was a sort of fornication, and that, like other ways of fornication,
it was wide-spread in pre-Islamic days; and for this reason the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) took gradual steps — a soft approach — before finally
forbidding fornication, hoping that in this way this prohibition would
prove acceptable to the people. Therefore, first he prohibited other kinds
of fornication and let the fornication of mut‘ah continue. He first allowed
it, then prohibited and again allowed it until he could forbid it for ever,
and then he enforced perpetual prohibition.
By my life, it is the most ignominious mockery of the pure religious
laws, which Allāh had promulgated with the sole aim of purifying this
ummah and completing His favours on them. Now let us look at this
opinion:
First: We have already explained that the claim that the Prophet
148 AL-MĪZĀN

(s.a.w.a.) prohibited mut‘ah then allowed it, then again prohibited and
again allowed it, when seen in the background of the verses: And those
who guard their private parts ..., which form the parts of the chapters of
‘The Believers’ and ‘The Stairway’ — the Meccan chapters — and
which, the said writer insists, prove the prohibition of mut‘ah, would
mean only one thing: That the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) first abrogated these
verses by allowing the mut‘ah, then abrogated the abrogation and revived
and re-confirmed the verses; then again abrogated the verses and then
again revived them and made them decisive, and this cycle was repeated
several times. Is it anything but accusing the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) of playing
with the Book of Allāh?
Second: Some verses of the Divine Book which prohibit fornication
are as follows:
And go not near to fornication; surely it is an indecency and evil is
the way (17:32).
What language can be clearer than this? And it is a Meccan verse that
forms a part of a chain of several other prohibitions.
Say: ‘‘Come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you ... and
do not draw near to indecencies, those of them which are apparent
and those which are concealed ... ’’(6:155)
The word, al-fawāhish ( ‫ﺶ‬ ُ ِ‫ = اَﻟْﻔَﻮَاﺣ‬indecencies) is plural, preceded by
the article, al, within a prohibitory sentence. It means that the
prohibitionary order covers all types of indecency or fornication. This
verse too is of Meccan period.
Say: ‘‘My Lord has only prohibited indecencies, those of them that
are apparent as well as those that are concealed ...’’ (7:33)
The same word, al-fawāhish, with the same grammatical details, is
used in this verse, and this too is of Meccan period.
And who guard their private parts, except before their mates or those
whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blameable.
But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they that exceed the
limits (23:5 — 7; 70:29 — 31).
Both these are Meccan chapters, and the verses prohibit all types of
fornication, and, according to the writer’s claim, that includes mut‘ah
too.
These are the bulk of the verses which prohibit fornication, the
unlawful indecency; all of them were revealed in Meccan period, and all
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 149

of them are very clear about the prohibition. So, from where did he get
the idea of graduality in prohibition? Or does he say — as is the clear
implication of his claim that the verses of the chapter, ‘The Believers’
show prohibition of the mut‘ah — that Allāh had prohibited it for ever;
still the, Prophet (s.a.w.a.) preferred the step by step approach in
enforcing this prohibitory order, by allowing it time after time to humour
the people, so that in the end they would accept total prohibition. But
Allāh had very strongly admonished His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) against this
very policy, when He revealed to him: And surely they had purposed to
turn you away from that which We have revealed to you, that you should
forge against Us other than that, and then they would certainly have
taken you for a friend. And had it not been that We had already firmly
established you, you would certainly have been near to incline to them a
little. In that case We would certainly have made you to taste a double
(punishment) in this life and a double (punishment) after death, then you
would not have found any helper against Us (17:73 — 75). 1

Third: We should think about this permission which the Prophet

(s.a.w.a.) is suppossed to grant time after time. Was he allowing the
mut‘ah without there being any divine order to make it lawful? (We
should not forget that the mut‘ah is presumed to be fornication and
indecency.) If he was doing it on his own, then it would be a clear
contravention of his Lord’s command — but the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was
protected by Allāh from every error and deviation. Or was he doing it by
Allāh’s order, then it would mean that Allāh was enjoining indecency.
But Allāh has clearly refuted such suggestion when He addresses His
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in these words: Say: ‘‘Surely Allāh does not enjoin
indecency’’ (7:28).
If, on the other hand, the Prophet was allowing it because there was a
divine order to make it lawful, then it was not fornication, nor indecency.
It was an ordained institution with its clearly defined boundary. It was
not to be done with a woman in prohibited degrees — like the permanent
marriage. Also, like the permanent marriage, there was the obligation of
dowry, the waiting period (to prevent mixing of sperm and confusion of

1
These verses are of Meccan period. Could the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) ignore
this clear divine command years later in case of mut‘ah? (tr.)
150 AL-MĪZĀN

paternity). Add to it the advantage of satisfying the people’s needs. Then

why should it be called indecency? What is indecency? It is that evil deed
which the society considers repugnant or repulsive because of its moral
depravity and licentiousness, or because it disturbs public weal and puts
hindrance in fulfilment of the society’s needs.

Fourth: The claim, that the mut‘ah was a sort of fornication

prevalent in pre-Islamic days, is a fabrication of history, a fiction that has
no historical proof. No history book mentions it, either explicitly or
implicitly. It was a system originated by Islam, a concession given by
Allāh to this ummah to provide for their needs, and to protect the Muslim
society from spreading of fornication and other indecencies. Would that
they had established this system. Then the Muslim governments would
not have felt so much constrained to turn a blind eye to fornication and
other indecencies, which have gradually become a part of their social
structure — thanks to the secular codes — and which have filled the
earth with depravity and wickedness.
As for his claim that ‘‘both indecencies were wide-spread in pre-
Islamic days; but fornication was more common among slave girls, not
free women’’, apparently by the two indecencies he means fornication
and drinking intoxicants. This much is correct. But there is no ground to
claim that fornication was wide-spread in slave girls and not in free
women. Numerous historical proofs of diverse nature prove otherwise.
Look, for example, at their poems which describe their exploits. Also, the
narration of Ibn ‘Abbās has been quoted earlier that, according to the
people of the era of ignorance, there was no harm in fornication if it was
not done openly.
Also, there was the custom of claiming paternity of one’s illegitimate
child, and of adoption, that was wide-spread in the era of ignorance. It
was not merely a nominal thing to establish whom the child belonged to.
It was prevalent because the powerful persons wanted — through this
affiliation — to increase their preparedness [for fights] and their man-
power. They relied for this matter on illicit sexual relations which they
established with free women — even the married ones. So far as the
slave girls were concerned, the Arabs, and especially the powerful ones,
thought it a disgrace to mix with them, or to court and woo them. As for
the slave girls, their only role in this was that their masters coaxed them
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 151

for prostitution, exploiting them for their own monetary gains.

The above situation may be comprehended from the stories of
affiliations described in traditions and biographies, like the story when
Mu‘āwiyah, son of Abū Sufyān, attached Ziyād (the bastard) to his
father, Abū Sufyān, and the evidence given by [Abū Maryam, the wine
merchant] concerning that affair, as well as other such episodes that are
narrated in the books.
Maybe someone would quote the words of Hind [wife of Abū
Sufyān] spoken to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) at the time of offering her
bay‘ah (allegiance): ‘‘Does a free woman commit adultery?’’, and offer
it as a proof that adultery and fornication was not common among the
free women. But if you look at the collection of the poems of Hassān [ibn
Thābit al-Ansārī] and ponder on the satiric poems he had composed to
ridicule this same Hind, after the battles of Badr and Uhud, you will
remain in no doubt and will see the reality in its true perspective. 1
Thereafter, the said writer has tried to clarify the meaning of the
traditions, and vainly attempted to reconcile them to one another, and
finally has said: ‘‘According to the Sunnīs, there are [three] main proofs
of the mut‘ah’s unlawfulness: First: As you have seen, it goes against the
apparent meanings, if not the clear Wordings, of the Qur’ān, concerning
the marriage, divorce, and waiting period. Second: The traditions which
clearly say that it was forbidden perpetually upto the Day of Resurrection
... Third: Its prohibition by ‘Umar and his indication, from the pulpit, of
its being prohibited, and the confirmation of his views by the
Companions; and it is known that they had never remained silent on any
unlawful thing, and used to argue with him if he was in wrong.’’
Then he has taken the stand that ‘‘ ‘Umar had not prohibited it by his
own ijtihād; that he had done so relying on the prohibition that was well-

1
This Hind was very much attracted to the black youths, and whenever
she gave birth to a black-coloured child, she killed it. (Vide: Sibt Ibnu ’l-
Jawzī, Tadhkirat khawāsi ’l-ummah, p.186.) As for Hassān’s poems, these
are very explicit and were recited in presence of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Four
rather mild lines are as follows:
Have you forgotten the adultery you have committed?
O Hind! Curse be on you to the end of the time!
The midwives believe that she has given birth to
An infant that is the product of adultery. (tr.)
152 AL-MĪZĀN

established by the prohibitory order of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), and that this
prohibition is attributed to him only because he had made it clear or
enforced it, as they say: ash-Shāfi‘ī has prohibited wine and Abū Hanīfah
has made it lawful.’’

The author says: As for his first and second proofs, you have seen
the reality in the preceding description, as well as in the Commentary, in
its utmost clarity. Now comes his third argument: We agree that ‘Umar
had made it unlawful; it is irrelevant whether he did so by his own
ijtihād, or relying on Prophetic prohibition (as this writer claims); it is
equally immaterial whether the Companions had remained silent because
of his fear and dread, being intimidated with his threats, or because they
agreed with his prohibition (as the writer claims), or because a certain
group did not agree with it, as is seen in the traditions narrated from ‘Alī,
Jābir, Ibn Mas‘ūd and Ibn ‘Abbās. The fact remains that ‘Umar’s
prohibition and his swearing that he would stone anyone who would do it
or would say it was lawful, cannot have any effect whatsoever on the
verse under discussion which clearly shows its lawfulness; and whose
connotation has not been blunted by the Qur’ān or the sunnah. There is
no doubt about the meaning of the verses and their decisiveness.

Another writer has really overdone his ‘argument’ when he claims

that the mut‘ah was only a custom of pre-Islamic days, which had never
entered the Islamic boundary; so there was no need of removing it from
Islam, or of abrogating it through the Qur’ān or the sunnah; the Muslims
had never known it, and it is not found except in the Shī‘ī books!

The author says: This writing, which by one stroke of pen has wiped
off the Qur’ān, the traditions, the consensus and the history, has brought
the ever-shifting position [of the Sunnīs] on this subject to an amazing
point. The mut‘ah was an established custom during the days of the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Then came the reign of ‘Umar and he forbade it and
the prohibition was enforced among the masses. That prohibition was
justified on the grounds that the verse of mut‘ah was abrogated by other
verses, or by prohibitory order of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). But several
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 153

companions 1 and a lot of their followers from among the jurists of al-
Hijāz and al-Yaman as well as others opposed that prohibition. This list
includes the likes of Ibn Jarīh 2 (one of the Imāms of al-hadīth) who
staunchly believed in its lawfulness, so much so that, in all, he had done
mut‘ah with seventy women; and Mālik 3 (one of the four Imāms of
Jurisprudence).
This continued for some time. Then the later days’ exegetes turned a
blind eye to the meaning of mut‘ah that was clearly understood from the
word, istamta‘tum, and tried to interpret it as permanent marriage; as for
the mut‘ah marriage, they said that it was a system originated by the
Prophet’s order which was later abrogated by his subsequent tradition.
Lately, they claimed that mut‘ah was a kind of fornication prevalent in
the era of ignorance, which the Prophet repeatedly allowed and
disallowed until it was perpetually forbidden upto the Day of
Resurrection. Now comes this latest ‘scholar’ who says that mut‘ah was
only a sort of fornication in pre-Islamic days, which had never been
known in Islam and which is not found outside the Shī‘ī books!
Only Allāh knows what turn this subject will take in coming days.

1
A truly astonishing comment on this verse has been written by az-Zajjāj
who says: ‘‘A group has committed a great blunder in this verse, because of
their ignorance of the language. That is, they have said that the verb,
istamta‘tum ( ْ‫ = ِاﺳْ َﺘﻤْ َﺘﻌْ ُﺘﻢ‬you have mut‘ah) is derived from al-mut‘ah, which,
all scholars unanimously say, is unlawful.’’ Then he claims that ‘‘the said
verb means marriage’’.
Would that I knew which part of his writing can be mended! Can anyone
repair his accusing the people like Ibn ‘Abbās and Ubayy of ignorance of
language? Or, his claim that all scholars unanimously agree on prohibition of
the mut‘ah? Or, his claim of expertise in Arabic language while he translates
al-istimtā‘ ( ‫ع‬
ُ ‫ = َاﻟِْﺎﺳْ ِﺘﻤْﺘَﺎ‬to do mut‘ah) as marriage? (Author’s Note)
2
See his biography in Tahdhību ’t-tahdhīb and Mīzānu ’l i‘tidāl. (Auth.)
3
See the books of Jurisprudence for these views. Detailed juristical and
theological discourses on mut‘ah may be found in the writings of the
scholars of these subjects, be they of early days or of later periods — and
especially the modern eminent personalities who have scholastically
reviewed all the arguments. (Author’s Note)
154 AL-MĪZĀN

AN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE
[MEANING OF ‘‘SON’’ IN SHARĪ‘AH]

The bond of relationship — which connects one person to another by

birth — is in fact a natural bond, based on creation, from which originate
the clans and tribes; it carries with the blood the hereditary traits and
characteristics. Togetherwith other active and passive factors, it is the
source of all national characteristics, traditions and customs.
Human societies, whether advanced or primitive, generally give
importance to it in their social laws and customs, like marriage,
inheritance, etc. Even then, they have often been tampering with it —
expanding or contracting its circle — as demanded by exigencies of a
given environment. You have seen in the previous discourses, for
example, that many ancient nations did not recognize a woman as having
the legal relationship with man, while at the same time they accorded
such recognition to an adopted son. In the same way, Islam does not
recognize any kinship between a belligerent unbeliever and a Muslim; it
also affiliates a child to the husband of its mother. And so on and so
forth.
As you have seen in the preceding discussions, Islam accords full
rights of kinship to women, making them full partners in properties and
giving them complete freedom of will and action. Thus son and daughter
both stand on the same level so far as relationship and legal kinship are
concerned. The same is the case with father and mother, brother and
sister, grandfather and grandmother, paternal uncle and aunt, and
maternal uncle and aunt. In this way, the vertical column of lineage
officially and legally descends through a daughter exactly as it does
through a son. A son of the daughter is the son of the grandfather exactly
like a son of the son — generation after generation. Likewise, a daughter
of the daughter and a daughter of the son, both are the grandfather’s
daughters — on equal footing. The rules of marriage and inheritance are
based on this very foundation. You have seen that the verse: Forbidden
to you are your mothers and your daughters ..., reconfirms this reality.
Our ancient scholars have missed the point while writing on this and
other similar questions. Although it is a sociological and legal matter,
they have treated it as a literary problem, which could be solved with the
help of lexicon and literary references. Consequently, there arose a very
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 155

severe conflict among them on such questions as, for example: What was
the actual meaning for which the word, ‘son’ was made. Some have
enlarged its circle while others have reduced it. But both have taken the
wrong approach.
Someone has said: ‘‘Sonship, as is known in the language, continues
through a son only. As for the son of a daughter, and all realtionships
joined through her, they are affiliated to their fathers, not to their
maternal grandfather; and the Arabs do not count them as their maternal
grandfather’s sons. As for the words of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
for Hasan and Husayn: ‘These my two sons are Imāms, whether they
stand up or sit down’, and other similar pronouncements, they are merely
honorific expressions.’’ Then he has quoted the lines of a poet:
Our sons are the sons of our sons; and as for our daughters,
Their sons are sons of other people.
And likewise, another one has said:
The mothers of the people are merely receptacles
To deposit [the sperm], and the lineage is taken from
the fathers.

The author says: The above writer seems confused about the scope
of the discussion. He thinks that it is a literary question; according to
him, if the Arabs had coined the word, son, for a wider meaning that
would have included daughter’s son, the result of the discussion would
have changed. He seems oblivious to the fact that the laws and effects
emanating — in various human societies — from fatherhood, sonship
and other such factors, do not depend on language; they are based on the
social structures and prevalent customs and traditions. Sometimes, when
the social customs change, the laws and effects are also changed without
bringing any change in the language. It proves that this question is
sociological (or is related to sociology), and not merely a literary
discussion related to language.

As for the lines of poetry quoted by him, what value does a poetry
have in the market of realities? It is an imaginary embellishment and
nothing else. How can he argue on the strength of some words spoken by
a blabbermouth poet — especially in matters concerning the Qur’ān, the
divine book that is a decisive word, and not a jest?
156 AL-MĪZĀN

As for the argument that sons are affiliated to their fathers and not to
their maternal grandfathers: first of all, it is not a question of language;
secondly, it is not connected with the principles of lineage (so that if a
son or daughter is affiliated to the father, it might result in cutting his/her
lineage from the mother’s side). This affiliation to father emanates from
the fact that the man has dominant authority on the household, in
maintaining it, bringing up the children and similar other matters.
In short, the mother transfers the relationship of lineage to her male
and female children, in the same way as the father does. Its most obvious
effects may be seen in the Islamic laws of inheritance and prohibitions of
marriage. Of course, there are other rules and directives which are based
on other principles, e.g., rules governing paternity, maintenance and
distribution of the share of al-khums ( ‫ﺲ‬ ُ ‫ﺨ ُﻤ‬
ُ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬one-fifth of saving, etc.)
among the Prohet’s relatives. Each law is governed by a principle that is
relevant to it.

ANOTHER ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

[PHILOSOPHY OF PROHIBITION OF
THE WOMEN OF PROHIBITED DEGREE]

According to the historical evidence available to us, marriage is

among the social traditions which have always been prevalent in all types
of human societies. This by itself proves that marriage is a natural way of
life.
Moreover, its strongest proof may be found in the complementary
reproductive system with which males and females have been equipped,
(as we have repeatedly said). Both sexes (male and female) are equal in
this pursuit, although the female has been additionally equipped with
suckling organs and imbued with love and sentiments necessary for
bringing up the children.
In addition, there are natural instincts, which manifest themselves in
many ways. They instil love of children, enforce the feeling that a person
survives through his/her progeny, strengthen the belief that woman is a
comfort for man and vice versa, recognize the principle of inheritance
(after accepting the basic principles of private property and exclusive
attachment), and emphasize the necessity of establishing a household.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 157

The societies which accept, in general, these natural laws and

principles, have no escape from establishing and recognizing the
marriage system, in the meaning that a woman is exclusively attached to
a man, so that men and women do not mingle together in such a way as
to nullify the lineage. This factor alone would make the institution of
marriage indispensable even if there could be found a way of protecting
the public from various diseases and from degeneration of reproductive
powers (which is the inevitable result of widespreading fornication and
promiscuous sexual behaviour).
These principles are recognized by all nations who accept the
institution of marriage, no matter what system they followed, whether it
was monogomy, polygamy or polyandry — or even if they allowed a
group of husbands for a group of wives. In any case, recognition of
marriage is there — in the meaning of an especial type of attachment and
companionship between the spouses.
As for indecency and fornication (which by its very nature destroys
lineage and corrupts geneology), human nature is the first to abhor it,
because the nature demands marriage. The signs of that abhorance and
repulsion are visible in various nations and societies, even among those
nations which practically grant full freedom of sexual liasions between
men and women. Even they are now alarmed of this debauchery and
licentiousness, and are enacting laws that could somewhat preserve the
lines of descent and geneology.
However, man, while believing in the institution of marriage, does
not feel bound by nature to any other restriction. His nature does not tell
him that a certain related or unrelated female is unlawful to him. Thus a
male may establish sexual relations with his mother, sister, daughter or
others like them. Likewise, a female may not consider her father, brother
or son as unlawful to herself. This is, of course, if they are left to their
desire. Recorded and oral history clearly shows that marriage with
mothers, sisters, daughters and other nearest relatives was widespread in
all nations — advanced ones and backward ones alike. News media is
full of reports of incest between brothers and sisters, and fathers and
daughters, in the modern ‘civilized’ nations. When the sexual desire is
aroused, nothing can stand in its way. Of course, these nations do not
allow marriage with mothers, sisters, daughters and other near relatives;
but this restriction is merely a custom they have inherited, and which
158 AL-MĪZĀN

perhaps goes back to some ancient national traditions and taboos.

Look at the laws ordained by Islam for regulating matrimonial
affairs; compare them with all other codes and customs prevalent in the
world. You will find that the Islamic laws are most comprehensive, and
give fullest guarantee for avoiding all risk of mix-up in lineage, and
provide for complete natural benefit and human welfare. All the
regulations laid down by Islam concerning marriage and its concomitants
have two objectives in view: To protect the lineage and to block the path
of fornication.
The rules which directly ensure the lineage against a mix-up, include
prohibition of marriage with a woman presently married to another man.
In this way polyandry has been nullified, as it would have caused mix-up
of progeny. The same is the underlying reason for fixing a waiting period
for woman after divorce — that she should not marry another man upto
three monthly courses — so that the two men’s sperm is not mixed up.
As for the other prohibited women — the fourteen categories
mentioned in the verses of prohibition — the reason for their prohibition
is to shut up the door of fornication. Man lives his domestic life, mostly,
with these fourteen groups of women; he mingles and intimately
associates with them. Continuous association and intimate proximity was
enough to fix the man’s attention, to focus his thoughts, on them;
awakening his animalistic desires and lustful cravings, inciting him to
what his libido longs for and base nature tempts to; and whoever hovers
around a demarcated area may easily slip in it.
Therefore, it was necessary, in these cases, not to rely too much on
the general prohibition of fornication. Regular proximity and repeated
craving of lust and desire do not help a human being in guarding oneself
against illicit sexual involvement. It was, therefore, essential to prohibit
these women perpetually, for ever. Also the society members should be
trained and brought up with this idea and belief firmly fixed in their
mind, in order that they should have no hope at all that they could ever
get these women. This would kill every base desire for them, and root all
such evil craving out.
This is what we see in the Muslim societies; even those Muslims,
who might be steeped in debauchery, would never think of any indecency
with the women of prohibited degrees, or of committing incest with
mothers, daughters or such relatives. Surely, without this perpetual
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 23 — 28 159

prohibition, no household could be free from incest, etc.

As regards the women other than those of prohibited degrees, Islam
has blocked the way of fornication with them by making it compulsory
for them to observe hijāb (veil), and prohibiting the mingling of men
with women. Without this rule, prohibition of fornication alone could not
stop man from that shameful deed. In fact, there were only these two
ways of eradicating illicit sexual conduct. Either the two sexes are
prevented from mingling with each other, as Islam has done regarding
one group of women; or all thoughts of getting a woman is erased from a
man’s mind, by making perpetually unlawful to him, so that he grows up
with this belief and does not see, or even hear of, any such material union
anywhere in the society, and therefore such evil idea never crosses his
mind.
Do you want to see the proof? Well, look at the western societies.
These Christians believed that fornication was unlawful, and even treated
polygamy as adultery. At the same time, they allowed and practised
mingling of men and women. Before long, fornication spread all over the
society ; now it is almost impossible to find even one person in a
thousand who is free from this desease; nor one man in a thousand who
can be sure that the children born in his house were really his own. Soon
afterwards, the condition deteriorated even further, with men having
sexual affairs with their sisters, daughters and mothers. The degeneration
of society continued; now men commit sodomy with boys, or youths do it
among themselves; and so the debauchery spreads and spreads. Allāh had
created the fair sex as a comfort for man, a boon to strengthen the back-
bone of humanity, and to make the human life pleasant. But these people
have turned woman into a ‘hunting gear’, which they use to achieve their
political, economic and social ambitions; she is a means by which men
obtain their objectives — mostly the things that corrupt the society and
individuals. Human life has turned into an imaginary hope, a sport and an
amusement — in true literal sense of these words. Now the rent is
beyond repair.
That was the underlying reason which led Islam to perpetually
prohibit those women (either with some condition or unconditionally) —
except the married women, whose case is different, as was explained
above. This rule protects family from involvement in incest and
indecency, and corruption, as you have seen.
160 AL-MĪZĀN

Also, it was mentioned earlier that the sentence: ... and your step-
daughters who are in your guardianship ..., gives a sort of indication of
this underlying benefit. Moreover, the last part of the verses of
prohibition, Allāh desires that He should make light your burdens, and
man is created weak (4:28), probably points to the same reality. As these
fourteen categories of women have been prohibited for ever by Allāh, it
has removed the burden of temptation from man; otherwise, the case
would have been quite different, and man would have looked towards
them with carnal desire; and man is created weak, he finds it difficult to
stand against lust and libido. Allāh says: Surely your guile is great
(12:28). It really would require extra-ordinary self-control for a man to
live with one or more non-relative women, spend his time with them
alone and in public, remain near them day and night, when his hearing
and sight are constantly filled with their sweet talk and attractive
demeanour; and yet to remain firm against devilish thoughts about them,
and to restrain himself against temptations. We know that sexual desire is
one of the two basic needs — the other being the food. All other needs
are subsidiary, springing from these two. Probably, it is this reality which
the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was pointing to, when he said: ‘‘Whoever marries,
safeguards half of his religion; so he should fear Allāh regarding the
other half.’’ 1

*****

1
See chapter of ‘Marriage’ in Wasā’ilu ’sh-Shī‘ah. (Author’s Note)
 O you who believe! do not swallow up your property among
yourselves by wrongful means, except that it be trading by your
mutual consent; and do not kill your selves; surely Allāh is
Merciful to you (29). And whoever does this in aggression and
injustice, We will soon cast him into fire; and this is easy to Allāh
(30).

*****

COMMENTARY

The verses have a sort of connection with the preceding ones,

inasmuch as these contain prohibition of swallowing up properties by
wrongful means, while the former had, inter alia, prohibited usurping
women’s dowries by confining and restraining them and exceeding the
limit. We may say that these verses describe a rule in its general form
while the former had given one of its specific examples.

162
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 29 — 30 163

QUR’ĀN: O you who believe! do .not swallow up your property among

yourselves by wrongful means, except that it be trading by your mutual
consent;: The connotation of:eating is well-known; it means using up an
edible items bit by bit by swallowing. As it implies mastery, control and
consumption, they say: The fire ate the fire-wood; as the fire annihilates
the wood by burning, it is likened to consuming the food by eating and
swallowing. Also they say: He ate the property; i.e., he consumed it by
getting control over it. This is because the main use a man makes of a
property is to eat it, as taking food is the most essential thing man needs
for his existence; that is why, if he uses a thing, it is said, He has eaten it.
But this word is not applied to every use; it implies the use with complete
mastery over the item in a way that removes all other’s control over it; it
may be through possession or such other authority. In short, he consumes
the goods by having mastery over it as an eater uses up the food by
eating.
An action is called ‘wrongful’ when it does not have a right purpose,
a wise objective. ‘‘at-Tijārah’’ ( ‫ = اَﻟ ِﺘﺠَﺎ َر ُة‬trade) entails managing the
capital to get profit, as ar-Rāghib has said in his Mufradātu ’l-Qur’ān; he
has also said: ‘‘There is no other word in Arabic in which ta ( ‫ ) ت‬is
followed by jim ( ‫) ج‬.’’ However, it implies a deal of sale and purchase.
Why has the clause, ‘‘do not swallow up your property’’, been
qualified with the words, ‘‘among yourselves’’? The qualifying phrase
connotes collective earnings and joint usage of property. Consequently it
implies, or shows, that the forbidden swallowing up refers to that usage
where the property is variously rotated and circulated among themselves.
Thus the sentence, when further qualified with, ‘‘by wrongful means’’,
makes such dealings unlawful which do not lead the society to happiness
and success, which bring harm to it and push it to corruption and
destruction; these are the dealings which are unlawful in the eyes of
sharī‘ah, like interest, gambling and deceptive trade, e.g., selling
something for stone-fruit or rubble and things like that.
Accordingly, the excepted clause, ‘‘except that it be trading by your
mutual consent’’, is unrelated to the main sentence; it is a disjointed
exception; yet it was put here to remove a possible misunderstanding.
When the verse prohibited eating up people’s property by wrongful
means — and a lot of dealings prevalent in a corrupted society, through
which properties change hands, are unlawful in the sharī‘ah’s eyes, like
164 AL-MĪZĀN

deals involving interest, cheating, gambling, etc. — someone could think

that it would demolish the pillars of society, and tear the social fabric to
pieces, leading people to perdition and destruction.
To remove that misgiving, the excepted clause mentions one type of
dealing which can regulate the diverse affairs of the society, strengthen
its back-bone and keep it steadfast, and that is the trade with mutual
consent, done in correct way, which can easily fulfil all needs of society.
This exception is not unlike that used in the verses: The day on which
neither property will avail nor sons, except him who comes to Allāh with
a submissive heart (26:88 — 89). As the first sentence had asserted that
property or sons will be of no avail on the Day of Resurrection, a
misgiving could creep into hearts that there was no way of succeeding on
that day; because the main things which benefit a man were property and
sons; and if these two could not help, then what was left there except
failure and hopelessness? The excepted clause provides answer to this
unspoken question; it shows that there was another factor which could
bring complete success on that day (although it is neither property nor
sons); and that is a submissive heart.
The view we have taken — that it is a disjointed exceptional clause
— is more in conformity with the context. The clause, ‘‘by wrongful
means’’, is a basic factor, as is the case in verse 188 of chap.2: And do
not swallow up your property among yourselves by wrongful means,
neither seek to gain access thereby to the authorities, so that you may
swallow up a portion of the property of men wrongfully while you know.
Accordingly, there is no need to suppose that the verse is
particularized by other lawful dealings and recognized transfers — other
than trade — which transfer possession and regularize management, like
gift, compromise, prize, as well as dowry, inheritance and similar things.
Some people have said that the exception in this verse is jointed and
the clause, ‘‘by wrongful means’’, has only explanatory value; and that it
shows the condition of the main clause, after exclusion of the excepted
clause (i.e., the remainder is covered by prohibition). Accordingly, the
meaning will be as follows: Do not swallow up your property among
yourselves, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; if you ate it
by any means other than trade, it would be swallowing it up wrongfully
which is prohibited. It is the same style as you say: Do not hit an orphan
except for teaching him.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 29 — 30 165

COMMENT: Although such usage is correct and well-known among the

Arabists, yet you have seen that taking it as a disjointed exception is
more in conformity with the context.
Someone has said: What this verse disallows is spending wealth in
ways not liked by Allāh; and ‘trade’ refers to its use in what Allāh is
pleased with. A third one has said that this verse implies total prohibition
of eating other people’s property without giving something in exchange.
He claims that after this verse was revealed, people refrained from eating
anything in one another’s house; it continued until this rule was
abrogated by verse 61 of chap.24: There is no blame ... on yourselves that
you eat from your houses, or your brothers’ houses ... It is no sin in you
that you eat together or separately.

COMMENT: As you have seen, such interpretations are far-fetched,

having no connection with the wordings of the verse.
A really amazing explanation has been given by someone who has
tried to combine between the claim that the exception here was a jointed
one and the view that the qualifying phrase, ‘‘by wrongful means’’, was
a basic condition — not merely an explanatory clause. The following is
the gist of what he has written:
‘‘ ‘Wrongful means’ implies swallowing up a property without giving
in exchange something equal in value. The main sentence shows that it is
unlawful to take someone’s property wrongfully without giving
something in return. Then trade has been excepted from it, although most
of the trade is not free from wrongful ways; because it is extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to fix the exact return, even with the help of
the most sensitive balance, in such a way that the price is exactly equal to
the commodity in value.
‘‘Accordingly, the exception implies that the sharī‘ah would tolerate
a deal in which goods were more valuable than the price, or vice versa, or
where a deal was done because the trader had made his goods seem
beautiful and attractive, using rhetorical flourishes — but without
adulteration, cheating or deception — as happens in many cases, or
because of other similar reasons. All this is wrongful trade, but the
sharī‘ah has allowed it, giving the traders some latitude and indulgence.
Otherwise, none would have gone into trading profession, and the social
system based on religion would have been disturbed.’’
166 AL-MĪZĀN

COMMENT: Its incorrectness is clear from the afore-mentioned

explanation. ‘‘al-Bātil’’ ( ‫ﻞ‬
ُ‫ﻃ‬ِ ‫ = َاﻟْﺒَﺎ‬wrong; void), as understood by scholars
of the language, is that which does not lead to the desired effect. What is
the desired effect of sale or trade? It is to exchange the goods and price
and reciprocally transfer their possession from the buyer to the seller and
vice versa. This fulfills the needs of both parties and each gets through
this deal what he wants. This effect is achieved when both goods and
price are equal as well as when there is some difference — if the
deficiency is compensated with some other factor, e.g., the longing of the
buyer to acquire that item, or his apprehension in case he does not
purchase it, or some other benefits found in it.
We know that some such factors are involved, when both parties
agree to the deal; and after the agreement, the exchange is not counted as
wrong or void.
Moreover, no one familiar with the Qur’ānic style can ever doubt that
it is impossible for the Qur’ān to order and ordain a thing after counting
it as void and wrong. Allāh has praised the Qur’ān that it: guides to the
truth and to a right path (46:30). How can something guiding to wrong
and vain be called a guide to the truth?
Also, this interpretation implies that a man is rightly guided by
nature, for fulfilment of his needs, to the exchange of goods; then he is
rightly guided in the same manner to the exchange through comparison
between the goods and the price; then what he has been rightly guided to,
cannot rightly fulfil his needs until some portion of falsehood and
wrongfulness is added to it! How is it possible that nature is guided —
rightly — to something which is not sufficient to fulfil its needs? A thing
which can only partially satisfy its demands? How is it possible for the
nature to be rightly guided to falsehood? Is there any distinctive factor
between truth and falsehood except the same guidance or absence of
guidance? Keeping all these aspects in view, there is no alternative for a
man, who takes the exception in this verse as jointed, but to say that the
clause, ‘‘by wrongful means’’, is just an explanatory one.
Even more strange is the following explanation which someone has
reportedly written: ‘‘This disjointed exception indicates that all that is in
this world — be it trade or some other similar thing — is just vain and
void, because it is not ever-lasting, not enduring. A wise person should
not involve himself in wordly affairs lest he neglects preparation for the
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 29 — 30 167

next world which is far better and more abiding than this life.’’

COMMENT: This too is wrong. If it is accepted, then it will be a point

in favour of taking it as a jointed, not disjointed, exception. Moreover,
such spiritual realities may be suitable for the explanation of the verses as
the following: And this life of the world is nothing but a sport and a play;
and as for the next abode, that most surely is the life (29:64); What is
with you passes away and what is with Allāh is enduring (16:96); Say:
‘‘What is with Allāh is better than sport and (better) than merchandise’’
(62:11). But in the context of the verse under discussion, applying such
points would mean legalizing of wrongful things. The Qur’ān is too
sublime to allow wrongfulness by any means.

QUR’ĀN: and do not kill your selves ...: Apparently the sentence
prohibits suicide. Yet, it comes after the words, do not swallow up your
property among yourselves, which obviously treat the whole community
of the believers as one individual being who owns a property which he
should eat by other than wrongful means. This conjunction may imply, or
clearly show, that the word, ‘‘yourselves’’, refers to all members of the
believing society, taken as one individual, each individual’s soul is the
other’s. In such a society, man’s life is his own, and also others’ lives are
his own. Whether he kills himself or kills someone else, he actually
destroys his own self. Seen in this light, the sentence, ‘‘do not kill your
selves’’, will have a general import, covering suicide and murder both.
It may be inferred from ending clause, ‘‘surely Allāh is Merciful to
you’’,that the above prohibition of killing oneself covers also the
situations where man puts his life in danger, or commits such acts as
might result in his being killed. Obviously, the reasoning — Mercy —
given for the prohibition is more agreeable to this meaning. It will
increase the scope of the verse. This appropriateness supports the view
that the end clause gives only the reason of the order, ‘‘do not kill your
selves’’.

QUR’ĀN: And whoever does this ... and this is easy to Allāh: ‘‘al-
‘Udwān’’ ( ‫ن‬
ُ ‫ ) َاﻟْ ُﻌﺪْوَا‬literary means exceeding — whether it be lawful and
praise-worthy or unlawful and blameworthy. Allāh says: then there
should be no hostility (‘udwān) except against the oppressors (2:193);
168 AL-MĪZĀN

and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another
in sin and aggression (5:2). Accordingly, its use is more general than
‘injustice’. In this verse it connotes exceeding the limits laid down by
Allāh. Nuslihi nāran ( ‫ = ُﻧﺼْﻠﻴ ِﻪ ﻧَﺎرًا‬We shall burn him into fire).
The verse, unlike the preceding one, addresses the Messenger of
Allāh (s.a.w.a.), not the believers, because it contains the demonstrative
pronoun dhālika ( ‫ﻚ‬ َ ‫ = ذِﻟ‬translated here as ‘this’) [and it, in its turn
contains the second person singular pronoun,ka = ‫] ك‬. It implies that
whoever among them does so — and they are one soul, one self, and a
person should not try to destroy his own self — he is not a part of the
believing community; therefore the believers should not be addressed
when his punishment is pronounced; the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) is
therefore the proper addressee, because Allāh speaks to him on all
subjects concerning the believers as well as the unbelievers. Also, that is
the reason why the sentence is general (And whoever does this in
aggression ...), and not specific, i.e., it does not say, whoever among you
does this ...
The ending clause, ‘‘and this is easy to Allāh’’, supports the view that
the demonstrative pronoun, ‘this’', here refers to the prohibition of killing
people; because the end of the last verse, surely Allāh is Merciful to you,
was more appropriate to that prohibition, and the two ending clauses are
very much in agreement with each other. Apparently the connotation is
this: It is a mercy from Allāh that He forbids you to kill your own selves;
otherwise it would be very easy for Him to punish a murderer by casting
him in fire.
Even then, it is not very difficult to take both — the reasoning of the
first verse and the threatening of the second — as related to both
prohibitory orders of the first verse, i.e., not eating a property by
wrongful means and not killing.
Someone has said that the reasoning and the threatening both, or at
least the threatening, refers to all the prohibitions from the beginning of
the chapter to this verse. Some others have said that it refers to all
prohibitory orders beginning from the verse 19 of this chapter (O you
who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should inherit women
against [their] will); because nowhere else in these verses any
punishment is pronounced for contravention.
COMMENT: There is nothing to give credence to such views.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 29 — 30 169

The style has been changed twice in this verse. The first verse ended
on the words: surely Allāh is Merciful to you, which referred to Allāh as a
third person. Then comes the clause: We will soon cast him into fire,
where the Almighty speaks in first person. This change is related to the
earlier mentioned change, as now the talk is addressed directly to the
Prophet, and not to the believers. Finally, it again reverts to the third
person: and this is easy to Allāh; this is done to describe the reason of
this statement — This is easy to Him because He is Allāh.

TRADITIONS

at-Tabrisī says in Majma‘u ’l-bayān about the words of Allāh, by

wrongful means, that there are two explanations given for it, one of
which says that it means: usury, gambling, paying less than fair price,
injustice. And he says that this meaning is narrated from al-Bāqir (a.s.).
al-Bāqir and as-Sādiq (a.s.) have said that it means gambling,
forbidden deals, usury and (false) oaths. (Nahju ’l-bayān)
Asbāt ibn Sālim has said: ‘‘I was with Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.). A man
came to him and said: ‘Tell me about the words of Allāh, O you who
believe! do not swallow up your property among yourselves by wrongful
means.’ He said: ‘He refers here to gambling. And as for the words, and
do not kill your selves, He refers by it to a Muslim who attacks
polytheists on his own, and enters their camps and is killed. So, Allāh has
forbidden them to do so.’ ’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)

The author says: The verse is general and covers all unlawful ways
of swallowing up. Gambling and other similar things have been
mentioned only as examples. In the same way, what has been said in
explanation of killing oneself, actually enlarges the circle of prohibition
instead of reducing it; it does not limit the meaning to the given example.

Ishāq ibn ‘Abdillāh ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Alī ibn al-Husayn has said:
‘‘al-Hasan ibn Zayd narrated to me, from his father, from ‘Alī ibn Abī
Tālib (a.s.) that he said: ‘I asked the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
concerning the splints that are put on broken (bones); how should such a
man perform wudū’? And how will he take bath if he is in a state of
170 AL-MĪZĀN

major ritual impurity? He said: ‘‘It is enough for him to wipe his wet
hand on it in the ritual bath and wudū’ both.’’ I said: ‘‘If there is cold and
he is afraid about his self (i.e., health, or life), if he poured water on his
body?’’ Then the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) recited: and do not kill
your selves; surely Allāh is Merciful to you.’ ’’ (ibid.)
as-Sādiq (a.s.) has said: ‘‘Whoever intentionally kills himself, he
shall enter the fire of hell, abiding therein for ever. Allāh, the High, has
said: and do not kill your selves; surely Allāh is Merciful to you. And
whoever does this in aggression and injustice, We will soon cast him into
fire; and this is easy to Allāh.’’ (Man lā yahduruhu ’l faqīh)
The author says: As you see, these traditions generalize the meaning
of the words, and do not kill your selves ..., as we have already inferred
earlier. There are other traditions of similar import.

Ibn Mājah and Ibnu ’l-Mundhir have narrated from Ibn Sa’īd that he
said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) has said: ‘Surely, trade is by
mutual consent.’ ’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Ibn Jarīr has narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās (that he said): ‘‘Verily, the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) sold (something) to a man; then he said to him:
‘Exercise your option.’ (The man) said: ‘I have opted (for it).’ Then (the
Prophet) said: ‘In this manner (should be) trade.’ ’’ (ibid.)
al-Bukhārī, at-Tirmidhī and an-Nasā’ī have narrated from Ibn ‘Umar
that he said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) has said: ‘The two
parties of a sale have the option (to cancel it) as long as they have not
separated, or one of them says to the other, ‘‘Exercise your option.’ ’’
(ibid.)

The author says: The words of the Prophet, ‘‘The two parties of a
sale have the option (to cancel it) as long as they have not separated’’, are
also narrated through the Shī‘ī chains. The words, ‘‘or one of them says
to the other, ‘Exercise your option’,’’ show a way to ascertain the other
party’s consent.

*****
 If you avoid great sins which you are forbidden, We will expiate
from you your (small) sins and cause you to enter an honourable
place of entering (31).

*****

COMMENTARY

The verse is not without some connection with the preceeding ones
which had mentioned some great sins.

QUR’ĀN: If you avoid great sins ... your (small) sins: al-Ijtināb ( ‫ب‬ ُ ‫َاﻟِْﺎﺟْ ِﺘﻨَﺎ‬
= to avoid, to shun), is derived from al-janb ( ‫ﺐ‬ ُ ْ‫ﺠﻨ‬
َ ْ‫[ = َاﻟ‬right or left] side of
body); the verb is made from that noun in a metaphorical sense; when
man wants to take something, he turns to it with his face and frontal part
of the body; and if he wants to avoid or shun it, he turns away from it
putting it to his side; thus al-ijtināb implies avoidance and shunning. ar-
Rāghib has said that ‘‘It is more eloquent than the word, ‘leaving’ ’’.
This eloquence comes from its having a metaphorical sense. From the
same root come al-jānib ( ‫ﺐ‬ ُ ‫ = َاﻟْﺠَﺎ ِﻧ‬side), al-janbah (side, region) and al-
ajnabiyy ( ‫ﻲ‬‫ = َاﻟْ َﺎﺟْ َﻨ ِﺒ ﱡ‬foreigner, alien).

172
 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 31 173

at-Takfīr ( ُ‫ = اَﻟ ﱠﺘﻜْ ِﻔﻴْﺮ‬to expiate, to forgive) is derived from al-kafr ( ‫َاﻟْ َﻜﻔْ ُﺮ‬
= to cover, to hide). Generally the Qur’ān uses it for forgiveness of sins.
al-Kabā’ir ( ‫ ) َاﻟْ َﻜﺒَﺎ ِﺋ ُﺮ‬is plural of al-kabīrah ( ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻜ ِﺒﻴْ َﺮ ُة‬the big one); this
adjective has been used in place of a deleted noun which it qualifies, like
‘sins’, etc. ‘Greatness’ is a relative idea; it cannot exist without
correlation with ‘smallness’. That is why the words, ‘‘great sins which
you are forbidden’’, imply existence of some forbidden sins which are
small. The verse, therefore, shows two things:
First: The sins are of two types, great and small.
Second: as-Sayyi’ah ( ‫ = اَﻟﺴﱠﻴﱢﺌَ ُﺔ‬evil; sin) mentioned in the second
clause refers to small sins, because it is put parallel to ‘great sins’.
Of course, disobedience and insubordination, of any type, is great
when we look at the insignificance of the created and sustained man vis-
a-vis the greatness of Allāh. But in this case we are making a comparison
between man and his Lord, not between one sin and another. There is no
contradiction, therefore, in saying that every sin is great (by one
criterion) and that some sins are small (by another criterion).
A sin is considered great if its prohibition has been given much more
emphasis than that of some other sins. Probably, the words, ‘‘which you
are forbidden’’, imply, or point to, this reality. We may realize the
importance of a prohibitory order if its language is severe, or if it has
been much emphasized, or is accompanied by a threat of punishment of
fire, etc.

QUR’ĀN: and cause you to enter an hounable place of entering: al-

Mudkhal ( ‫ﻞ‬ ُ‫ﺧ‬َ ْ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤﺪ‬place of entering) is an adverb of place; and refers
either to paradise or to a position of nearness to Allāh — although the
end result of both is the same.

*****

GREAT AND SMALL SINS

AND
EXPIATION OF EVILS

There is no doubt that the verse, If you avoid great sins ..., confirms
174 AL-MĪZĀN

the division of sins into two categories: great and small; the latter has
been mentioned here as ‘evils’. Likewise the verse 49 of chap.18 proves
this fact: And the Book shall be placed, then you will see the guilty
fearing from what is in it, and they will say: ‘‘Ah! woe to us! what a book
is this! it does not omit a small one nor a great one, but numbers them
(all)’’. Their fear of the book shows that small one and great one mean
small sin and great sin.
As for as-sayyi’ah ( ‫ﺴ ِّﻴ َﺌ ُﺔ‬
‫) اَﻟ ﱠ‬, looking at its root and paradigm, it
signifies a happening or action which brings evil. That is why sometimes
it is used for those affairs or misfortunes which cause grief. Allāh says:
and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yourself (4:79); And they
ask you to hasten on the evil before the good (13:6). Sometimes it is used
for consequences and effects of sins in this world and the next, as Allāh
says: So the evil (consequences) of what they did shall afflict them ...
(16:34); So there befell them the evil (consequences) of what they earned
... (39:51); this connotation actually corresponds with the first meaning.
Also, it is often used for the sin itself, as Allāh says: And the recompense
of evil is punishment like it ... (42:40). In this sense it is sometimes used
for sins in general, and covers great and small ones alike, as Allāh says:
Nay! do those who have wrought evil deeds think that We will make them
like those who believe and do good — that their life and their death shall
be equal? Evil it is that they judge (45:21). There are many other verses
of the same implication. And sometimes it is used particularly for small
sins, as in the verse under discussion: If you avoid great sins which you
are forbidden, We will expiate from you your (small) sins; because if man
avoids great sins, then nothing remains there except the small ones.
In short, without any doubt, the verse proves that there are two
categories of sins: great ones and small ones, when comparison is made
between the sins themselves.
Also, there is no doubt that the verse is meant to show the divine
grace and favour for the believers; it conveys to them the affectionate
message of Allāh that if they avoided some sins, He would expiate from
them the other sins. Not that they are encouraged to commit small sins;
the verse undoubtedly exhorts them to shun great sins, and if somebody
committed a small sin thinking that it was of no importance and that there
was no harm in doing it, it would turn that sin into the worst arrogance
and transgression, as it would show his disdain to Allāh’s command —
 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 31 175

and that is one of the greatest sins. What the verse implies is only this:
The small sins will be forgiven because they are minor slips, and hardly a
man can remain free from them, seeing that man has been created weak
and ignorant and it is really difficult for him to avoid small errors when
he comes under the influence of desire or ignorance. The verse in this
respect describes the same reality which the following verse expounds:
Say: ‘‘O my servants! who have acted extravagantly against their own
souls, do not despair of the mercy of Allāh; surely Allāh forgives the
faults altogether, surely He is the Forgiving, the Merciful: And return to
your Lord and submit to Him ...’’ (39:53 — 54). No one can claim that
this verse encourages man to commit sins, by opening the door of
repentance and comforting them with it. In the same way, no objection
can be raised against the verse under discussion. In fact, such verses
revive dead hearts by giving them hope in place of despair.
The verse does not imply that it was impossible to identify great sins,
and, therefore, one must avoid all sins, lest one commits great ones and
falls into perdition. Such interpretation would be far-fetched. The verse
implies that the addressees identify the major sins and recognize them
from the relevant prohibitory orders. The least that can be said is that the
verse obligates people to recognize the major sins in order that they could
be on guard against them; at the same time they should not treat small
sins lightly, because as you have been told, such attitude in itself is one
of the mortal sins.
When man will know the great sins, and recognize and identify them,
he willunderstand that these were the limits put by Allāh, and no one
transgrassing that boundary would be forgiven unless he showed definite
remorse and sincere repentance. This knowledge in itself will serve as a
warning and prevent, him from sinning.
As for the intercession, it is a fact. But you have seen in the preceding
relevant discourses that it would not benefit a man who treats divine
commands with disdain or takes repentance and remorse lightly. To
commit a sin relying on intercession shows indifference and carelessness
towards divine orders. This is such a major sin that it definitely closes all
the ways of intercession.
The above talk makes clear what we have earlier said that the
greatness of a sin is known from severe language of the prohibitory order
or from threat of chastisement for it.
176 AL-MĪZĀN

This sufficiently throws light on all the views given about great sins.
[Many explanations are seen in Islamic books which are given here in
short]:-
1] Great sins are those for which Allāh has threatened chastisement in
the hereafter and prescribed a fixed punishment in this world.
COMMENT: Persistence in committing a minor sin is a great sin. The
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has said: ‘‘No great sin remains with repentance, and
no minor sin remains (minor) with persistence.’’ It has been narrated by
both sects; but the sharī‘ah has not prescribed any fixed punishment for
it. The same is the case with being friends with unbelievers and eating up
interest, although these two are among the greatest sins forbidden in the
Qur’ān.

2] Great sins are those for which Allāh has threatened punishment of
fire in the Qur’ān. (Some have added, ‘‘and in the traditions.’’)
COMMENT: This criterion is neither all-inclusive nor exclusive.
3] All those sins are great which show the doer as being indifferent to
religion and heedless to the sharī‘ah. This has been said by Imāmu ’l-
Haramayn and appreciated by ar-Rāzī.
COMMENT: This is called transgression and rebellion; and it is one of
the mortal sins. There are many other mortal sins (even if they are not
committed with obstinacy) like eating up an orphan’s property, incest,
and unlawfully killing a believer.

4] That sin is great which is forbidden on its own, not because of

some incidental concomitants.
COMMENT: It is in a way opposite to the preceding explanation. But
transgression and indifference to the sharī‘ah, etc. are among the mortal
sins, while they are merely concomitants which turn into mortal sins
when they occur with any sin.

5] The sins mentioned in this chapter [The Women] from the

beginning to the end of the verse 30 are great. Probably, the idea is that
the words, great sins which you are forbidden, refer to the sins
mentioned before this verse, e.g., misbehaving with relatives, eating
orphan’s property, fornication, etc.
COMMENT: Generality of the verse does not agree with this restriction.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 31 177

6] Every deed prohibited by Allāh is a great sin. (This explanation is

attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās.) Perhaps it is because disobeying Allāh is a very
serious matter, a major transgression.
COMMENT: You have already seen that the division of sins into great
and small is based on their comparison with one another, while this
interpretation looks at the status of man, a humble servant, vis-a-vis Allāh
Who is the Lord of everything. Probably someone may be inclined to this
view, thinking that the genitive construction in the clause, great sins
which [lit., of what] you are forbidden, was explanatory. This, however,
is not correct; because the implication then would be as follows: If you
avoid all sins, We shall expiate from you your small sins. But if one
avoids ‘all’ sins, where will the small sins come from?
If it is said that the verse speaks about expiation of the believers’ sins
committed prior to its revelation, then it would be exclusively reserved
for those who were present at the time of revelation, and it does not agree
with generality of the verse.
If the verse is still taken as a general one, it would mean: If you
firmly decide to avoid all sins, and then actually avoid them, We shall
expiate your previous sins. But it is such a difficult condition that one can
hardly find a single example of such fortitude; such a general and
comprehensive verse cannot be applied to such a rare occurance; because
human beings are not free from evils and errors except those whom Allāh
takes under His especial protection. Think over it.

7] The small is that sin whose punishment is less than the total reward
of its doer; and the great is that whose punishment is greater than the
doer’s total reward. This interpretation is attributed to the Mu‘tazilites.
COMMENT: It is an interpretation which is supported neither by this
verse nor by any other in the whole Qur’ān. Of course, the Qur’ān says
that certain sins cause forfeiture of deeds in certain cases, but it is not a
general rule covering all sins — whether or not it is taken in the sense
they mean. We have discussed in detail the meaning of forfeiture in the
second volume of this book 1 .
They have also said that expiation of small sins is obligatory [on
Allāh] when a servant avoids great sins; and that it would not be proper

1
al-Mīzān [Eng. transl.], vol.3, pp.245 — 52 (tr.)
178 AL-MĪZĀN

then to mete out any punishment to him. But the verse does not prove this
theory either.
8] Greatness and smallness are two aspects which are found in every
sin. A sin is great when committed in disregard or indifference to the
divine command; but the same sin is counted as small if done when one
is incensed with anger, overcome by desire or frightened by cowardice
— all this is forgiven if one avoids great sins.
As the above criteria of greatness of sin may be combined under the
heading of arrogance and transgression of limits, this explanation may be
summarized as follows: Every forbidden sin is great if done with
arrogance and haughtiness, otherwise it is small and forgiven if not
accompanied with arrogance and haughtiness.
Someone has said: There are, in every evil and every divine
prohibition, one or more great sins as well as one or more small sins. The
greatest of all, in every sin, is indifference to divine order and
prohibition, and disdain of the sharī‘ah; it also includes repeatedly
committing a sin, because such a person manifests his disrespect to, and
carelessness about, divine orders or prohibitions; while Allāh says: If you
avoid the great sins of what you are forbidden, i.e., the great sins which
are found in every thing you are forbidden, We shall expiate from you
your sins, i.e., We shall forgive you the smaller aspects of that sin and
shall not ask you about it.
COMMENT: It is correct that every sin done in a mariner as to show the
doer’s arrogance and haughtiness becomes a great sin. But it does not
mean that it is the only criterion of the greatness of sins. There is no
doubt that some sins are great in themselves even without the aforesaid
arrogance, etc. Incest when compared to looking at a stranger woman,
and murder in comparison to beating, are great sins — whether there was
any arrogance there or not. Of course, if indifference, arrogance or
haughtiness accompanied a sin, the prohibition will accordingly increase
in severity and intensity; the sin will be even greater and the
disobedience even more condemnable. Obviously, fornication under
overwhelming influence of lust and ignorance is not like the same when
committed arrogantly thinking that there was no evil in it.
Moreover, the purported meaning (‘If you avoid in every sin its great
aspects, We shall expiate from its smaller ones’) is in bad taste, not in
harmony with the context of the verse: If you avoid the great sins which
 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 31 179

you are forbidden, We will expiate from you your (small) sins ...; as will
be vouched by anyone who has a little familiarity with literary styles.

9] Now we come to al-Ghazālī’s reported 1 explanation which

apparently is a synthesis of the above views; a gist of which is given
below:
‘‘Sins are of two types — great and small — when compared with
one another. For example,incest with a married woman within prohibited
degree vis-a-vis looking at a stranger woman. At the same time, some
sins become great when they appear with some serious aspects, for
example, when a small sin is committed again and again, it becomes
great, although to begin with it was not so.
‘‘It shows that sins are divided into two categories — great and small
— when looked at the actions, per se, in comparison with one another.
Even so, they are also divided into these two categories when seen in the
perspective of their evil effects and consequences — whether they nullify
good deeds or merely reduce the rewards. If the evil deeds are stronger or
more numerous than the good ones, the former would erase and nullify
the latter; otherwise, the evil deed would be wiped off taking with it an
equal amount of reward as its indemnity. Every act of obedience has a
good effect on the soul; it raises it in rank, and extricates it from darkness
of ignorance. Likewise, every disobedience has an evil effect, degrading
the soul and pushing it into abyss of remoteness and darkness of
ignorance.
‘‘When a man, who has acquired some light and purity through his
obedience, commits a sin, then naturally the darkness of sin collides with
the light of obedience. If the darkness of sin and consequences of evil
overpower the light of obedience, then the latter is extinguished and
forfeited. Such a sin is called great. If, on the other hand, the obedience
with its light and purity overcomes the darkness of ignorance and
dirtiness of sin, by sacrificing an equal amount of its light, then the
remaining [albeit diminished] light and purity will continue to brighten
and illuminate the soul. This is the meaning of at-tahābut ( ‫ﻂ‬ ُ ‫ = اَﻟ ﱠﺘﺤَﺎ ُﺑ‬a
Mu‘tazilite theory that good and evil actions cancel each other); and it is

1
As quoted by Fakhru ’d-Dīn ar-Rāzī in his tafsīr (commentary) from al-
Ghazālī’s Ihyā’u ’l-‘ulūm. (Author’s Note)
180 AL-MĪZĀN

exactly the meaning of forgiveness of small sins and expiation of evil

deeds. Such sins are called small.
‘‘Apparently it is not unreasonable to expect some cases where
perfect equivalence might be found between evil and good deeds. It
means that there may be a man in total abeyance having in his account
neither any obedience nor any disobedience — without any light or
darkness. But the words of Allāh refute it, as He says: a party shall be in
the garden and (another) party in the burning fire.[42:7]’’
ar-Rāzī has refuted it, saying that this explanation is based on the
Mu‘tazilite tenets which, according to him, are wrong.
The author of Tafsīru ’l-manār in his turn has very severely
reproached ar-Rāzī on this line of argument. He says:
‘‘When this (i.e., division of sins, per se, into great and small) is
explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān, then is it imaginable that Ibn ‘Abbās
would deny it? Not at all. On the other hand, ‘Abdu ’r-Razzāq has
narrated from him that he was asked: ‘Is the number of great sins seven?’
He said: ‘They are nearer to seventy.’ Ibn Jubayr has narrated that he had
said: ‘They are nearer to seven hundred.’
‘‘Actually it is the Ash‘arites who are said to deny the division of sins
to great and small. Probably those Ash‘arites who were of this view
wanted to refute the Mu‘tazilites — even if it took some explaining
away. This may be seen in the writing of Ibn Fawrak, as he has
confirmed the Ash‘arite view and has said: ‘All the sins of Allāh are
great; it is only relatively 1 that one or the other of them is called great or
small. The Mu‘tazilites say that sins are of two categories, small and
great; but it is not correct.’ Then he has written a far-fetched
interpretation of the verse.
‘‘Well, should the verses and traditions be explained away, just for
opposing the Mu‘tazilites? Even in matters where they are right? People
are not above such pet mindedness. Religious bigotry and partisanship
have prevented many intelligent scholars from using their sagacity for
their own benefit and that of their followers, and turned their books into a
source of strife for the Muslims. They are too busy with polemical

1
That is, in relation to the intentions with which various sins are
committed; it does not refer to comparison between one sin and another.
(Author’s Note)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 31 181

arguments to look at reality of religion. You will soon see how ar-Rāzī
quotes from al-Ghazālī and then refutes it just for this reason; but where
is ar-Rāzī from al-Ghazālī, and where is Mu‘āwiyah from ‘Alī?’’ (The
last sentences refer to the writings of al-Ghazālī and ar-Rāzī which we
have quoted earlier.)
Be that as it may. What al-Ghazālī has written is sound to a certain
extent; still it is not free from various defects and shortcomings:
First: According to him, the division of sins into great and small is
based on mutual cancellation or reduction of reward and punishment.
Again, he believes that sins are also divided into great and small on their
own. But the two divisions do not always correspond. A person has a lot
of reward to his credit; then he commits many sins which are known to
be great in themselves and they drastically decrease his reward, leaving a
small residue in his account. Now he commits a small sin and that
cancels out the remnant of his reward. In both cases, what was great by
one criterion, becomes small by another; and vice versa. Thus the two
divisions are not always identical.
Second: It is true that there occurs some collision between the effects
of obedience and disobedience in certain cases. But it is not an all-
encompassing principle. The hypothetic generality has never been
supported by apparent meanings of the Qur’ān and the sunnah. Let him
show if there is any proof whatsoever from the Qur’ān and the sunnah
which could prove general and all-encompassing mutual cancellation and
reduction between punishments of sins and rewards of obedience.
As for the detailed discourse about the noble and brilliant spiritual
status, and the opposite vile, darkened condition, it is marred by the same
defect. True that the spiritual light and darkness usually collide, acting
on, and reacting to, each other — thus cancelling out, or reducing the
strength of, the opposite force. But this too is not a general non-changing
rule. Sometimes, virtue and evil both stay in their places, co-existing with
each other, and bringing about a split personality. A Muslim, for
instance, eats interest, swallows up people’s property, and turns a deaf
ear to the cries of an oppressed victim of injustice, and at the same time
pays particular attention to obligatory prayers, and entreats his Lord with
utmost devotion and humility. Or, another one cynically sheds blood,
shamelessly violates people’s honour and creates chaos and mischief on
the earth, and then very faithfully carries out other religious commands
182 AL-MĪZĀN

with complete sincerity. It is the phenomenon the psychologists call

schizophrenia or Jekyll and Hude syndrome, in which various opposing
trends fight each other to gain the control of a man’s psyche; the man is
continually distracted by this inner turmoil — until both traits become
firmly set in their places and a sort of truce is affected between them:
When one trait raises its head, the other disappears from the scene,
leaving the field to its rival to stalk its victim, and pounce on it — as the
above examples have shown.
Third: It follows from al-Ghazālī’s exposition that avoidance of great
sins should not have any role in the expiation of small sins. Suppose
there is a person who does not commit any great sin: not because he
volitionally avoids it even when he has an urge and ability to do it; he
rather does not do it only because he cannot do it. His small sins will
however be cancelled by his good deeds, because in this case his rewards
will be greater than his punishment — and it is exactly what the expiation
of small sins means. And, it does not leave any meaningful function for
volitional avoidance of great sins.
al-Ghazālī himself has written in Ihyā’u ’l-‘ulūm: ‘‘Avoidance of
great sin causes expiation of small sins when one shuns them in spite of
ability and urge to do them. For example, a man gets hold of a woman
and has a chance of establishing sexual relations with her, and yet he
keeps aloof from it and restricts himself to looking at, or touching her.
His inner struggle against his base desire is much more effective in
illuminating his heart when compared to the darkness caused by his
audacity in looking at her. This is what brings about expiation of small
sins. If, on the other hand, he was impotent, or avoided it because of
some other inability, or because of fear of the affairs of the hereafter, it
would not lead to any expiation. Suppose, someone does not like liquor
at all, and would not take it even if it was allowed, then his avoidance of
liquor would not expiate the smaller sins which are considered
preliminary stages of drinking, e.g., listening to music and songs. Of
course, if someone longs to drink liquor and listen to music, and
struggles with himself to avoid drinking and restricts himself to the
listening to music, then probably his inner struggle to shun the liquor
would remove from his heart the darkness brought about by the sin of
listening to music. All these are the rules of hereafter.’’
Again he says in another place: ‘‘A darkness rising to the heart
 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 31 183

cannot be erased except by a light brought in by an opposite good deed

— and opposites have reciprocal relation with each other. It is therefore
necessary that each evil should be erased by a good deed of the same
category, in order that it could counteract it. Whiteness is removed by
blackness, not by heat or cold. This step by step approach is a sort of
favour in erasure of sins; because hope in this way is much stronger, and
trust more effective than, for example, in a case when one continues
performing only one type of worship — although this too has some role
in the said erasure.’’
These words of al-Ghazālī clearly show that, according to him, only
that avoidance can expiate minor sins which is done volitionally by
preventing oneself from a longed for great sin. But his earlier quoted
explanation does not necessarily lead to this conclusion.
To sum it up, all that can be said here, relying on the Qur’ānic verses,
is this: It is true that the good and bad deeds cancel out, or decrease the
force of, each other — in certain cases. But there is no evidence to show
that every evil affects every good deed in this way, and vice versa. This
fact may be appreciated if we look at moral and psychological conditions
— they are the best tools for understanding the Qur’ānic realities
regarding reward and punishment.
As for the great and small sins, you have seen that the verse
apparently connotes that, compared with one another, some of them are
great and others small. For example, killing an inviolable person unjustly,
vis-a-vis looking at a stranger woman, or drinking liquor claiming that it
was allowed vis-a-vis drinking it when overcome by desire — without its
having any connection at all with the theory of forfeiture and expiation.
Moreover, the verse, being without any restriction, clearly shows that
Allāh has promised him who avoids great sins to expiate all his small sins
— both, of past and future. Obviously this avoidance implies that every
believer should avoid great sins as much as he can, in a way that it would
constitute the avoidance in view of his particular situation. It surely does
not mean that he should avoid it after first intending to do it and then
shunning it. Anyone who has a cursory glance at the list of great sins will
undoubtedly realize that the man has not been born yet who would be
inclined to commit all of them and also have ability to do so — even if
such a case is ever found, it would be so rare as to make it practically
non-existent. It would be in bad taste to apply such a general verse to
184 AL-MĪZĀN

such a rare and imaginary case.

The verse therefore means that whoever avoids the great sins which
are within his power and which his heart longs for, (and these are the
great sins which he can and does avoid), Allāh will expiate his small sins,
whether or not the latter have any reciprocal relation with the former.
Question: Is this expiation, because of avoidance, in the sense that the
avoidance, per se, is an act of obedience which brings the expiation in its
wake, just like repentance? Or is it that when man does not commit sins,
then he is left with only his small sins and good deeds, and then the good
deeds expiate his small sins? As Allāh says: surely good deeds take away
evil deeds (11:114). Apparently, the verse (If you avoid the great sins
which you are forbidden, We will expiate from you your [small] sins),
shows that the avoidance has something to do with the expiation.
Otherwise, it would have been more appropriate to say that acts of
obedience expiate evil deeds (as was said in the verse, surely good deeds
take away evil deeds); or, that Allāh will forgive small sins whatever they
may be; there was no need then of setting forth a conditional sentence.
A sin is great if the prohibitive order is given in a severe language, or
if it contains threat of fire or something similar, whether it is found in the
Qur’ān or sunnah. But these criteria are not exclusive.

TRADITIONS

as-Sādiq (a.s.) has said: ‘‘Great (sins) are those for which Allāh has
imposed (the punishment of) the fire.’’ (al-Kāfī)
al-Bāqir (a.s.) has said about the great sins: ‘‘Every (sin) which Allāh
has threatened to punish with fire.’’ (Man lā yahduruhu ’l faqīh)
as-Sādiq (a.s.) has said: ‘‘Whoever avoids that which Allāh has
threatened (to punish) with fire — if he is a believer — Allāh will expiate
his (small) sins from him, and will cause him to enter an honourable
place of entering; and the seven great (sins) which impose (punishment
of fire) are (as follows): Murder of an inviolable person; disobedience to
parents; eating usury; going back to nonIslamic places [where one cannot
perform his/her Islamic worship] after hijrah [i.e., after emigration to an
Islamic centre]; slandering a married woman (of adultery); swallowing
up orphan’s property; and fleeing from jihād.’’ (Thawābu ’l-a‘māl)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 31 185

The author says: There are many Shī‘ī and Sunnī traditions which
have enumerated great sins, some of which will be given later. Most of
them count polytheism as one of the seven great sins, although the above
tradition does not mention it; probably the Imām (a.s.) has removed it
from this list because it is the greatest of the great sins; and the words,
‘‘if he is a believer’’, point to it.

Abdu ’l-Azīm ibn ‘Abdillāh al-Hasanī has narrated from Abū Ja‘far
Muhammad ibn ‘Alī, (who narrates) from his father ‘Alī ibn Mūsā ar-
Ridā (who narrates) from (his father) Mūsā ibn Ja‘far (peace be on them
all!) that he said: ‘‘ ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd al-Basrī came to see Abū ‘Abdillāh
Ja‘far ibn Muhammad as-Sādiq (a.s.). When he saluted and sat down, he
recited this verse: And those who shun the great sins and indecencies
[42:37]. Then he stopped. Abū ‘Abdillāh said: ‘What made you to be
silent?’ He said: ‘I would like to know the great sins from the Book of
Allāh.’ (The Imām) said: ‘Yes! O ‘Amr, the greatest of the great is to
ascribe a partner to Allāh, because Allāh, the Mighty, the Great, says:
Surely Allāh does not forgive that any thing should be associated with
Him [4:48;4:116]; and He has said: Surely whoever associates (others)
with Allāh, then Allāh has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is
the fire;[5:72].
‘‘ ‘After that comes despairing of Allāh’s mercy, because Allāh says:
... surely none despairs of Allāh’s mercy except the unbelieving people
[12:87];
‘‘ ‘Then is feeling secure from Allāh’s plan, because Allāh says: But
none feels secure from Allāh’s plan except the people who shall perish
[7:99];
‘‘ ‘And among (the great sins) is disobedience to parents, because
Allāh has counted a disobedient (child) as insolent (and) unblessed, in the
verse [quoting ‘Īsā, a.s.]: And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made
me insolent, unblessed [19:32];
‘‘ ‘And among them is killing a soul whom Allāh has given
protection to — except with [judicial] authority — as He says: And
whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall
abide in it ... [4:93];
‘‘ ‘And slandering married women, because Allāh says: Surely those
who accuse chaste believing women, unaware (of the evil), are cursed in
186 AL-MĪZĀN

this world and the hereafter, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.
[24:23];
‘‘ ‘And swallowing the property of an orphan, for He says: (As for)
those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, surely they only
swallow fire into their belies and soon they shall enter burning fire.
[4:10];
‘‘ ‘And fleeing from jihād, as Allāh says: And whoever shall turn his
back to them on that day — unless he turns aside for the sake of fighting
or withdraws to a company — then he, indeed, becomes deserving of
Allāh’s wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be.
[8:16];
‘‘ ‘And swallowing interest, because Allāh says: Those who swallow
down interest cannot stand except as one whom Satan has confounded
with (his) touch does stand. [2:275]; and He (further) says: But if you do
(it) not, [i.e., if you do not forgo the interest], then be apprised of war
from Allāh and His Messenger;[2:279];
‘‘ ‘And sorcery, for Allāh says:... and certainly they knew that he who
bought it (i.e., sorcery) should have no share (of good) in the hereafter,
... [2:102];
‘‘ ‘And fornication, because Allāh says:... and he who does this (i.e.,
fornication) shall find a requital of sin; the punishment shall be doubled
to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he shall abide therein in
abasement. [25:68 — 69];
‘‘ ‘And false oath, for Allāh says: (As for) those who take a small
price for the covenant of Allāh and their (own) oaths — surely they shall
have no portion in the hereafter, and Allāh will not speak to them, ...
[3:77];
‘‘ ‘And defrauding; Allāh says: ... and he who defrauds shall bring
(with him) that which he has defrauded, on the Day of Resurrection;
[3:161];
‘‘ ‘And withholding the obligatory zakāt, for Allāh says: ... and (as
for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allāh’s
way, announce to them a painful chastisement, on the Day when it shall
be heated in the fire of hell, then their foreheads and their sides and their
backs shall be branded with it; this is what you hoarded up for
yourselves, ... [9:34 — 35];
‘‘ ‘And false testimony and concealing (true) testimony, because
 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 31 187

Allāh says:... and whoever conceals it [i.e., testimony], his heart is surely
sinful;[2:283];
‘‘ ‘And drinking liquor, because Allāh has made it equal to idol-
worshiping [in the verse 5:90];
‘‘ ‘And neglecting prayer or any of the things made obligatory by
Allāh, because the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) says: ‘‘Whoever
neglects prayer intentionally, he goes out from the protection of Allāh
and the protection of His Messenger’’;
‘‘ ‘And breaking a promise and misbehaving with relatives, because
Allāh says (about these): ... (as for) those, upon them shall be curse and
they shall have the evil (issue) of the abode [13:25].’ ’’
(Imām al-Kāzim, a.s.) said: ‘‘Then ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd went away
crying out loudly, and he was saying: ‘Perished he who spoke by his own
opinion and contended with you in virtue and knowledge.’ ’’ (Majma‘u
’l-bayān)

The author says: A hadīth of nearly the same meaning has been
narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās through Sunnī chains. This tradition makes two
things clear:
First: The great sins are those which have been very strongly
prohibited, either by using forceful language or by threatening with the
fire, in the Qur’ān or the tradition (as may be seen in the proofs put
forward by the Imām, a.s.). It clarifies the meaning of al-Kāfī’s hadīth,
‘‘Great (sins) are those for which Allāh has imposed (the punishment of)
the fire’’; and also that of Man lā yahduruhu ’l faqīh and at-Tafsīr of al-
‘Ayyāshī, that great sins are those which Allāh has threatened (to punish)
with fire. The imposition and the threat mentioned in these traditions are
general; they may be explicit or implied, in the Book of Allāh or in the
hadīth of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
I think that the same is the import of the interpretation ascribed to Ibn
‘Abbās; and when he speaks about threat with fire he uses it in general
terms which covers explicit as well as implicit threat, whether it is found
in the Qur’ān or the tradition. It is supported by another tradition found in
at-Tafsīr of at-Tabarī, and attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās in which he says:
‘‘Great are those sins which Allāh ends with (the threat of) fire, or (His)
wrath or curse or chastisement.’’ This also makes it clear that what has
been narrated from him in at-Tafsīr of at-Tabarī and other books that,
188 AL-MĪZĀN

‘‘Every sin prohibited by Allāh is great’’, does not give a different

meaning of great sins; it merely says that every sin is great when looked
at in the perspective of man’s insignificance vis-a-vis the majesty of his
Lord, as was explained earlier.
Second: Some of the preceding and the following traditions give the
number of the great sins as eight or nine (as some Sunnī traditions
narrated from the Prophet [s.a.w.a.] do), or twenty (as seen in this
tradition), or seventy (vide some other narrations). This difference
reflects the difference in degrees of greatness of sins, as may be seen in
the Imām’s words in this very tradition, ‘‘the greatest of the great is to
ascribe a partner to Allāh’’.
al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, an-Nasā’ī and Ibn Abī Hātim have
narrated from Abū Hurayrah that he said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh
(s.a.w.a.) has said: ‘Keep away from seven mortal sins.’ They said: ‘And
what are they? O Messenger of Allāh!’ He said: ‘Ascribing a partner to
Allāh; slaying the soul that Allāh has forbidden except by right; sorcery;
devouring usury; devouring the property of an orphan; turning back
(from the enemy) on the day of marching (to battle); and accusing the
married believing women (of adultery) while they are unaware (of such
false accusation).’ ’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Ibn Hibbān and Ibn Marduwayh have narrated from Abū Bakr ibn
Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm, from his father, from his grandfather
that he said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) wrote a letter to the
people of Yemen, which listed obligatory and recommended deeds and
indemnity for bodily injuries; and sent it with ‘Amr ibn Hazm, who said:
‘It was written in the letter, inter alia, that the greatest of the great sins
near Allāh on the Day of Resurrection is associating someone/something
with Allāh; killing the soul of a believer without right; fleeing (from war)
on the day of marching (to battle); disobeying the parents; slandering a
married woman; learning sorcery, devouring interest; and devouring the
property of an orphan.’ ’’ (ibid.)
‘Abdullāh ibn Ahmad has narrated in Zawā’idu ’z-zuhd, from Anas
that he said: ‘‘I heard the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) saying: ‘Well, surely my
intercession is for those of my ummah who might have done great sins.’
Then he recited the verse, If you avoid the great sins which you are
forbidden, We will expiate from you your (small) sins ...’’ (ibid.)

*****
And do not covet that by which Allāh has made some of you excel
others; men shall have the benefit of what they earn; and ask
Allāh of His grace; surely Allāh knows all things (32). And to
every one We have appointed heirs of what parents and near
relatives leave, and those with whom your right hands have
ratified agreements; so give them their portion; surely Allāh is a
witness over all things (33). Men are the maintainers of women

189
190 AL-MĪZĀN

because of that with which Allāh has made some of them to excel
the others and because of what they spend out of their property;
the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as
Allāh has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear
recalcitrance, admonish them, and leave them alone in the
sleepingplaces, and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek
a way against them; surely Allāh is High, Great (34). And if you
fear a breach between the two, then appoint a judge from his
people and a judge from her people; if they both desire
agreement, Allāh will effect harmony between them; surely Allāh
is Knowing, Aware (35).

*****

COMMENTARY

The verses are connected with the preceding laws of inheritance and
marriage; they reinforce the preceding rules and promulgate some
general principles that would effect reconciliation in some cases of
strained relationship between husband and wife.

QUR’ĀN: sAnd do not covet that by which Allāh has made some of you
excel others: Coveting is to say: ‘Would that this were like that’. Such
words are called ceveting because they describe the covetousness hidden
in the heart. It is an exclamatory construction that shows a psychological
attitude as when one loves something which is difficult or almost difficult
to obtain, whether one declares it in words, or not. Obviously, the verse
forbids people to covet the extra bounties granted to others — that
bestowal of additional bounties is the cause of covetousness. But one
should not attach oneself to those who enjoy such abundance; rather a
man should attach himself to Allāh, asking Him to bestow on him such
bounties from His treasures. Obviously, the ‘extra bounties’ specifically
refers to the special rights granted to a particular group — men or women
— by the divinely ordained law; for example, man has been given the
right to marry more than one wife, and gets a double share in inheritance,
while woman is entitled to receive her dower and maintenance from her
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 191

husband.
Coveting such rights exclusively given to a particular sex has been
forbidden in order to completely uproot the tree of evil and disorder.
These bounties are coveted by human beings because by nature they love
such things and try to achieve and obtain what others have got. At first, it
is just a desire and covetousness. When it continues for some time, it
changes into hidden envy. When the envy takes root in the heart it shows
itself in talk and action. When many people suffering from this disease
join together, they cause disorder on the earth and destroy the tilth and
the stock.
Also, it shows that this prohibition is of advisory nature, not a
legislative order; it aims at safeguarding the preceding legislated
regulations.
The verse ascribes the bestowal of bounties to Allāh; also both groups
have been described as ‘‘some of you over the others’’. The aim is to
awaken their submissiveness to Allāh’s decrees because they believe in
Him, and to strengthen their mutual love by reminding them that the
receiver of the coveted bounty is not some alien body; but an integral part
of him/her.

QUR’ĀN: men shall have the benefit of what they earn and women shall
have the benefit of what they earn: ar-Rāghib has said, ‘‘ ‘al-Iktisāb’ (
‫ب‬
ُ ‫ = اَﻟْﺎِآْﺘِﺴَﺎ‬to earn) is used for what a man earns or acquires for himself;
while ‘al-kasb’ ( ‫ﺐ‬ ُ ْ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻜﺴ‬to earn) denotes what he acquires for himself or
for someone else..’’ [This verse uses the former verb; and] it appears
from the above that this sentence explains the preceding prohibition of
coveting and describes its underlying reason. That is, you should not
covet these things because this excellence, found exclusively with one or
the other group, has been granted because that group has earned it
through natural traits or physical diligence. For example, men and not the
women, have been allowed to marry upto four wives, because men’s
place in human society demands it — to the exclusion of women. The
same is the reason of their having been allotted double shares in
inheritance. Likewise, women have been given half of men’s shares in
heritance, while the responsibility of their maintenance is put on men’s
shoulders and they have exclusive right to take dower — all this because
women’s position in the society demands it. Also, whatever wealth is
192 AL-MĪZĀN

earned by one group — by trade or in other ways — is exclusively

reserved to it; and Allāh does not want injustice to His servants.
It is now clear that the ‘earning’ mentioned here actually means a sort
of acquisition and reservation; it makes no difference whether this
happens through voluntary activity (e.g., handcraft or business;) or
otherwise. What is important is that the person concerned has some
characteristic which entitles him/her to that excellence; for example, the
person’s being male or female which makes him/her entitled to a certain
fixed portion in inheritance.
Philologists have opined that the verbs, al-kasb and al-iktisāb, both
are reserved for what a person acquires through voluntary action; even
so, they say that the basic element in their meaning is ‘acquisition’. It
may be said that ‘He has earned fame by his beauty.’ Some exegetes
have explained the verb in this verse in the same meaning. It may be said
that the verb, al-iktisāb, in this verse has been used in this meaning by
way of simile or extended simile.
In any case, the verb here cannot be restricted to what man acquires
by his own efforts; because it would then mean: Men shall have benefit
of the wealth they earn for themselves through their activities; and so
shall the women. It would be a prohibition of coveting what other people
have acquired through craft and production. This meaning is correct in
itself, but the verse cannot be confined to it; otherwise it will have no
relevance to the preceding verses of inheritance and marriage.
However, the correct meaning of the verse is as follows: Do not covet
the financial and non-financial advantages and excellence which Allāh
has exclusively given to either men or women, and has thus given some
of you excellence over the others; this bounty has been given to the
concerned group because it has acquired and proved its entitlement by its
psychological traits or physical activities (like trade, etc.); so it shall have
its benefit, and every body shall have the benefit of what he or she has
acquired.

QUR’ĀN: and ask Allāh of His grace …: When one bestows something
on someone else, usually it is a surplus which the bestower does not need
himself, that is why it is called ‘‘al-fadl’’ ( ُ‫ ) َاﻟْ َﻔﻀْﻞ‬which is translated
here as `grace' but literally means surplus. Allāh has ordered people to
turn their faces away from the bounties bestowed on others. But the
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 193

desire of excellence in life and livelihood — rather, love of monopolizing

it and surpassing all fellow beings in this respect — is an inseparable
human trait. Therefore, the Qur’ān tells them to look towards Allāh
Himself and to ask Him for His grace. They should turn away from what
the others have got and look towards Allāh to ask for His grace; the grace
is in Allāh’s hands, and it is He Who has given everyone his or her
excellence; He alone can give you the means to surpass others — the
others whose bounties you desire and whose excellence you covet.
The grace to be asked for has been left vague by adding the
preposition ‘of’ before it. It has two implications:
First: It teaches the manner of invocation and prayer addressed to
Allāh. Man is basically ignorant of what would benefit — or harm —
him in the long run, while Allāh is aware of what would in reality be
beneficial or harmful to His creatures, and He has power over all things.
Therefore, it is only proper to ask Him for the best in what the invoker
desires; he should not go on specifying what he wants and how should it
reach him. Many times we have seen someone with intense desire of
some things like wealth, child, honour or health; he was persistently
praying for it, fixing his eyes on that goal; but when his prayer was
answered and his desire fulfilled, it brought nothing but destruction and
disaster, nullifying all his life’s efforts.
Second: It is an indication that one should not ask for something
which would be contrary to the underlying divine reason of a certain
creative or legislative excellence bestowed. It is imperative that one
should not ask of the excellence exclusively reserved for others. If men
ask the bounty given to women, or vice versa, and Allāh grants their
prayer, the underlying reason would be negated and the laid down laws
and regulations nullified. Think it over.
When man prays to Allāh for one of his pressing needs, he should not
ask Him for what is given to other people; rather he should ask Him from
what is in His hands; even then he should not teach his Lord what is good
for him, nor how should that benefit be brought to him. The only proper
way is to ask Allāh to fulfil his need in a way He deems best.
The concluding sentence, surely Allāh knows all things, explains the
reason of the preceding prohibition: You should not covet the bounties
which Allāh has bestowed on others; Allāh knows everything, He is not
unaware of underlying reasons, nor does He make error in His decisions.
194 AL-MĪZĀN

A QUR’ĀNIC REALITY

Difference in men’s aptitudes and abilities in acquisition of the life’s

advantages is based on natural creative phenomenon which inevitably
brings about differences in the lives’ grades. And, as far as we know, this
phenomenon has always been evident in human societies from the
earliest times to this day.
In ancient times strong people subjugated weaker persons, using them
according to their whims to fulfil their desires without any restraint or
hindrance. The poor wretcheds had no choice but to submit to their
orders, and to do as their ‘masters’ required them to do. But their hearts
overflowed with rage and hatred, and they always waited for a chance to
throw away that yoke. This system continued in history changing its
appearence from time to time, beginning from shaikhdom and ending on
monarchy and imperialism.
At last, human beings succeeded, through rising after rising, in
bringing down this overpowering citadel of usurpation forcing the rulers
to abide by the constitutions and laws made for society’s well-being and
happiness. On the surface, it puts an end to whimsical rules of tyrants.
Human beings were no longer divided into various strata; there was no
longer an autocratic ruler to lord over slaves whose rein was in his
(master’s) hand.
Even so, the tree of disorder and mischief continued to grow —
finding another base to spread its roots, appearing in another shape — but
the fruit was the same, the result unaltered. There remained the same
difference between various classes, based on economic disparity. Some
had wealth and riches piled up while others' hands were empty. The two
groups were poles apart; the wealthy interfered in all aspects of society,
because of their wealth, while the poor had no option but to stand and
fight against oppression.
This resulted in appearance of communism which believed in sharing
all resources of livelihood, by nullifying private property and taking
away all capital from private hands. It said that every individual should
enjoy the fruits of his labour, accomplished by his personal experties.
This erased the difference that was based on personal wealth and
affluence. But it opened some new avenues of disorder and mischief
which were unheard of in previous systems — it totally destroyed the
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 195

free will of the individual and stripped him of all discretion and choice.
But nature does not agree with it nor does human instinct allow it. And
how can something continue if nature rejects it and human instinct
discards it.
Apart from that, the communism has not removed the basic disorder.
Human beings by nature do not like to exert themselves except where
there is a possibility of gaining distinction and acquiring honour and
position. Remove the element of competition and distinction and you
have destroyed the work itself; it will result in negation of human nature.
The communists have tried to remove this basic difficulty by trying to
fix the workers’ eyes on immaterial distinction and glory. But it has
brought the difficulty back in toto. If a man does not accept those
distinctions as real, he will not try for them; and if he believes in them, it
will have the same effect as the material incentive.
Democracy resorted to a strategy to remove the disorder sneaking
into it. First, it employed wide spread propaganda to expose the defects
of communism. Second, it levied heavy taxes that ate away a greater part
of the profits of business and industry. But it was of no use. Exposition of
the defects of their adversaries’ system could not block the way of the
defects and disorder infiltrating into their own system. Nor could the
gathering of most of the profit in the treasury prevent the affluent classes
from their luxurious life and the resulting oppression. Now, their strategy
is to get power and authority over the collected wealth, instead of
personally owning it. They get the same benefits from that money by
having authority over it and by managing it according to their wish, as
they would have done it if was owned by them outright.
Neither the democrats could cure the disease nor the communists; and
there is no medicine after burning.
All this is because the purpose and goal chosen by man for the
society leads to the core of mischief and disorder; his adopted goal is
enjoyment of material life by all means; and it cannot be divested of its
basic conflict and disorder, whatever changes are brought into its
appearance.
And what is the way adopted by Islam to uproot this disorder? It has
given the man total freedom in all matters to which his nature leads. Then
it has brought the two groups nearer by raising the have-nots’ standard of
life through levying various taxes on the ‘haves’, and lowering the haves’
196 AL-MĪZĀN

standard by prohibition of extravaganza and show of affluence that

would increase their distance from middle classes; then it has created a
balance with unity and good manners, and has diverted people’s attention
from material distinction to the honour of piety; and taught them to ask
Allāh for whatever bounty and excellence they desire.
This is to which the Qur’ānic verses points: and ask Allāh of His
grace; surely the most honourable of you with Allāh is the one among
you who is most pious (49:13); Therefore fly to Allāh (51:50). We have
already explained that by turning their faces towards Allāh people would
inevitably hold fast to the real and genuine causes for their desired goals
— without resorting to lethargy in earning their livelihood or laziness in
getting at their happiness and bliss. Strangely enough, some people say
that Islam is a religion of idleness which discourages man from acquiring
material benefits in life. Such assertion is totally off the mark and shows
ignorance of the speakers.
This is a short note on this subject; and we have written in detail on
various points of this subject in various discourses of this book.

QUR’ĀN: And to every one We have appointed heirs of what parents

and near relatives leave ...: ‘‘al Mawālī’’ ( ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻤﻮَاﻟِﻲ‬translated here as
‘heirs’) is plural of al-mawlā ( ‫ ) َاﻟْ َﻤﻮْﻟﻲ‬which is synonymous to al-waliyy (
‫ﻲ‬‫) َاﻟْ َﻮِﻟ ﱡ‬, although mostly it is used for some particular cases of al-wilāyah (
‫ = َاﻟْ ِﻮﻟَﺎ َﻳ ُﺔ‬rule, sovereignty, friendship, authority). For example, a slave’s
master is called his mawlā, as he has authority over him; a helper is
called mawlā, because he manages the affairs of the helped one; an
uncle’s son is called mawlā as sometimes he acts as guardian of his
uncle’s daughter in matters of marriage. Most probably it is an infinite
verb beginning with mim ( ‫ ) م‬or an adverb of place, indicating a person
having in him some kind of authority — as today we say ‘government’ or
‘court’ and mean the ruler or the judge.
‘‘al-‘Aqd’’ ( ُ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻌﻘْﺪ‬to tie) is opposite of ‘‘al-hall’’ ( ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﺤﱡ‬
َ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬to unite);
‘‘al-yamīn’’ ( ‫ﻦ‬ ُ ‫ ) َاﻟْﻴَﻤﻴ‬is opposite of ‘‘al-yasār’’ ( ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻴﺴَﺎ ُر‬left hand); al-
yamīn means right hand, and is also used for oath; it has some other
meanings also.
The verse follows the preceding one: And do not covet ..., having the
same context, and contains the admonition to give due share to every one
who is entitled to it, and declares that Allāh has appointed for every one
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 197

heirs in all that is left by parents and near relatives. It shows that this
second verse, in conjunction with the preceding one, gives a gist of all
the rules and laws laid down by the verses of inheritance; and sums up
the detailed regulations. It is not unlike the verse: Men shall have a share
of what the parents and the near relatives leave ... [4:7] which, coming
before the verses of inheritance stated a general principle which served as
the basis and referring point of the inheritance laws.
It follows that the heirs and the inherited ones (summed up in the
verse) would refer to those who have been described in detail in the
verses of inheritance. Thus, al-mawālī would refer to all who have been
enumerated as heirs in those verses, like children, parents, brothers,
sisters and so on.
Also, the three categories mentioned here — parents, near relatives
and those with whom your right hands have ratified agreements — will
apply to the three categories mentioned in the verses of inheritance, i.e.,
parents, near relatives and husband and wife. Thus the phrase: those with
whom your right hands have ratified agreements, would refer to the
husband and the wife.
The meaning, therefore, will be as follows: And to every one of you,
whether male or female, We have appointed heirs to inherit whatever
property you leave behind. The preposition min ْ‫ = ِﻣﻦ‬translated here as
‘of’) may also mean ‘from’; in that case it would be connected with
‘heirs’, i.e., inheritance originates from the property; it may alternatively
be connected to a deleted but understood verb, ‘they shall inherit’, i.e.,
the heirs shall inherit from what you leave. What they leave refers to the
property left by the deceased relatives — the parents, the near relatives
and the husband and wife.
The phrase, ‘‘and those with whom your right hands have ratified
agreements’’, alludes to husband and wife; it was a custom to shake
hands at the conclusion of an agreement or deal; it was as though it was
their right hand which had concluded the deal and ratified it. The
meaning, therefore, will be as follows: those with whom you have
established material relationship through formula of marriage.
‘‘So give them’’, i.e., to the heirs, ‘‘their portion’’, which has been
described in the verses of inheritance. The conjunction, ‘so’ connects the
sentence with, and bases it on, the sentence, ‘‘And to every one We have
appointed heirs ...’’. The order to give them their share has been further
198 AL-MĪZĀN

emphasized by the concluding sentence, surely Allāh is a witness over all

things.
The above is the most appropriate of the meanings given by the
exegetes. [The following are examples of some unsuitable explanations
given by them:]
Some have said that al-mawālī (heirs, relatives, etc.) refers to agnates
other than the heirs who are more entitled to the inheritance. But the
wording of the verse does not support this view.
Also it has been said that min (from, of) in ‘‘mimmā tarak’’ is
explanatory, and refers to the heirs, i.e., to every one We have appointed
heirs who shall inherit him, and they are those whom he has left behind,
that is, the parents and near relatives.
Further it is said that the phrase, ‘‘those with whom your right hands
have ratified agreements’’, refers to the allies. In preIslamic days a man
used to make agreement with another, saying: ‘My blood is your blood,
my war is your war, my peace is your peace; and you shall inherit me and
I shall inherit you; and you shall pay blood money for me and I shall pay
blood money for you.’ Such an ally used to get one-sixth of the estate of
his deceased ally. According to this interpretation, the sentence will be
disconnected from the preceding one, and would mean, ‘give the allies
their one-sixth share’. And then it will have to be treated as abrogated by
the verse: and the possessors of relationship are nearer to each other in
the ordinance of Allāh (8:75).
But some say that, ‘‘so give them their portion’’, means that they
should be helped, advised and given material assistance; it does not refer
to inheritance. In that case there will be no abrogation in the verse.
Some others claim that the phrase refers to those whom the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) had declared to be ‘brothers’ to each other in Medina, and they
inherited from each other, until the system was abrogated by the verse of
inheritance.
Still others have said that it refers to those who were adopted as sons
in the era of ignorance. According to them, this verse exhorts the
Muslims to bequeath something to them, as it advises to give them their
portions.
None of these meanings is supported by the text or the context of the
verse, as any thoughtful scholar may realize; and that is why we see no
need to rebut them.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 199

QUR’ĀN: Men are the maintainers of women because of that with which
Allāh has made some of them to excel the others and because of what
they spend out of their property: ‘‘al-Qayyim’’ ( ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻘﻴﱢ ُﻢ‬one who looks
after the affairs of another person); al-qawwām ( ‫ ) اَﻟْﻘَﻮﱠا ُم‬and al-qayyām (
‫ )َاﻟْ َﻘﻴﱠﺎ ُم‬give the same meaning in its highly emphasized form. The clause,
‘‘that with which Allāh has made some of them to excel the others’’,
refers to the natural characteristics of man in which he excels the woman;
men have much greater judicious prudence than women, and
consequently they are much stronger and braver and more capable of
performing strenuous tasks requiring intrepidity and forebearance; while
women’s life is dominated by feelings and emotions and based on
gracefulness and delicateness. The next phrase, ‘‘what they spend out of
their property’’, refers to the wealth which men spend on women’s dower
and maintenance.
The generality of these causes shows that the resulting principle,
‘‘Men are the maintainers of women’’, is not confined to the husbands.
In other words, it does not say that man is the maintainer of his wife;
rather it gives authority to the men, as a group, over the whole group of
women, in the common affairs which effect lives of both sexes on the
whole. The general social aspects which are related to man’s excellence
as, for example, rulership and judiciary, are the things on which a society
depends for its continuence. It is because of the prudence and
judiciousness which are found in men in a higher degree than in women.
Likewise, the fight and defence depend on strength and far-reaching
strategic planning. In such affairs men have authority over women.
Consequently, the order, Men are the maintainers of women, is totally
unrestricted and comprehensive, while the next sentence, the good
women are therefore obedient ..., is apparently restricted to the
relationship between a man and his wife, as will be explained later on.
This next declaration has branched out from the above general principle;
but it does not restrict its generality in any way.

QUR’ĀN: the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen
as Allāh has guarded: ‘‘as-Salāh’’ ( ‫ح‬ ُ‫ﻼ‬
َ ‫ = اَﻟﺼﱠ‬merit, virtue, goodness);
‘‘al-qunūt’’ ( ‫ت‬ُ ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻘﻨُﻮ‬abiding obedience and submission). Its place,
opposite to, those on whose part you fear recalcitrance, shows that ‘‘the
good women’’ means good wives; and that it is applied to them during
200 AL-MĪZĀN

continuance of matrimony, not before or after that; and that the sentence,
‘‘the good women are therefore obedient ...’’, — which gives an order in
the form of praise, and means that they should be obedient and should
guard ... — is an order related to matrimonial affairs and domestic life.
Even so, it is a command whose scope of jurisdiction depends on its
basic cause — the man’s maintaining the woman by virtue of marriage. It
is therefore incumbent upon her to obey him and guard their mutual or
conjugal affairs.
Let us explain it further. Men as a group have authority over women
as a group in those common affairs which have more affinity with man’s
enhanced prudence and hardiness, i.e., rulership, judiciary and war; but it
does not negate the independence of woman in her individual will and
activities, she decides what she wants and acts as she wishes and man has
no right to interfere in any way — except when she intends to do
something unlawful. In short, there is no restriction on them in whatever
they want to do for themselves in a proper way. In the same way,
husband’s authority over the wife does not mean that she has lost control
over her own self or property or is restricted in her will or action
regarding its management; nor does it mean that woman is not free and
independent in safeguarding and protecting her personal and social
rights, nor is she hindered from adopting suitable means to achieve those
rights. Rather it means that when the husband spends his wealth on her in
return for conjugal rights, then she must obey and submit to him in all
things connected with sexual intercourse (when he is present), and
protect him in his absence — she should not betray him behind his back
by having unlawful affairs with another man. Also she should not
deceive him concerning the property which he gives her by virtue of
matrimony as a partner in domestic life.
The sentence, ‘‘the good women are therefore obedient ...’’ means
that they should achieve goodness for themselves; then inevitably they
would be obedient. In other words, they are obliged to submit to their
husbands and obey them without fail in all matters pertaining to conjugal
relations. Also they must safeguard their interest in all their rights during
their absence.
Apparently the word mā ( ‫ ) ﻣَﺎ‬in bimā (translated here with ‘as’) in
the clause, ‘‘as Allāh has guarded’’, has the import of infinitive verb, and
bi ( ‫ب‬ِ ) implies instrumentality. The meaning therefore will be as
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 201

follows: The good women are obedient to their husbands and guard their
interest in their absence, through the husband’s rights which Allāh has
preserved by giving him the authority and obliging the wives to obey
them and guard the unseen for them.
Alternatively, the letter bi may imply exchange. Then it will mean
that the wives are obliged to obey and guard the unseen in exchange of
the rights which Allāh has bestowed on the wives, as He has given a new
life to them in human society and has obliged the men to pay them dower
and maintenance. But the former meaning is more obvious.
Some other meanings have been given by exegetes, but it is not
necessary to mention them as none of them is supported by the context.

QUR’ĀN: and (as to) those on whose part you fear recalcitrance,
admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping places, and beat
them;: ‘‘an-Nushūz’’ ( ‫ = اَﻟ ﱡﻨﺸُﻮ ُز‬disobedience, refusal to submit); fear of
recalcitrance connotes appearance of the signs of disobedience. The order
is based, not on disobedience, but on its fear. It is in order that the man
should keep the admonition at the level suitable at a particular stage,
because admonition has its place at the beginning of recalcitrance as well
as at the appearance of its signs — [but with less intensity].
The three remedies — admonition, leaving them alone in the sleeping
places and beating — have to be applied one after another in that
sequence, although they have been mentioned together, joined with the
conjunctive ‘and’. First comes admonition; if that fails, then leaving her
alone in the sleeping place; if that too proves ineffective, then the
beating. This gradual process is inferred from the sequence wherein these
remedies are increasing in intensity from leniency to severity. In short,
this graduality is inferred from the context, not from the conjunctive
‘and’.
It appears from the words, ‘‘leave them alone in the sleeping places’’,
that he is not asked to sleep in a separate bad, but he should show his
displeasure by turning away from her and not touching her, etc. It is far-
fetched to believe that it means leaving her bed altogether. The meaning
given by us may be supported by the fact that ‘‘sleeping places’’ has
been used in plural; apparently there was no need of the plural if the
latter meanings were intended.
202 AL-MĪZĀN

QUR’ĀN: then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them: That is,
if they are obedient to you, then do not be on look out for excuses to
trouble them. Why? Because, surely Allāh is High, Great. Greatness and
grandeur is reserved for your Lord; do not be deceived by your power
and strength nor use it in oppressing your wives, thinking yourselves too
high and superior.

QUR’ĀN: And if you fear a breach between the two,... Allāh is Knowing,
Aware: ‘‘ash-Shiqāq’’ ( ْ‫ﺸﻘَﺎق‬‫ = اَﻟ ﱢ‬breach, enmity). Allāh has ordered to
appoint two judges, as it would reduce the possibility of injustice and
arbitrariness. If the husband and wife both desire reconciliation, without
obstinacy and obduracy, Allāh will create harmony between them. When
both parties divest themselves of power, and entrust the two judges with
the responsibility of effecting harmony, then reconciliation is bound to
follow.
The verse attributes effecting of harmony to Allāh, although there
happens to be a normal cause, i.e., the parties’ willingness to be
reconciled and their acceptance of the judges’ decision. It is because
Allāh is the real cause; it is he who relates causes to effects, and gives
everyone his right. The speech ends with the sentence, ‘‘surely Allāh is
Knowing, Aware;’’ its appropriateness is self-evident.

A DISCOURSE ON
MEN’S AUTHORITY OVER WOMEN

It is not secret that the noble Qur’ān puts great emphasis on healthy
human intellect, and prefers it over desire and pleasureseeking. It does
not encourage people to follow their excessive passions and emotions. It
exhorts man to follow the path of reason, and admonishes him to guard
this divine gift, lest it be lost. This Qur’ānic reality is well-known and
needs no bookish proof; there are a lot of verses that point to it explicitly
and implicitly, in various way and different words.
Even so, the Qur’ān has not neglected good and pure feelings and
emotions, nor has it turned its eyes from their important and beautiful
effects which help man to properly build his self, and which in its turn
gives strength to the society. For example:
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 203

... severe against the unbelievers, compassionate among

themselves;... (48:29)
... that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love
and compassion;... (30:21).
Say: ‘‘Who has prohibited the embellishment of Allāh which He
has brought forth for His servants and the good provisions?’’
(7:32)
Yet He has balanced it by requiring it to conform with the demands
of intellect; thus by following such feelings and emotions, one would in
fact be following the intellect.
It has been explained somewhere earlier that it is because of the
protection which Islam accords to the intellect (by basing all its ordained
laws on reason) that it has prohibited all such actions, and forbidden all
such conditions, and declared as unlawful all such characteristics, which
confuse the intellect in its judgment and cause it to act haphazardly in its
implementation, thus making it lose its bearing in the society’s affairs;
for example, liquor, gambling, fraudulent deals, lies, slander and
backbiting.
This much is enough to convince a thoughtful scholar that as far as
the broad issues and general social aspects — like rulership, judiciary
and war — are concerned, they have to be controlled by intellect, free
from the influence of emotions and feelings. Thus they have to be
entrusted, not to women but, to men who are governed more by
intellectual power than emotional feelings.
And this is what Allāh has ordained, when He says: Men are the
maintainers of women; and the prophetic pronouncements, being the
expositions of the Qur’ānic principles, establish its factuality; and the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) followed this principle throughout his life; he did not
appoint any woman as a ruler or governor of any people, nor did he give
her any judicial post, nor were they called upon to participate in any war,
i.e., to actively fight in it.
As for other aspects of life, like learning, teaching, trade deals,
nursing, medical profession, etc. — the tasks which are not hindered by
emotion and feeling — the Prophet’s ahādīth (traditions) do not prohibit
it, and the Prophet himself had allowed many of it. The Qur’ān too is not
without some hint to its being lawful for the women, because it is a
necessary concomitant of the freedom of will and action which women
204 AL-MĪZĀN

have been allowed in many aspects of life. They have been removed from
man’s guardianship, and given independent right of owning property and
wealth; then how can they be stopped from managing that property and
developing it in a way they think fit. Likewise, it would be meaningless
to give them the right to lodge a case or to give evidence in a case and
then to forbid them to appear before a judge or magistrate. And so on and
so forth.
Of course, their freedom will cease if it collides with the husband’s
right. She is duty-bound to obey him in his presence and protect his
interests in his absence, and any right of hers which stands in the way of
his rights will cease to exist.

TRADITIONS

The author of Majma‘u ’l-bayān explains the verse, And do not covet
that by which Allāh has made some of you excel others, in these words.
‘‘One should not say, ‘Would that the bounty and the beautiful woman
which that man has got were for me’; for it would be jealousy; but one is
allowed to say: ‘O Allāh! give me similar to that’.’’ Then he has written
that it has been narrated from Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.).

The author says: al-‘Ayyāshī too has narrated this tradition in his at-
Tafsīr from the same Imām (a.s.).

Ibn Shahrāshūb narrated from al-Bāqir and as-Sādiq (a.s.) about the
words of Allāh, That is Allāh’s grace; He grants it to whom He pleases,
and, do not covet that by which Allāh has made some of you excel others,
that they were revealed about ‘Alī (a.s.).

The author says: This tradition is based on the principle of the flow
of the Qur’ān; in other words it points to an application of the verses.
Ibrāhīm ibn Abi ’1-Bilād narrates through his father from Abū Ja‘far
(a.s.) that he said: ‘‘There is no soul but Allāh has apportioned for him
his sustenance lawfully which is to reach him with ease and comfort; and
He has also shown it (the sustenance) to him alternatively by unlawful
means; if he takes something by unlawful means, Allāh reduces it from
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 205

his apportioned lawful (sustenance); and Allāh has with Him plenty of
grace, apart from the two (aforesaid portions of sustenance); and that is
the (meaning of the) word of Allāh, and ask Allāh of His grace.’’ (al-
Kāfī, at-Tafsīr, al-Qummī)

The author says: al-‘Ayyāshī has narrated it from Ismā‘īl ibn Kathīr
who has reported it from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Also the same meaning
has been narrated from Abu ’l-Hudhayl from as-Sādiq (a.s.). A nearly
similar tradition has been reported by al-Qummī in his at-Tafsīr from al-
Husayn ibn Muslim from al-Bāqir (a.s.).
We have already discussed in the second volume the meaning of
sustenance, its apportionment and its division into lawful and unlawful,
under the verse, and Allāh provides with sustenance whom He pleases
without measure (2:212) 1 .

Ibn Mas‘ūd says that the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘‘Ask
Allāh of His grace, because Allāh loves to be asked.’’ (as-Sahīh, at-
Tirmidhī)
Ibn Jarīr has narrated through Hakīm ibn Jubayr from a man whom
he has not named who said that the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) had
said: ‘‘Ask Allāh of His grace, because Allāh loves to be asked; and that
the best of worship is to wait for ease.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
[ash-Shaykh at-Tūsī] has narrated through his chains from Zurārah
that he said: ‘‘I heard Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) reciting, And to every one We
have appointed heirs of what parents and near relatives leave; then he
said: ‘He [Allāh] refers [with the word, mawālī] to the relatives who
inherit, not to benefactors; the most entitled to (the inheritance of) a
deceased is the one who is nearest to the womb that connects him to the
deceased’.’’ (at-Tahdhīb)
The same author narrates through his chains from Ibrāhīm ibn Muhriz
that he said: ‘‘A man asked Abū Ja‘far (a.s.), in my presence, about a
person who said to his wife, ‘Your affair is in your hand.’ [The Imām,
a.s.] said: ‘How can it be, while Allāh says, ‘‘Men are the maintainers of

1
This subject is discussed under chap.3, ver.27: and Thou givest
sustenance to whom Thou pleasest, without measure, [vide Eng. transl. vol.5,
pp.206 — 212] (tr.).
206 AL-MĪZĀN

women’’? It is nothing.’ ’’ (ibid.)

Ibn Abī Hātim has narrated through Ash‘ath ibn ‘Abdi ’1-Malik from
al-Hasan that he said: ‘‘A woman came to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
complaining against her husband that he had slapped her. The Messenger
of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘Retribution.’ Then Allāh sent down the verse,
Men are the maintainers of women ...; so the woman returned without
retribution.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

The author says: [as-Suyūtī] has narrated it from the Prophet

(s.a.w.a.) through other chains too. Some of them say that the Messenger
of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘‘I wanted one thing but Allāh decided
otherwise.’’ Probably it was a case of the woman’s recalcitrance;
otherwise, the verse, then if they obey you, do not seek a way against
them, disallows it (the slapping).
Moreover, there is another snag in these traditions’ apparent meaning.
Apparently the Prophet’s word, ‘‘Retribution’’, was an answer to a
religious question of the questioner to explain the rule of sharī‘ah; it
could not be a judgment of a case as the opposite party was not present.
If so, then it would mean that the said verse was sent down to show the
error of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in exposition of the law, but it goes against
his being sinless. Again, it could not be an abrogation, because it
cancelled the law before it was acted upon. Of course, there were some
instances where Allāh had amended some prophetic orders by adding to
or deleting from it, but it was only in his administrative orders, not in
matters of the law ordained by him for his people; otherwise it would
have been an invalid nullification.
Abu ’1-Jārūd has narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that the word,
‘‘qānitāt’’ ( ‫ت‬
ُ ‫ ) ﻗَﺎ ِﻧﺘَﺎ‬means obedient ones.
Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) has said that, leave them alone in the sleeping
places, means that man should turn away from her; and beat them, means
hitting her with tooth brush (Majma‘u ’l-bayān)
[al-Kulaynī] has narrated through his chain from Abū Basīr that Abū
‘Abdillāh (a.s.) said about the words of Allāh, then appoint a judge from
his people and a judge from her people: ‘‘The two judges will make a
condition that they may decide to separate them if they so wish, and to
join them if they so wish. Then if they caused separation it would be
lawful and if they joined them it would be lawful.’’ (al-Kāfī)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 207

The author says: This and nearly similar meaning has been narrated
through several other chains in al-Kāfī and at-Tafsīr of al-‘Ayyāshī.

Ibn Muslim has narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said: ‘‘The
Leader of the faithful (a.s.) gave judgment concerning a woman whom a
man had married with an undertaking given to her and her people that she
would be [ipso facto] divorced if he married another woman and
neglected her, or if he took a slavegirl in her presence. He [the Leader of
the faithful] said: ‘The condition laid down by Allāh has precedence over
your condition. [It is upto him;] he may fulfil his condition if he so
desires; or he may keep this woman and also marry another woman, or
take a slave-girl if he so wishes; and then he may leave (this) woman if
she comes in his way. Allāh has said in His Book: ... then marry such
(other) women as seem good to you, two and three and four ... [4:3]; ... of
those whom your right hands possess [4:25]; and (as to) those on whose
part you fear recalcitrance, admonish them, and leave them alone in the
sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way
against them; surely Allāh is High, Great’[4:34].’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-
‘Ayyāshī).
al-Bayhaqī has narrated from Asmā’ bint Yazīd al-Ansāriyyah that
she came to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and he was (sitting) among his
companions. She said: ‘‘My father and mother be your ransom! I have
come to you as representative of the women-folk; and you should know,
may I be your ransom! that there is no women, be she in the east or in the
west who, having heard of my this deputation, does not agree with my
views.
‘‘Surely Allāh has sent you with truth to the men and the women. We
do believe in you and your God who has sent you. We women-folk are
confined and under pressure, restricted to your houses, satisfying your
sexual urge, carrying your offspring; while you men-folk have got
superiority over us by Friday and congregational prayers, visiting sick,
attending funerals, performing hajj after hajj, and, even better than that,
fighting in the way of Allāh. Even so, when one of you goes out for hajj
or ‘umrah or camping (for jihād), we women guard your properties for
you, spin your clothes for you and bring up your properties 1 for you.

1
Apparently it should be ‘‘your children’’.
208 AL-MĪZĀN

Then what is our share in reward, O Messenger of Allāh?’’

The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) turned his face to his companions, and said:
‘‘Have you ever heard any woman talking in a better way than this
question of hers concerning her religious affairs?’’ They said: ‘‘O
Messenger of Allāh! We never thought that any woman would find her
way to a (talk) like this.’’
Then the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) turned towards her and said: ‘‘O woman!
Go back and inform those women who are behind you that when one of
you behaves nicely towards her husband, and seeks his pleasure and
pursues his conformance, then this equals (in reward) to all those
activities of men.’’
The woman then turned back happily saying: ‘‘Lā ilāha illa Allāh’’
and ‘‘Allāhu Akbar’’. (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

The author says: There are numerous traditions of similar import,

narrated in the Shī‘ah and Sunnī collections of hadīth. The most beautiful
is the hadīth narrated in al-Kāfī from Abū Ibrāhīm Mūsā ibn Ja‘far
(peace be on both): ‘‘Woman’s jihād is (her) nice behaviour towards
(her) husband.’’ The most comprehensive is the sentence narrated in
Nahju ’l-balāghah that also points to the basic reason of this legislation;
and it has also been narrated by al-Kulaynī through his chain of narrators
from ‘Abdullāh ibn Kathīr from as-Sādiq (a.s.) from ‘Alī (a.s.); and also
through his chain from al-Asbagh ibn Nubātah from ‘Alī (a.s.) quoting a
letter which he (a.s.) had written to his son; ‘‘Surely, woman is a flower,
and not a steward.’’
Also it has been narrated from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said:
‘‘Woman is but a doll; he who takes it should not destroy it.’’ The
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) used to wonder aloud: ‘‘How can you
embrace the woman with a hand you had hit her with?’’
It is narrated also in al-Kāfī through his chain from Abū Maryam
from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said: ‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
has said: ‘What! does one of you hit the woman and then goes embracing
her?’ ’’ Countless such statements are found in traditions; and one may
understand from them the Islamic views on this subject.
Let us turn our attention to the above-mentioned hadīth of Asmā’ bint
Yazīd al-Ansāriyyah. If we think over this and other similar traditions
which show that women used to come to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and talk to
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 209

him on religious matters that concerned them; and also look at various
laws ordained by Islam about them, it will be clear that although they
observed hijāb (purdah = vail) and confined themselves mostly to the
domestic affairs, they were not prevented from approaching the highest
authority, trying to solve the problems confronting them which they were
unable to solve by themselves. This is the freedom of faith which we had
described under the last verse of the chapter of ‘‘The House of ‘Imrān’’.
It may be inferred from this and other similar traditions that:
First: The woman’s life-style, preferred and liked by Islam, is that
she should confine herself to the managernent of domestic affairs and
bringing up the children. Of course, it is an emphasized sunnah and not
an obligatory order. Yet the exhortation and persuasion to follow this
highly recommended path had preserved and guarded this system,
especially as the atmosphere was that of religion, and environment, of
piety, when people sought the pleasure of Allāh and preferred the reward
of hereafter over worldly gains, and women were brought up and trained
in good characteristics like chastity and modesty, love of children and
involvement in domestic life.
Their engagement in these affairs and their focus on revival of pure
feelings (ingrained in their beings) prevented them from coming to men’s
gatherings or mingling with men (even within the permitted limits). Its
proof may be found in the un-interrupted continuation of this custom
among the Muslims for centuries and centuries after the early days of
Islam. This continued until the western licentiousness — called
‘‘freedom of women’’ — seeped into the society. It brought in its wake
— for both men and women — moral corruption and life’s destruction in
a way they do not realize — but will soon see. And if the people of the
towns had believed and guarded (against evil), We would certainly have
opened up for them blessings from the heaven and the earth, but they
rejected so We overtook them for what they had earned [7:96]
Second: It is a part of the laid down sharī‘ah of Islam to forbid
women to fight (in jihād), in the same way as they are prevented from
judgeship and rulership.
Third: Islam has not left these deprivations (e.g., woman’s inability
to participate in jihād in the way of Allāh) without suitably compensating
the women for it, nor without making up for it with such virtuous acts of
equal value which have intrinsic real glory. For example, it has made
210 AL-MĪZĀN

good matrimonial behaviour as equal to jihād for women. May be, these
virtues and glories have lost their value in our eyes — as we live in these
days in this polluted atmosphere. But the Islamic social order evaluates
every thing accurately and exhorts people to try to excel one another in
human excellence which is appreciated by Allāh (and He measures
everything with truth). When a person proceeds on the path he or she is
required to walk on, and keeps to the lane prescribed for him or her, the
Islamic society evaluates his/her achievement in such a way that various
services and activities are considered equal in value to some other
services and activities of the same importance. In the eyes of Islam,
man’s martyrdom on the battle-field and sacrifice of his life’s blood — in
spite of its great glory — is no better than woman’s good matrimonial
behaviour. Likewise, a ruler manages the affairs of society, and a judge
sits in the judicial court. These are the jobs that give no privileges to their
holders. If a ruler or a judge follows the path of truth and justice in his
actions and decisions, he gets no worldly reward; on the other hand, he
carries a heavy burden of responsibilities on his shoulders, and puts
himself in various types of dangers and pit-falls which endanger his
spiritual and material well-being — especially in respect of the rights of
those who have no protector except the Lord of the worlds, and surely
your Lord is on look-out. Now what superiority these officials have got
over a woman who has been forbidden by religion to accept such
responsibilities, and has been shown a different path and advised not to
deviate from it.
Only that society can strengthen and revitalize these sociologically
important and essential responsibilities (by encouraging a group to
volunteer for them) which trains its members to come forward to do
whatever they are called to, without any reservation.
No one can deny that social orders and human behaviour differ with
changes in the societies’ atmosphere. Look at that soldier who puts his
life in the utmost danger — that of high-explosive bombs that would
shatter his life. He volunteers for it for glory, hoping that his name will
be included in the roll of honour as the one who sacrificed his life for his
country. He prides himself on it considering himself superior to all, while
he himself believes that death is total annihilation. Thus that supposed
honour is mere imagination and that superiority just a myth. In the same
way these film stars influence the whole society, basking in a glory
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 32 — 35 211

which many heads of states would envy. But the work they do and the
way they expose themselves to the public was considered for untold
centuries the greatest disgrace a woman could face, the ugliest ignominy
she could be accused of. Why this change? It is because the social
environment decides what should be acceptable to the masses; it glorifies
the vulgar and disgraces the respectable. That being the case, what is
wrong if Islam exalts some things which we — living in this volatile era
— consider vile; or if it regards some things with contempt which we
consider good enough to be vied for. Remember that the environment in
the early days of Islam was that of piety — where people preferred the
hereafter to this world.

*****
And worship Allāh and do not associate any thing with Him, and
do good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and
the needy and the neighbour of (your) kin and the alien
neighbour, and the companion at your side and the way-farer and
those whom your right hands possess, surely Allāh does not love
him who is proud, boastful (36). Those who are niggardly and bid

213
214 AL-MĪZĀN

people to be niggardly and hide what Allāh has given them out of
His grace; and We have prepared for the unbelievers a
disgraceful chastisement (37); And those who spend their
property (in alms) to show to the people and do not believe in
Allāh nor in the last day; and as for him whose associate is the
Satan, an evil associate is he! (38) And what (harm) would it have
done them if they had believed in Allāh and the last day and spent
(benevolently) of what Allāh had given them? And Allāh knows
them (39). Surely Allāh does not do injustice to the weight of an
atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from
Himself a great reward (40). How will it be, then, when We bring
from every people a witness and bring you as a witness over
these? (41) On that day will those who disbelieve and disobey the
Messenger desire that the earth were levelled with them, and they
shall not hide any word from Allāh (42).

*****

COMMENTARY

These seven verses exhort good-doing and spending in the way of

Allāh, and promise good reward for it; at the same time, they condemn
the opposite conduct, be it miserliness or spending for showing to the
people.

QUR’ĀN: And worship Allāh and do not associate any thing with Him,:
This is what is called monotheism; but here it refers to the monotheism in
practice, i.e., doing good deed (including the benevolence which is the
topic particularly mentioned here) only for the sake of Allāh’s pleasure,
seeking the reward of the hereafter, not for satisfying one’s own desire as
it would be tantamount to associating (one’s desire) with Allāh.
This interpretation is supported by the verse’s ending phrase which
gives the reason of this order in these words: surely Allāh does not love
him who is proud, boastful; and then identifies this unloved person as the
one who is niggardly and the one who spends in charity only for showing
to the people. These are the ones who associate something else with
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 36 — 42 215

Allāh and do not worship Him alone. Then the talk proceeds: And what
(harm) would it have done them if they had believed in Allāh and the last
day ... Obviously, their polytheism emanates from their lack of belief in
the Day of Judgment. Allāh says in another place: ... and do not follow
desire, lest it should lead you astray from the path of Allāh; (as for) those
who go astray from the path of Allāh, for them surely there is a severe
punishment because they forgot the Day of Reckoning (38:26). It shows
that those who go astray by following their desire — and every type of
polytheism is [unmitigated] astraying — do so because they have
forgotten the Day of Reckoning. Again Allāh says: Have you then seen
him who takes his low desire for his god, and Allāh has made him err in
spite of his knowledge ... (45:23). This makes it clear that to follow one’s
desire is to worship it, associating it with Allāh. It is clear from the above
that monotheism in practice demands that whatever good one does, it
should be purely for the sake of Allāh — in anticipation of His reward —
remembering the Day of Reckoning when rewards and punishments will
be awarded. On the other hand, polytheism in practice means forgetting
the last day — if he had believed in it, he would not have forgotten it.
Such a man does whatever he does, not for the divine reward, but
because of what appears to his base desire as attractive, be it
niggardliness or spending in charity in order that people should praise
him for his generosity and so on. This man treats his desire as equal to
his God, and associates it with Him.
The real purpose of the divine worship and unpolluted sincerity is
that it should be for seeking Allāh’s pleasure and getting His reward, not
in pursuance of one’s desire.

QUR’ĀN: and do good to the parents ... and those whom your right
hands possess;: Obviously, the word ‘‘ihsānā’’ ( ‫ = ِاﺣْﺴَﺎﻧًﺎ‬to do good) is
cognate accusative to emphasize a deleted verb; the completed sentence
would mean ‘do good to the parents, etc., to your utmost capability’. The
infinitive verb, al-ihsān ( ‫ن‬ُ ‫ ) َاﻟِْﺎﺣْﺴَﺎ‬uses the prepositions, bi ( ‫ب‬
ِ ) and ilā (
‫ ;) اِﻟﻲ‬it is said: I did good to ( ‫ب‬ ِ = bi) him; or, I did good towards ( ‫= اِﻟﻲ‬
ilā) him.
The words, ‘‘and to the near of kin’’ and the following words are in
conjunction with ‘‘the parents’’. ‘‘The near of kins’’ means near
relatives. [The neighbours have been classified in two groups:] the
216 AL-MĪZĀN

neighbour of (your) kin and the alien neighbour. This apposition of

adjectives indicates that the former refers to a neighbour whose house is
near yours, and the latter to the one who is at a distance, because al-janab
( ‫ﺐ‬ َ ْ‫ ) َاﻟ‬means alien. 1 A tradition narrated from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
َ ‫ﺠ َﻨ‬
limits neighbourhood to forty arm-lengths; while another one says, ‘forty
houses’. Probably the two traditions separately describe the two
categories of the neighbours. 2
The words, ‘‘the companion at your side’’, refer to the one who keeps
your company remaining at your side. It covers companions in a journey
as well as those who are with you at your residence and so on.
The word translated here as ‘‘the way-farer’’, literally means, ‘‘son
of the way’’; it is as though nothing is known of his details exept that he
is travelling on a path, and that there is none he could be related to,
except the way he is proceeding on; so he is the son of the way. The
phrase does not imply that he should be poor, in need of help, having no
transport or provisions. The words, ‘‘those whom your right hands
possess’’; refer to slaves; male and female, because they are counted here
among those whom one must be good to; mostly they are referred to as
those who are possessed ‘‘by your right hands’’, not as those possessed
by you.

QUR’ĀN: surely Allāh does not love him who is proud, boastful;: ‘‘al-
Mukhtāl’’ ( ‫ل‬ُ ‫ ) َاﻟْ ُﻤﺨْﺘَﺎ‬means haughty, prancing, lost in his conceited
thoughts; a horse is called al-khayl ( ‫ﻞ‬ ُ ْ‫ﺨﻴ‬
َ ْ‫ ) َاﻟ‬because of its prancing walk.

1
This interpretation is far-fetched and the proof does not support the
claim. If the second phrase means ‘‘alien neighbour’’, then ‘‘near
neighbour’’ should mean the neighbour who is related to you, as a coming
tradition explains. Moreover, the word ‘‘dhu ’l-qurbā’’ ( ‫ ) ذُواﻟْ ُﻘﺮْﺑﻲ‬has never
been used in the Qur’ān for showing nearness in physical distance. (tr.)
2
The two definitions could as easily mean that a relative should be
treated also as a neighbour even if he lives at a distance of forty houses:
while for unrelated persons neighbourhood ends at a distance of forty arm-
lenghths.
But, most probably, such traditions do not aim at giving legal definitions
enforceable through land measurement. They look at common usage and
behaviour prevalent in society. (tr.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 36 — 42 217

‘‘al-Fakhūr’’ ( ‫ ) َاﻟْ َﻔﺨُﻮ ُر‬is boastful. The two traits of pride and
boastfulness are inseparable concomitants of excessive love of wealth
and glory. That is why Allāh does not love a proud and boastful person,
because his heart is attached to something other than Allāh. The next two
verses expose these two characteristics when they say: Those who are
niggardly ..., and, those who spend their property (in alms) to show to the
people ...; the first group craves for wealth and the second for glory and
fame — although the wealth and the fame are somewhat inseparable
from each other.
This speech normally should have begun with exposition of their evil
deeds, e.g., niggardliness, hiding the bounties received from Allāh, and
other such things; but Allāh first mentioned these two adjectives to
clearly show why Allāh does not love them.

QUR’ĀN: Those who are niggardly and bid people to be niggardly ...: It
is through their wrong behaviour and bad example that they order people
to be niggardly, whether they use any word to this effect or not. They are
rich and wealthy; people try to attach themselves to them and therefore
follow their examples; this results from the greed ingrained in human
nature. In short, these rich people’s niggardliness is no less commanding
than their words.
How do they hide the bounties which Allāh has given them out of His
grace? They behave like, and pretend to be, a needy penniless person;
they are annoyed when someone asks them for some help, but at the
same time are afraid to refuse lest they are attacked, and it would be more
disastrous if people turned their attention to their wealth. [So the remedy
is to pretend to be poor.] The adjective, ‘un-believers’, at the end of the
verse refers to these people who hide Allāh’s bounties they have
received; the same is the root-meaning of the well-known ‘‘al-kāfir’’ (
‫ ) َاﻟْﻜَﺎ ِﻓ ُﺮ‬because he hides the truth by rejecting it.

QUR’ĀN: And those who spend their property (in alms) to show to the
people ...!: That is, they spend for showing to the people. The verse
proves that:
Showiness in charity or in any other good work is in fact polytheism,
which shows that such a man does not believe in Allāh, because he has
more confidence in people and in their appreciation.
218 AL-MĪZĀN

It is also polytheism in practice, because that man does not want any
reward of the hereafter for his deeds; his entire hope is to reap the fruit of
his ‘charity’ in this world.
The person who does good deeds for showing to the people is
associated with the Satan, and the Satan is an evil associate.

QUR’ĀN: And what (harm) would it have done them ...: The question
arises from pity or amazement. The verse proves that refraining from
spending benevolently in the way of Allāh emanates from lack of true
belief in Allāh and the last day — although one may be pretending to
have such belief.
The end sentence, and Allāh knows them, prepares the ground for the
next verse. It is more in keeping with the import of this sentence to treat
it as a circumstantial clause.

QUR’ĀN: Surely Allāh does not do injustice to the weight of an atom ...:
‘‘al-Mithqāl’’ ( ‫ل‬ ُ ‫ = َاﻟْ ِﻤﺜْﻘَﺎ‬weight); ‘‘adh-dharrah’’ ( ‫ ) اَﻟﺬﱠرﱠ ُة‬means small red
ant; also a single dust particle floating in air which is hardly visible
because of its smallness. The word mithqāla dharratin ( ‫ل َذ ﱠر ٍة‬ َ ‫ ) ِﻣﺜْﻘَﺎ‬stands
in place of a cognate accusative; the meaning will be: Allāh does not do
any injustice at all, not even equal in weight to an atom’s.
The word hasanatan ( ‫ﺴ َﻨ ًﺔ‬ َ‫ﺣ‬
َ ) has also been read as hasanatun ( ‫ﺴ َﻨ ٌﺔ‬ َ‫ﺣ‬
َ ).
In latter case, it would mean, ‘and if there is a good deed’; in the former
case it denotes, ‘and if that minute weight of atom is a good deed, Allāh
multiplies it’. The verb, wa in taku ( ‫ﻚ‬ ُ ‫) َو ِانْ َﺗ‬, uses feminine pronoun
either because the predicate hasanatan is feminine, or because the word
mithqāl, being in genitive construction with dharrah — a feminine — has
acquired feminity.
The context indicates that this verse gives a sort of reason for the
preceding question. The meaning may be as follows: It is regrettable that
they do not believe and do not spend in the way of Allāh. Had they
believed and spent benevolently — and Allāh knows them well — He
would not have done injustice to them even to the weight of an atom they
had spent; Allāh would not have neglected it or left out its reward; and if
it had been a good deed, He would have multiplied it.
And Allāh knows better.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 36 — 42 219

QUR’ĀN: How will it be, then, when We bring from every people a
witness ...?: We have described the meaning of witness to a certain extent
when explaining the witnessing over deeds, in the exegesis of the verse,
... that you may be witness for the people ... (2:143). 1 Some more details
will be given in a more a propriate place.

QUR’ĀN: On that day will those who disbelieve and disobey the
Messenger ...: The clause, ‘‘and disobey the Messenger’’ clearly refers to
disobeying his administrative orders, and not the disobedience of Allāh in
matters of sharī‘ah. The clause, the earth were levelled with them, is an
indirect allusion to death, that is, nullity of existence. A similar
expression appears in the verse, and the unbeliever shall say: ‘‘O! would
that I were dust’’ (78:40).

QUR’ĀN: and they shall not hide any word from Allāh: It is apparent
from the context that the sentence is in conjunction with, ‘‘those who
disbelieve ... [will] desire’’, and it gives in a way the reason of their
desire to die; that is, on that day they will be appearing before Allāh,
nothing of their secrets will be hidden from Him because their total
condition will be clearly seen by Him — their deeds will be present; their
limbs and organs will give evidence against them; the prophets, angels
and others will testify against them; and Allāh encompasses them on
every side. In that situation they would desire they were non-existent,
especially as they would not be able to hide any word from Allāh as their
bad deeds and evil actions would be apprent for all to see.
As for the verse, On the day that Allāh will raise them up, then they
will swear to Him as they swear to you, ... (58:18), we shall explain it
later that their false swearing will be just a reflex action emanating from
the habit of lying ingrained in their nature in this life; it will not be for
hiding any word from Allāh — on a day when nothing of them will.be
hidden from Him.

TRADITIONS

Salām al-Ju‘fī narrates from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) and Abān ibn Taghlib

1
Vide al-Mīzān, (Eng. transl.), vol.2, pp.153 — 160. (tr.)
220 AL-MĪZĀN

from Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.), that the word, the parents, in the clause, and
do good to the parents, refers to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and
‘Alī (a.s.), (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī). al-‘Ayyāshī has further written: ‘‘A
similar meaning has been narrated in the hadīth of Ibn Jabalah. He says:
‘It has been narrated from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.): ‘‘I and ‘Alī are the two
parents of this ummah.’’ ’ ’’

The author says: al-Bahrānī says, after quoting this tradition in his
Tafsīru ’l-burhān: ‘‘I say: It has been narrated also by the author of al-
Fā’iq.’’
al-‘Ayyāshī has also narrrated it through Abū Basīr from Abū Ja‘far
and Abū ‘Abdillāh (peace be on both): and Ibn Shahrāshūb has narrated
it through Abān from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.). The meaning exponded in this
hadīth is from the inner and deeper strata of the Qur’ānic realities, as we
have described in the third volume, under the topic of the decisive and
ambiguous verses. 1
The father is the physical progenitor of human being, and brings him
up. That is why the teacher who leads the pupil to academic perfection is
called his father. In this background, personages like the Prophet and
waliyy (the best blessings be on them) have got much stronger right to be
called the fathers of the believer (who is guided by them, and enlightened
by their knowlege), than the physical father whose contribution is
confined to his body’s genesis and bringing up. Therefore, the Prophet
and the waliyy are the parents; and all the Qur’ānic verses exhorting the
people to be good to their parents encompass these two, according to the
inner Qur’ānic meaning, although the outer interpretation is restricted to
the physical parents.

Abū Sālih narrates from Abu ’l-‘Abbās in explanation of, and the
neighbour of (your) kin and the alien neighbour, that he said: ‘‘It is the
neighbour who has no relationship with you; and the companion at your
side means the companion in journey.’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī).
The author says: The explanation of the neighbour cover both
categories of neighbours, although it is possible to restrict it to the alien
neighbour only. Probably the explanation of the companion with the

1
Vide al-Mīzān, (Eng. transl.), vol.5, pp.46 — 98. (tr.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 36 — 42 221

companion in journey looks at one of its applications.

Mas‘adah ibn Sadaqah narrates from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad from his
grandfather (peace be on them) that he said: ‘‘The Leader of the faithful
(a.s.) said in a sermon describing the terror of the Day of Resurrection:
‘The mouths will be sealed so they would not speak; and will speak the
hands, and will testify the legs, and will declare the skins what they had
done; so they shall not hide any word from Allāh.’ ’’ (ibid.)
Many reports have been given through the Sunnī chains that these
verses were revealed about the Jews. These may be supported by the
speech (beginning from the 44th verse), that describes the behaviour of
the People of the Book (and especially the Jews) and condemns them for
their miserliness, and their greed in accumulation of wealth; also for their
whispering campaign among the believers putting evil thoughts in their
minds that they should stop benevolent expenditure in the way of Allāh;
for their temptation of the Muslims to lead them away from the right
course and then leaving them helpless; and thus disrupting the
endeavours of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.). Nevertheless, such
reports, more probably, merely apply the verses to a known situation,
rather than describing the actual reason of revelation — as is the case
with most of the reports giving reasons of revelation. That is why, in
spite of their number, we have not quoted them here.
There are innumerable traditions reported from the Prophet and his
progeny (blessings and peace from Allāh be on them) extolling the virtue
of doing good to the parents, the relatives, the orphans and all the groups
mentioned in this verse; moreover they are widely known and . famous.
Therefore, we are not quoting them here. A part from that, each group
has been especially mentioned in various places of the Qur’ān, and it
would be more appropriate to write traditions relevant to them in those
places.

*****
 O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are
intoxicated until you know (well) what you say, nor when you are
in a state of major ritual impurity, unless (you are) travelling on
the road — until you have washed yourselves; and if you are sick,
or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have
touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves
to clean earth, then wipe a part of your faces and your hands;
surely Allāh is Pardoning, Forgiving (43).

*****

COMMENTARY

It was mentioned 1 under the verse, They ask you about in-toxicants
and games of chance, ... (2:219), that there are five different verses on
the subject of intoxicants; if we put all of them side by side, it will appear

1
Vide al-Mīzān (Eng. transl.), vol.3, pp.282 — 286 (tr.).

223
224 AL-MĪZĀN

that this verse (... do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated ...) was
revealed after the verses, ... you obtain from them intoxication and goodly
provision ... (16:67); and, Say: ‘‘My Lord has only prohibited
indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are
concealed, and sin ...’’ (7:33); but before the two remaining verses: They
ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: ‘‘In both of them
there is a great sin and (some) profit for men; and their sin is greater
than their profit.’’ (2:219), and, O you who believe! intoxicants and
games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by)
arrows are only an abomination of Satan’s handiwork; shun it therefore,
that you may be successful (5:90). This was the last-revealed verse on
this subject.
It may be possible in a way to arrange a different sequence for them:
First 16:67, then 7:33, thereafter 2:219, fourth the verse under discussion,
i.e., 4:43, and lastly 5:90. This will drastically change the description of
the final and firm prohibition of intoxicants. It would indicate that the
verse 7:33 forbade indecencies and sin in a vague manner, then came
2:219 definitely forbiding intoxicants; yet the Muslims found excuses to
violate that order, until they were clearly told not to pray while
intoxicated; thereafter came the verse 5:90, forbidding it in all conditions.
But if you ponder, you will appreciate that the former sequence is
better and preferable to the latter — how can one justify this prohibition,
limited to the prayer-time only, after the unambiguous and definite
prohibition given in 2:219? Therefore, this verse (4:43) must have been
revealed before 2:219.
Of course, if you say that praying while intoxicated means here
praying lazily and sluggishly (as has been interpreted in some coming
traditions), then there is nothing to argue.
As for the positioning of this verse between the preceding and
following ones, it should be treated as a parenthetical speech. Of course,
there is another possibility which would explain such parenthetical
insertions, examples of which are not so rare in the divine Book: It could
be that some verses, of one context and closely related to one another,
were gradually revealed during a few days time; but before the end of the
series, something happened which necessitated the revelation of one or
more unrelated verses; when the series concluded, those unrelated verses
would fail in between like parenthesis; although in reality it would not be
 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 43 225

totally unrelated, would be like a side talk for removing possible

misunderstanding or fulfilling an urgent need. Look for example at the
following verses:
Nay! man is evidence against himself, though he puts forth his
excuses. Do not move your tongue with it to make haste with it. Surely on
Us is the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have
recited it, then follow its recitation. Again on Us is the explaining of it.
Nay! But you love the present life, and neglect the hereafter (75:14 —
21). Look at the position of the verses: Do not move your tongue ... the
explaining of it.
In this background, there is no need to belabour finding some sort of
connection for every verse with the preceding and following verses.
Moreover, it is known that the Qur’ān was revealed peacemeal, and there
is no reason why there should be such connection, except in the chapters
which were revealed all at once, or in those verses whose connection
with one another is self-evident.

QUR’ĀN: O you who believe! ... what you say,: Prayer in this verse
means mosque; that is why it goes on to prohibit entrance to those who
are in a state of major ritual impurity. 1 The question arises as to why the
house of prayer has metaphorically been called ‘prayer’. The reply: It
was necessary because of the clause, ‘‘until you know (well) what you
say’’. Had Allāh said, ‘do not go near mosque until you know what you
say’, it would have appeared disjointed, or given some other unintended
meaning. The real purpose is to make them appreciate that during prayer
they stand before the Most High, the Most Great God and get the honour
of addressing the Lord of the worlds; it is not proper for them to become
intoxicated and lose their sense with the abomination of intoxicant, not
knowing what they were speaking. This meaning was more relevant to
‘prayer’. But prayer is mostly offered in mosque with congregation,
according to the system established by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.); and also it
was intended to describe the law about entry of a person in condition of
major ritual impurity into mosque. Therefore, brevity demands this
metaphorical use and style, as you see.
Accordingly, the words, ‘‘until you know (well) what you say’’, give

1
Which one gets on sexual intercourse or after ejaculation. (tr.)
226 AL-MĪZĀN

the reason of prohibition of drinking liquor in a way the intoxication

continues till beginning of prayer. In other words, We have forbidden
you liquor in order that you may know what you are saying; but it is not
the main purpose of the prohibition — it does not mean that do not start
prayer until you know what you say, but if you know what you say you
may drink.

QUR’ĀN: nor when you are in a state of major ritual impurity, unless
(you are) travelling on the road ...: It will be explained under exegesis of
the verse, O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your
faces ... (5:6).

TRADITIONS

Muhammad ibn al-Fadl narrates from Abu ’l-Hasan (a.s.) about the
words of Allāh: do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated ..., that
he said: ‘‘It was before liquor was prohibited.’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)

The author says: This tradition must be taken to mean that the verse
was revealed before the prohibition of liquor was clearly expounded.
Otherwise, it will go against the Qur’ān. The 33rd verse of the seventh
chapter had clearly forbidden sin which includes intoxicants; and the
219th verse of the second chapter explicitly says that there is great sin in
liquor. It means that liquor was forbidden in Mecca before the hijrah,
because the seventh chapter is of Meccan period [and the second chapter
was the first one revealed at Medina], and everyone knows that the verse
under discussion was revealed at Medina [after the second chapter].
There are several other traditions through Sunnī chains saying that
this verse was revealed before the prohibition of liquor. May be all such
traditions take the word intoxicated to mean lethargic.
Zurārah narrates from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said: ‘‘Do not stand
for prayer sluggishly, sleepily or sullenly, because it is a trait of
hypocrisy; surely Allāh has forbidden the believers to stand for prayer
while intoxicated — that is, from sleep.’’ (ibid.)

The author says: The assertion that it is a trait of hypocrisy is based

 CHAPTER 4, VERSE 43 227

on the opening clause, O you who believe!; thus anyone disregarding this
order is a hypocrite, not a believer. The phrase, ‘that is, from sleep’: May
be it is an explanatory note of the narrator; or the wording of the Imām
(a.s.) himself. In the latter case it will be an exposition of the inner
meaning of the Qur’ān, or even the apparent one.
There are other traditions interpreting the intoxication as sleepiness.
al-‘Ayyāshī has narrated two such ahādīith in his at-Tafsīr; and al-
Kulaynī has reported it in his al-Kāfī through Zayd ash-Shahhām from
as-Sādiq (a.s.), and through Zurārah from al-Bāqir (a.s.). Also al-Bukhārī
has narrated in his as-Sahīh through Anas from the Messenger of Allāh
(s.a.w.a.).

*****
228
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 229

Have you not seen those to whom a portion of the Book was
given? They buy error and desire that you should go astray from
the way (44). And Allāh best knows your enemies; and Allāh
suffices as a Guardian, and Allah suffices as a Helper (45). Of
those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their
places and say: ‘‘We have heard and we disobey’’; and: ‘‘Hear,
may you not be made to hear!’’; and: ‘‘Rā‘inā’’, distorting (the
words) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they
had said (instead): ‘‘We have heard and we obey’’, and
‘‘hearken’’, and ‘‘unzurnā’’, it would have been better for them
and more upright; but Allāh has cursed them on account of their
unbelief, so they shall not believe but a few (46). O you who have
been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed,
verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on
their backs, or curse them as We cursed the people of the
Sabbath, and the command of Allāh shall be executed (47). Surely
Allāh does not forgive that any thing should be associated with
Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases;
and whoever associates any thing with Allāh, he devises indeed a
230 AL-MĪZĀN

great sin (48). Have you not seen those who attribute purity to
themselves? Nay, Allāh purifies whom He pleases; and they shall
not be wronged the husk of a date-stone (49). See how they forge
the lie against Allāh, and this is sufficent as a manifest sin (50).
Have you not seen those to whom a portion of the Book was
given? They believe in idols and false deities and say of those who
disbelieve: ‘‘These are better guided in the path than those who
believe’’ (51). Those are they whom Allāh has cursed, and
whomever Allāh cursed you shall not find any helper for him (52)
Or have they a share in the Kingdom? But then they would not
give to people even the speck in the date-stone (53) Or do they
envy the people for what Allāh has given them of His grace? So
indeed We have given to Ibrāhīm’s progeny the Book and the
wisdom, and We have given them a grand kingdom (54). So of
them is he who believes in him, and of them is he who turns away
from him, and hell is sufficent to burn (55). (As for) those who
disbelieve in Our signs, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as
their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change for them other
skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allāh is
Mighty, Wise (56). And (as for) those who believe and do good
deeds, We will make them enter gardens beneath which rivers
flow, to abide in them for ever; they shall have therein pure
mates, and We shall make them enter a dense shade (57). Surely
Allāh commands you to make over trusts to their owners and that
when you judge between people you judge with justice; surely
Allāh admonishes you with what is excellent; surely Allāh is
Seeing, Hearing (58).

*****

COMMENTARY

These verses expose the condition of the People of the Book, giving
details of their injustice, and also their deceptions concerning the divine
religion; and these are more clearly applicable to the Jews. The verses are
inter-related, having the same context.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 231

As for the last verse, Surely Allāh commands you to make over trusts
to their owners ..., some people have said that it is of Meccan period;
they think that while the whole chapter, ‘‘The Women’’, is of Medinite
period, two verses are of Meccan era — this as well as the last one of the
chapter: They ask you about a decision of the law. Say: ‘‘Allāh gives you
a decision ...’’ (4:176). (Vide Majma‘u ’l-bayān.) But the verse’s
connection with the preceding ones is quite clear; and the same is the
case with the last verse of the chapter, because it promulgates a law about
inheritance, and inheritance was ordained at Medina.

QUR’ĀN: Have you not seen those to whom a portion of the Book was
given? ...: It has already been mentioned under verse 36 to 42 that they
are somewhat connected with these ones, and that they were revealed
about the Jews.
It appears from these verses that the Jews were in habit of presenting
themselves as sincere well-wishers of the believers; they tempted the
believers away from the right path, inciting them to niggardliness, telling
them not to spend benevolently. They knew that if the Muslims followed
their advice, their (believers’) endeavours would not achieve success,
their efforts for advancement and progress would fail. It makes it certain
that the verses were revealed about the Jews or about those who secretly
talked to Jews and befriended them, then deviated from truth on their
advice, tempted to niggardliness and then began telling others to be
niggardly.
All this may be inferred from the words, ... and desire that you should
go astray from the way. And Allāh best knows your enemies ...
The two verses, thus, mean as follows (and Allāh knows better): We
have just described to you the condition of those who avoid spending, in
the way of Allāh and indulge in pride, boasting, niggardliness and
showiness. Do you want to see its concrete example? Look at the Jews.
They were given a portion of the book, not the whole book as they claim.
Yet they buy error instead of guidance; and they love that you too should
go astray. They meet you with smiling faces, appear to you as good
people and pretend to be your friends and helpers. They offer proposals
which sometimes might seem good to you, which your hearts might be
inclined to agree to. But their only desire is to turn you away from the
right path — as they have gone astray themselves. And Allāh recognizes
232 AL-MĪZĀN

your enemies better than you do; and these are your enemies. Do not be
deceived by their apparent good behaviour. Beware of them; do not obey
their order; do not listen to their false words, nor be carried away by their
sugar-coated talk. You suppose that they are your friends and helpers. Do
you really need their false friendship and promised help? While Allāh
suffices as a Guardian and Allāh suffices as a Helper. In presence of this
Guardianship and Helper, why should you need their friendship and
assistance?

QUR’ĀN: Of those who are Jews ... and taunting about religion;:
‘‘Min’’ ( ْ‫ = ِﻣﻦ‬of, from), in the phrase translated here as ‘‘Of those who
are Jews’’, is explicative that gives detail of the preceding phrase, ‘‘those
to whom a portion of the book was given’’, from among the Jews. Or it
joins with the preceding words, ‘‘your enemies’’, from among the Jews.
Also it is said that the phrase, ‘‘Of those who are Jews’’, is predicate of a
deleted subject (which is understood by the attributive clause) ‘‘alter
words’’; the meaning: Of those who are Jews, there is a group that alters
words; or, there are those who alter words. It is not uncommon to
mention an attribute and delete the noun to which it is related, Dhu ’r-
Rummah says:
They remained and among them (there were those) whose
tears flowed fast,
And there were others whose tears filled the eyes leisurely.
Allāh says that they alter words from their places. It may refer to
literal alteration, i.e., they change the position of words, delete from and
insert into the book, as is said about the present Torah. Or it may indicate
that they misinterpreted the words of Mūsā (a.s.) and other prophets,
reported in the Old Testament, giving it some unintended meaning, other
than the actual one; as they misinterpreted the prophecies of Torah which
referred to the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), and had earlier done about
the prophecies referring to the Christ (a.s.), saying that the promised
Messiah had not come yet; and they are waiting for him even today.
A third possibility: May be, the alteration of words from their places
refer to their mischief mentioned soon after this sentence, where Allāh
says: and [they] say: ‘‘We have heard and we disobey’’; and: ‘‘Hear,
may you not be made to hear’’; and. ‘‘Rā‘inā’’, distorting (the words)
with their tongues ... In that case, these sentences will be in conjunction
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 233

with the words, ‘‘alter words’’. Alteration of words then will mean using
a word in a wrong manner and wrong place. Usually when one says, ‘We
hear’, it indicates obedience, and it is generally completed by saying,
‘We hear and obey’. It is totally disgraceful to say, ‘We hear and we
disobey’; or to use the word, ‘We hear’, as a mockery or derision.
Likewise, when one says, ‘Hear’, or ‘Listen’, it is a good manner to add,
‘May Allāh make you hear’; not ‘may you not be made to hear’, nor to
say, ‘Rā‘inā’, which reportedly had in their language the import of,
‘Hear, may you not be made to hear’.
The words: ‘‘distorting (the words) with their tongues and taunting
about religion’’: ‘‘al-layy’’ ( ‫ﻲ‬
‫ = اَﻟﱠﻠ ﱡ‬to twist, to distort). They twist their
tongues and present falsehood in the guise of truth, commit disrespect
and ridicule in the form of politeness and courtesy. The believers used to
address the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) with the word, ‘‘Rā‘inā’’ ( ‫رَاﻋِﻨَﺎ‬
= pay attention to us) O Messenger of Allāh!’’ Their meaning: Please
listen to us, so that we may fully explain what we want to say. The Jews,
taking its advantage, started addressing him with the same word, rā‘inā,
which in their language had a disrespectful connotation totally against his
high status. That is why Allāh condemned them in this verse, saying,
‘‘Jews alter words from their places’’, and then explaining this alteration
with examples: ‘‘[They] say: ‘We have heard and we disobey’; and:
‘Hear, may you not be made to hear’;’’ then adding as an explanatory
apposition: rā‘inā. They commit this reprehensible deed by twisting their
tongues for taunting at the true religion; as the verse says: ‘‘distorting
(the words) with their tongues and taunting about religion’’. Both
masdars have been put here as circumstantial clause.

QUR’ĀN: and if they had said (instead): ‘‘We have heard and we
obey’’, and, ‘‘hearken’’; and ‘‘unzurnā’’, it would have been better for
them and more upright;: It compares these words (which show religious
reverence and submission to truth) with what they used to say (which
was a result of twisting of tongues and taunting about religion); and
declares that the former was better and more upright than the latter. But
the fact was that there was no good or uprightness at all in the Jews’
words. [Then why this comparison? And why this comparative degree?]
Reply: The verse compares the good effect of the true words with
what the Jews thought was a good effect of their words — although in
234 AL-MĪZĀN

reality there was no good effect in it at all; thus the comparison is

between the real good effect and an imaginary good effect. The meaning:
If they had said, ‘We have heard and we obey ...’, it would have been
much better and more upright than the goodness they think is achieved
by them through this tonguetwisting and taunting. The style is the same
as the one used in the last verse of the chapter 62 (‘‘Friday’’): And when
they see merchandise or sport they break up for it, and leave you
standing. Say: ‘‘What is with Allāh is better than sport and (better) than
merchandise’’, and Allāh is the Best of sustainers (62:11).

QUR’ĀN: but Allāh has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so

they shall not believe but a few: The Muslims should not entertain any
hope that the Jews would ever say, ‘We have heard and we obey’;
because it is the word of faith and belief and these are cursed people who
would not enter the fold of true faith. That is why the preceding sentence,
‘‘and if they had said ...’’, uses conditional particle, law ( ْ‫ = َﻟﻮ‬if) which
denotes impossibility of the conditional clause.
Apparently the preposition, bi ( ‫ب‬ ِ = on account of, with) in the
clause, ‘‘on account of their unbelief’’, denotes causality; not
instrumentality. [They have been cursed because of their unbelief; not
that they are cursed with unbelief.] Disbelief may be removed by belief;
therefore disbelief, per se, cannot turn into such a curse as to make belief
impossible. Rather, when they disbelieved (and Allāh will describe their
disbelieving ways at the end of the chapter) Allāh cursed them on
account of that unbelief, with such a curse as would make them cling to
their faithlessness; so they shall not believe except a few of them.
(Ponder on it.)
The words, ‘‘so they shall not believe but a few’’: It has been said
that, ‘‘but a few’’, is a conditional clause, that is, they shall not believe
except being in small number.
Others have said that ‘a few’ is adjective to a deleted noun. it means:
They shall not believe but a little belief. This interpretation too, like the
preceding one, is acceptable, but it requires further elaboration that
attachment of smallness to the ‘belief’ is a sort of attaching an adjective
to a concomitant of its noun — they shall not believe but a belief in
which the believers shall be small in number.
Some exegetes have written that ‘‘a little belief’’ means imperfect
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 235

one; accordingly, it would mean: They shall not believe but such a small
quantity of belief as would be worthless — it would not rectify the
believer’s actions, nor purify his self, nor improve his wisdom. But this
interpretation is wrong. Belief can be said to be deep-rooted or transient,
perfect or imperfect — according to its various degrees. But it is never
called ‘little’ or small in number. Therefore, this adjective cannot refer to
‘belief’, and especially in a book like the Qur’ān which is the most
perfect in rhetorics.
Moreover, the belief mentioned in the verse refers either to the real
belief rooted in heart (which is opposite of hypocrisy), or to the apparent
belief which is sometimes called Islam. There is no doubt that Islam
accords recognition to both types of belief, and the Qur’ānic verses
explicitly accept even the latter concept. Allāh says: and do not say to
any one who offers you salutation (peace), you are not a believer ...
(4:94).
Apart from that, the exception has been made from the sentence,
‘‘Allāh has cursed them on account of their unbelief ...;’’ and the least
degree of belief or apparent Islam was enough to justify that exception —
that they should have maintained correct manners and decorum by
saying, ‘We have heard and we obey’, as the Muslims were doing.
What did put that exegete in this error? It was because he thought that
as Allāh had cursed them because of their disbelief, it must be absolutely
effective; in other words, not even a few of them would ever accept
Islam. That led him to say that the exception means ‘‘but a little
quantity’’ of faith, that is, an insignificant belief. He thought that only in
this way the sentence, ‘‘but Allāh has cursed them on account of their
unbelief’’, could be correctly explained. But he did not realize that such
talks — and what they describe of evil characteristics, accusations and
condemnations — apply to the society per se. It was the Jewish society,
per se, which was subjected to curse, wrath and other general
condemnations. They will not believe, will not attain felicity and will not
succeed — and even now that society is in the same condition, and will
remain so upto the Day of Resurrection.
As for the exception, it refers to individuals; and it does not effect a
firm order decreed against a society if a few individuals are not subjected
to it. Why was this exception necessary in this declaration? Because it is
the individuals who constitute a society, when taken together. When
236 AL-MĪZĀN

Allāh said, ‘‘they shall not believe’’, it negated the belief from
individuals — although it actually did so looking at them as a society.
Still there was room for misunderstanding that the declaration covered
every single member and none would ever be free from that curse. It was
to remove that misconception that Allāh said, ‘‘but a few’’. The verse,
therefore, runs on the line of the verse: And if We had prescribed for
them: ‘‘Kill yourselves’’, or ‘‘go forth from your homes’’, they would not
have done it except a few of them (4:66).

QUR’ĀN: O you who have been given the Book! ... people of the
Sabbath: ‘‘at-Tams’’ ( ‫ﺲ‬ ُ ْ‫ = اَﻟﻄﱠﻤ‬to efface, to obliterate);‘‘al-wajh’’ ( ‫َاﻟْ َﻮﺟْ ُﻪ‬
= face, that part of a thing which is seen, which faces you; a man’s face is
the side of head that is seen, which faces the addressee). The word is
used in material as well as immaterial sense. ‘‘al-Adbār’’ is plural of
‘‘ad-dubur’’ ( ‫ = اَﻟﺪﱡ ُﺑ ُﺮ‬rear part, posterior). People of the Sabbath refers to
a Jewish group which used to violate the rule of the Sabbath; therefore
Allāh had cursed and transformed them. The Qur’ān says: And ask them
about the town which stood by the sea; when they exceeded the limits of
the Sabbath, when their fish came to them on the day of their Sabbath,
appearing on the surface of the water, and on the day on which they did
not keep the Sabbath they did not come to them (7:166). And certainly
you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath,
so We said to them: ‘‘Be apes, despised and hated.’’ So We made them
an example to those who witnessed it and those who came after it ... (2:65
— 66).
The preceeding verses, as you know, had exposed the condition of the
Jews or a group of them; the talk proceeded to say that they were
inflicted with divine curse because they were faithless towards Allāh and
His Messenger and corrupted what was good in their religion. That curse
covered their whole society and deprived them of the divine help for
believing — except for a few of them. [Coming to that stage] now the
speech is addressed to all the People of the Book, as may be seen from
the words, ‘‘O you who have been given the Book’’: It invites them to
believe in the Qur’ān, the revealed Book which verifies that which they
have got; then it proceeds threatening them of definite infliction of divine
wrath which awaits them in case they unjustifiably and arrogantly rebel
against this order — alteration of faces or curse from God.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 237

That threat is given in the words: ‘‘... before We alter faces then turn
them on their backs, or curse them ...’’ Alteration of face means here
changing a man’s face (with which he goes forward to obtain his life’s
aims, to achieve the expected bliss and happiness). It does not mean here
effacement that obliterates it, nullifying and erasing all its signs. Rather it
denotes a change that will turn it to the back-side. Consequently, the
more he advances on his way (going, by natural instinct, to the direction
of his face), the more is he retarded backwards (because now he is facing
his posterior). The more he goes ‘ahead’ to get what he thinks is good for
his worldly life or religion, the more he accumulates evil and mischief.
The more he progresses, the more is he retrogressed. Such a man can
never succeed in his endeavours.
As for cursing them like the violators of the Sabbath, obviously it
means metamorphosis, as the above-mentioned verses show that those
violators were transformed into apes. Accordingly, the conjunctive, ‘or’,
in ‘or curse them ...’, connotes its literal meaning of alternative. There is
a difference between the two threats. The former, that is, alteration of
faces, would change the life’s goals of the condemned group without
affecting any substantial change in their physique. The latter, that is,
curse like that of the violators of Sabbath, would change their goals of
life by transmuting their body-structure from that of humans to that of
animals like apes.
If these people continued in their rebellion — and they will surely do,
as the end of the verse shows — they will be inflicted with one of the two
punishments: Either alteration of faces or being cursed like the violators
of the Sabbath. At the same time, the verse indicates that the punishment
would not cover all of them. The word, ‘faces’, being a plural without
definite article, does not connote all-inclusiveness. This in its turn points
to another fine point: The talk threatens a people with a consequence
which will in fact be inflicted to only a group of them; it was therefore
more effective to keep it vague as to who would be punished; this
vagueness would keep each of them trembling with fear. The description
of the related misdeeds fitted every individual of that society. Therefore,
no one could consider himself safe from this dire chastisement. This is a
well-known style when delivering threats to a group.
Apparently the pronoun, hum ( ْ‫ = ُهﻢ‬them) in ‘‘or curse them’’, refers
to ‘faces’. But the Arabic pronoun is [of masculine gender, and is]
238 AL-MĪZĀN

reserved for rational beings [like men, while ‘faces’ should take a
singular feminine pronoun]. This clearly indicates that ‘faces’ refers to
persons inasmuch as they turn towards their goals and objectives. That
being the case, little credit can be given to those who interpret the
alteration of faces and turning them on their backs in its literal meaning,
that is, the physical faces would be turned to the backside. There is strong
indication that it means alteration of psyche whereby thinking becomes
crooked and reality is distorted; when he sees a truth he turns aside, but
as soon as a falsehood appears he runs towards it, craves for it.
This an example of divine management when Allāh wills to show His
displeasure, as He says: And We will turn their hearts and their sights,
even as they did not believe in it the first time, and We will leave them in
their inordinacy, blindly wandering on (6:110).
The above discourse makes it clear that alteration of faces in this
verse refers to a sort of divine management of soul which changes its
nature. Consequently the psyche is inclined towards falsehood and keeps
away from truth, as far as believing in Allāh and His signs is concerned.
This is supported from beginning of the verse, where Allāh says: ‘‘...
believe that which We have revealed ... before We alter faces ...’’. Also it
is clear from above that the curse here means metamorphosis.
Someone has said: Alteration of faces means that some people’s faces
will be turned towards their backs; and that it will happen in the last days
of the world or on the Day of Resurrection.

COMMENT: The words, or curse them, goes against this interpretation,

as explained earlier.
Someone else has said: This alteration indicates their being deprived
of divine help in this world; they will ever remain in disgrace and misery;
whenever they would proceed to an intended happiness, Allāh would
change it to a mirage, an illusion devoid of good.

COMMENT: Although this explanation is not so far-fetched, the

beginning of the verse does not support it, as mentioned above.
A third writer has said that it refers to their exile, and then return to
the place they were exiled from. They were expelled from Hijāz to Syria
and Palestine whence they had originally come.
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 239

COMMENT: It has been already said that the verse’s beginning as well
as the context points to something else.
Nevertheless, all or most of the above explanations may be combined
in the following way:-
The phrase, altering of faces, means turning their hearts upside down
and changing their inner self, facing from truth to falsehood; thus they
shall never be able to believe in Allāh and His signs. Now, the true
religion is the path without which man cannot arrive at blessings of
worldly life; any one deviating from it must inevitably fall in fire-pit of
corruption and mischief and stumble into abyss of destruction. Allāh
says: Corruption has appeared in the land and the sea on account of
what the hands of men have wrought, that He may make them taste a part
of that which they have done ... (30:41); And if the people of the towns
had believed and guarded (against evil), We would certainly have opened
up for them blessings from the heaven and the earth; but they rejected, so
We over-took them for what they had earned (7:96).
According to these premises, if one’s face is altered away from true
religious realities, it would inevitably be turned away from all kinds of
felicities of the worldly life. Whoever is debarred from blessings of
religion will also be deprived of worldly blessings, like security of
position, well-ordered safety, independence and sovereignty; in short,
every thing that contributes to good life and makes a work fruitful. If
there happens to be some success there, it would be to the extent the
religious discipline has seeped into their societies.

QUR’ĀN: and the command of Allāh shall be executed: What Allāh has
decreed must take place without fail; and it has already happened, as
Allāh has said in several verses of His Book: They are cursed, have been
inflicted with divine wrath; and enmity and hatred has been established
among them upto the Day of Resurrection.

QUR’ĀN: Surely Allāh does not forgive that any thing should be
associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He
pleases; ...: It appears from the context that the verse gives the reason for
the preceding order, i.e., ‘‘believe that which We have revealed,
verifying what you have, before We alter faces ...’’. Thus, its connotation
will be as follows: If you do not believe in it, you shall be associating
240 AL-MĪZĀN

something with Allāh; but He does not forgive that any thing should be
associated with Him; as a result of this polytheism, you will be inflicted
with His wrath and punishment; consequently, He will alter your faces by
turning them to your back-side; or He will curse you. This unforgiveness
will bring in its wake the worldly consequences of polytheism, i.e.,
alteration of faces and divine curse.
This is the difference between this verse and another one of this very
chapter: Surely Allāh does not forgive that any thing should be associated
with Him, and He forgives what is besides this to whom He pleases; and
whoever associates any thing with Allāh, he indeed strays off into a
remote error (4:116). The verse under discussion (4:48) threatens with
worldly consequences of polytheism, while 4:116 warns of the
consequences in the hereafter. This differences is inferred from contexts,
although by themselves both verses encompass both types of
consequences.
Divine forgiveness or unforgiveness is not affected haphazadly or at
random; it takes place according to some underlying reason — and Allāh
is Mighty, Wise. He does not forgive polytheism because creation (being
a divine mercy) stands on the foundation of worship and mastership.
Allāh says: And I have not created the jinn and the human beings except
that they should worship Me (51:56). And there is no worship, no
servitude with polytheism. As for His forgiving other sins besides
polytheism, it will be affected through intercession of rightful
intercessors, like the prophets, the waliyys, the angels and the good
deeds, details of which were given under the topic of intercession in the
first volume. 1
This verse does not speak about repentance, as it deals particularly
with disbelief, and repentance does not combine with disbelief.
Otherwise, every sin — including polytheism — is forgiven through
repentance. Allāh says: Say: ‘‘O my servants! who have acted
extravagantly against their own souls, do not despair of the Mercy of
Allāh; surely Allāh forgives the faults altogether; surely He is the
Forgiving, the Merciful. And return to your Lord ...’’ (39:53 — 54).
Polytheism, in the verse under discussion, certainly encompasses
‘disbelief’, because disbelief too shall not be forgiven, although formally

1
Vide al-Mīzān, (Eng. transl.), vol.1, pp.244 — 247 (tr.)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 241

it is not called polytheism. The People of the Book are not called by the
Qur’ān as polytheists, although their disbelief in the Qur’ān and the
message of the Prophet was nothing other than polytheism. (Vide
exegesis of the verse 221 of ch.2) 1 . The People of the Book, by not
believing in what Allāh had sent down verifying what they had had in
their hands, became unbelievers and they associated what was in their
hands with Allāh — because Allāh had not ordered them to hold fast to
their scriptures, etc., the way they did. When a believer in Mūsā (a.s.)
disbelieved in ‘Īsā (a.s.), he in fact disbelieved in Allāh and associated
Mūsā with Him. Probably that is the reason why Allāh has used the
clause, ‘‘does not forgive that any thing should be associated with Him’’,
instead of saying, ‘does not forgive polytheists (or polytheist)’.
The proviso, ‘‘to whomsoever He pleases’’ removes a possible
misunderstanding that anybody can influence the divine judgment and
affect forgiveness; nobody can order or compel Allāh, the Great, the
High. In many places in the Qur’ān, we find the proviso of ‘Allāh’s
pleasure’ after description of confirmed realities; and the reason in all or
most of them is the same removal of possible misunderstanding. For
example, Allāh says: And as to those who are made happy, they shall be
in the garden, abiding in it as long as the heavens and the earth endure,
except as your Lord please, a gift which shall never be cut off (11:108).
Moreover, the reason demands that not every sinner should be
forgiven; otherwise, it will render all orders and prohibitions ineffectual;
promulgation of sharī‘ah will be an exercise in futility; and the regimen
of spiritual advancement laid down by Allāh will be disturbed. That is
why Allāh has said: ‘‘to whomsoever He pleases’’. It also shows that for
every sin punishment must be given to at least some of its perpetrators;
otherwise its prohibition would be futile. This observation does not go
contrary to the generality of the verses of forgiveness; we are talking, not
about comprehensiveness of the promise, but about its actual occurance.
After all, many sins are committed by those who definitely shall not be
forgiven because of polytheism or other reasons.
The meaning, therefore, is as follows:
Surely Allāh does not forgive that any thing should be associated with
Him, be it done by a polytheist or an unbeliever; He forgives other sins

1
ibid. vol.3, pp.295 — 302 (tr.)
242 AL-MĪZĀN

(besides polytheism) through intercession of a good servant or a good

deed; yet He is not bound to forgive every sin of this kind to every
sinner; it is for Him to forgive or not to forgive; and whatever He decides
is based on reason.

QUR’ĀN: Have you not seen those who attribute purity to themselves?:
ar-Rāghib has said, ‘‘ ‘az-Zakāt’ ( ‫ ) اَﻟﺰﱠآﻮة‬basically denotes the growth
emanating from divine blessing ... There are two ways for a man to
attribute purity to himself: One is through [good] deeds; it is
paiseworthy, and the verse, He indeed shall be successful who purifies
himself [87:14], refers to it. The other is by words, e.g., attesting to
another person’s justice and probity. Such praise, if done for himself, is
considered immoral. Allāh has clearly prohibited it: therefore do not
attribute purity to your souls [53:32]. In this way, Allāh teaches good
manners to man, because his praise for himself is repugnant in reason and
sharī‘ah both. A wise man was asked: ‘What is repulsive, even if true?’
He said: ‘Man’s praising his own self.’ ’’.
The verse is a part of the series describing the conduct of the People
of the Book. Obviously it was the People of the Book — or a group of
them — who attributed purity to themselves. Here they have not been
identified as ‘‘People of the Book’’, because it is not compatible with the
knowledge of Allāh’s revelation to indulge in such contemptible acts.
Those who persist in it have no connection with the Book or its
knowledge.
This explanation is supported by their boastings quoted by Allāh in
His Book: We are the sons of Allāh and His beloved ones (5:18); Fire
shall not touch us but for a few days (2:80). Also their claim of being
Allāh’s friends, as alluded to in 62:6, Say: ‘‘O you who are Jews, if you
think that you are the friends of Allāh to the exclusion of other people ...’’
The verse under discussion, thus, speaks about the Jews; and is another
testimony to the fact described in the preceding verses that they are too
arrogant to submit to the truth or to believe in revelation sent by Allāh;
the divine curse has engulfed them from all sides; and all this is a result
of their self-complacency and self-praise.

QUR’ĀN: Nay, Allāh purifies whom He pleases: The talk turns from
their attribution of purity to themselves and rebuts it, by declaring that
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 243

purifying someone is one of the exclusive prerogatives of Allāh. A man

may possibly acquire excellence and achieve a sort of spiritual
superiority. But he cannot rely on it, cannot be self-complacent on its
account, unless he thinks that he is totally independent and needs no help
from God. This is tantamount to the claim of divinity; he associates
himself with the Lord of the universe. But how can poor man, who does
not control any harm or benefit for his own self, nor has any say about
his death or life, be independent of Allāh in any good or excellence? Man
in his own self and in all his conditions belongs exclusively to Allāh —
without any exception; this includes the good he thinks he has got and all
things concerning that good. Now is there anything left for man to call
his own?
This vanity and conceit — which incites man to attribute purity to
himself — is the self-appreciation which is a fundamental evil. Very
soon such a conceited person falls in another vice, and that is pride. That
pride reaches its limit when he overpowers others, subjugating the
servants of Allāh. It leads to oppression and unlawfully exceeding the
limit, sacrilege of inviolable matters, and plunging his hands in other
people’s blood, honour and properties.
This happens when only an individual is inflicted with this spiritual
melady. But if it infects others and turns into a social tradition and
national character, then it brings catastrophe in its wake resulting in
humanity’s destruction and society’s corruption. It is the trait Allāh
attributes to the Jews when they said: There is not upon us in the matter
of the unlearned people any way (to reproach), (3:75).
No man should attribute to himself any praiseworthy characteristic,
no matter whether the claim be true or false. It is not he who owns those
characteristics for himself; they actually belong to Allāh. Allāh is the real
owner of all that He has entrusted to man; it is He Who bestows
superiority to whomsoever and in whatever way He pleases. It is His
prerogative to purify whomsoever He pleases by bestowing on him
superiority and grace; and to announce that servant’s purity by extolling
and praising him for his perfect virtues. He says about Ādam and Nūh:
Surely Allāh chose Ādam and Nūh (3:33); about Ibrāhīm: surely he was a
truthful (man), a prophet (19:41); and the same sentence has been used
about Idrīs in 19:56. He says about Ya‘qūb: and surely he was possessed
of knowledge because We had given him knowledge (12:68); about
244 AL-MĪZĀN

Yūsuf: surely he was one of Our sincere servants (12:24); about Mūsā:
surely he was one purified, and he was a messenger, a prophet (19:51);
about ‘Īsā: worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those
who are made near (to Allāh) (3:45); about Sulaymān: most excellent the
servant! Surely he was frequent in returning (to Allāh) (38:30); and the
same sentence is used about Ayyūb in 38:44. Again he directs
Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) to say: Surely my Guardian is Allāh, Who revealed
the Book, and He takes in hand (the affairs of) the good ones (7:196); and
extols him in these words: And most surely you are on sublime morality
(68:4). Similar extolling phrases may be seen regarding a number of
prophets in chapters 6, 19, 21, 37, 38 and so on.
In short, the right to purify someone is reserved for Allāh. Nobody
shares it with Him; anyone trying to do it starts from injustice and ends at
injustice, while Allāh purifies with truth and justice in true measure
without excess or shortfall. That is why the words, ‘‘Allāh purifies whom
He pleases’’, have been followed by the statement, and they shall not be
wronged the husk of a date-stone, which gives a sort of reason for above.
It appears from the context that the divine purification mentioned
here refers to praise in words, to verbal attribution of excellence to good
servants — although the phrase is general and, if not seen within this
context, could encompass actual purification as well as the praise in
words.

QUR’ĀN: and they shall not be wronged the husk of a date-stone: ‘‘al-
Fatīl’’ ( ‫ﻞ‬ ُ ْ‫ ) َاﻟْ َﻔ ِﺘﻴ‬on paradigm of ‘‘al-fa‘īl’’ ( ‫ﻞ‬
ُ ْ‫ ) َاﻟْ َﻔ ِﻌﻴ‬is derived from al-fatl
( ‫ﻞ‬ُ ْ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻔﺘ‬to twist together, to entwine) and means, entwined. It is also
interpreted as the husk found in the furrow of, or inside, a date-stone. It is
narrated in traditions of the Imams of Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.) that it is the spot
on date-stone an-naqīr ( ‫ = اَﻟﻨﱠ ِﻘﻴْ ُﺮ‬tiny spot on a date-stone) al-qitmīr
(ُ‫ = َاﻟْ ِﻘﻄْ ِﻤﻴْﺮ‬pellicle enveloping a date-stone). Also it is said to mean dirt
twisted worm-like with fingers. Anyhow it alludes to something utterly
worthless.
The verse proves two things:-
First: No one having any excellence should be proud of it, nor should
he indulge in self-appreciation. Rather it is an exclusive prerogative of
Allāh, as the verse says, to purify those who deserve it. Let alone self-
praise, the verse obviously indicates that one should not attribute
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 245

excellence even to other virtuous persons, except in the way Allāh has
praised them. It follows that excellence is only that which Allāh has
praised and extolled. Any excellence that is not recognized by religion as
such is not excellence at all. It does not mean that people should ignore
other persons’ virtues and excellence; nor that they should not recognize
others’ superiority or refuse to give due respect to them. The virtues and
excellence given by Allāh are among the signs of Allāh about which
Allāh says: and whoever respects the signs of Allāh, this surely is (the
outcome) of the piety of hearts (22:32). Accordingly, it is incumbent on
an ignorant one to submit to a scholar, to accord him respect, as in this
way he shall be following the truth. Allāh has said: Say: ‘‘Are those who
know and those who do not know alike?’’ (39:9). At the same time, the
scholar is not allowed to brag of his knowledge or to indulge in self-
praise. The same applies to all genuine human virtues.
Second: Some of our ‘research scholars’, following a western
ideology, have written that self-reliance is a valuable human virtue. But it
is something that religion does not recognize, nor does it conform to the
Qur’ānic taste. What the Qur’ān teaches on this subject is reliance on
Allāh, getting strength from Allāh. The Qur’ān says: Those to whom the
people said: ‘‘Surely men have gathered against you, therefore fear
them’’; but this only increased their faith, and they said: ‘‘Allāh is
sufficient for us and most excellent Protector is (He) (3:174); that the
power is wholly Allāh’s (2:165); surely might is wholly Allāh’s (10:65).
There are many verses of the same connotation.

QUR’ĀN: See how they forge the lie against Allāh, and this is sufficient
as a manifest sin: Their self-praising — that they were children of God,
and His beloveds and friends, etc. — is a lie against Allāh, as Allāh has
not given them such distinction. Moreover, attribution of an excellence to
oneself is in itself a lie against Allāh, even if the claim be true, (as was
described above); because it is tantamount to associating oneself with
Allāh, while He has no associate or partner in His Kingdom, as the
Qur’ān says: and He has not a partner in the Kingdom (17:111).
Even if there were no evil other than its being a lie against Allāh, it
would have been enough as a manifest sin. It is absolutely appropriate to
call it a sin. Sin is a condemnable act which prevents man — or delays
him — from achieving goodness; and this disobedience is a branch of
246 AL-MĪZĀN

polytheism which keeps man away from divine mercy. The same
condition prevails in polytheism which throws man into disbelief.
Compare the clause under discussion with the preceding verse, where the
declaration, ‘‘Surely Allāh does not forgive that any thing be associated
with Him, ...’’, has been followed by the clause, ‘‘and whoever associates
any thing with Allāh, he devises (or, forges) indeed a great sin.’’

QUR’ĀN: Have you not seen those to whom a portion of the Book was
given? They believe in idols and false deities ...: ‘‘al-Jibt’’ ( ُ‫ﺠﺒْﺖ‬ ِ ْ‫= َاﻟ‬
translated here as idol) and ‘‘al-jibs’’ ( ‫ﺲ‬ ُ ْ‫ﺠﺒ‬
ِ ْ‫ ) َاﻟ‬means a thing which has
no good in it. It has also been interpreted as ‘any thing that is worshipped
other than Allāh’. ‘‘at-Tāghūt’’ ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ = اَﻟﻄﱠﺎﻏُﻮ‬translated here as false deity)
is, like ‘‘at-tughyān’’ ( ‫ن‬
ُ ‫ﻄﻐْﻴَﺎ‬
‫ = اَﻟ ﱡ‬to exceed proper limits; oppression) a
masdar which is generally used as an active particle. This too is said to
mean anything which is worshipped other than Allāh. The verse points to
an event in which some People of the Book had supported the
unbelievers against the believers, saying that the polytheists’ path was
more correct and more straight than that of the believers. They said it
while they knew that the believers followed a monotheistic religion
revealed in the Qur’ān which verified their own revelation; and that the
polytheists believed in idols and false deities. This judgment was an
acknowledgement by them that the polytheists had a share in the truth.
By assigning truth to idols and false deities they had committed
polytheism — they had shown their belief in those false deities which
Allāh has accused them of, and then cursed them, saying: ‘‘These are
they whom Allāh has cursed ...’’
This supports what has been narrated (about the cause of its
revelation) that the Meccan polytheists had asked some People of the
Book to adjudge between them and the believers as to whose religion
was better; and they had decided in the polytheists’ favour against the
believers, as will be narrated under ‘‘Traditions’’.
The verse mentions their having been given a portion of the Book, to
put more emphasis on their condemnation. They were supposed to be
scholars of the Book which had exposed the falsity of idols, etc.; what
could be more abominable, more disgraceful for such people than
believing in idols and false deities?
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 247

QUR’ĀN: Or have they a share in the Kingdom? ... speck in the date-
stone.: ‘‘an-Naqīr’’ ( ‫ ) اَﻟﻨﱠ ِﻘﻴْ ُﺮ‬on paradigm of fa‘īl, has the connotation of
‘‘al-manqūr’’ ( ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻤﻨْﻘُﻮ ُر‬tiny amount pecked from earth by a bird). Its
another meaning has been written earlier under verse 49.
Some exegetes have said that the particle ‘or’ is unrelated to the
preceding sentences. It therefore means ‘rather’; and the interrogative
implies refutation. The meaning: Rather, do they have a share in the
kingdom? That is, they do not have any share.
Others have said that ‘or’ alludes to a deleted but understood clause.
The meaning: Do they have more right of prophethood, or do they have a
share in the kingdom? But it has been rebutted by others, saying that such
deletion is allowed only in poetry, because of restrictions of meter; and
there is no such limitation in the Qur’ān.
Apparently, ‘or’ is related; and the omitted alternative is the one to
which the preceding verse (Have you not seen those to whom a portion of
the Book was given?) points. The meaning therefore will be as follows:
Do they have right to judge in any way they like, or do they have a share
in the kingdom, or do they envy the people? This interpretation shows
that all three questions are well-connected and the speech well-organized.
Kingdom denotes authority over material and spiritual affairs. It
encompasses the ‘kingdom’ of prophethood, mastership and guidance, as
well as that of people and property. This comprehensiveness is inferred
from the preceding and following sentences. The preceding verse points
to their claim that they could issue judgment against the believers; in
other words, they had authority over spiritual matters. The ending
clause,‘‘But then they would not give to people even the speck in the
date-stone’’, refers to control over material things (or over all things
including material ones). Therefore, ‘‘the kingdom’’ in the verse covers
both material and spiritual authority.
The meaning, therefore, will be as follows: Do they have any share in
the kingdom of prophethood, mastership and guidance, etc., which Allāh
has bestowed on His Prophet? Had it been so, they, because of their
miserliness and evil nature, would not have given to the people even
insignificant and worthless things. It is nearer in meaning to the verse
17:100; Say: ‘‘If you control the treasure of the mercy of my Lord, then
you would withhold (them) from fear of spending.’’
248 AL-MĪZĀN

QUR’ĀN: Or do they envy the people for what Allāh has given them of
His grace?: It is the last of the three alternatives. The question is
addressed to the Jews refuting their statement that the religion of
polytheists was better guided and more upright than that of the believers’.
In this context ‘‘the people’’ refers to the believers; and ‘‘... what
Allāh has given them of His grace’’ to the prophethood, the Book and the
religious knowledge and realities. But the next sentence, So indeed We
have given to Ibrāhīm’s progeny the Book and the wisdom ..., restricts the
word, ‘people’, to the progeny of Ibrāhīm; thus ‘‘the people’’ would
mean the Prophet (s.a.w.a.); because whatever divine grace, mentioned in
the verse, was given to others, had come through him and by his
blessings. It was already explained under the verse, Surely Allāh chose
Ādam and Nūh and the descendants of Ibrāhīm ... (3:33), that ‘‘the
descendants of Ibrāhīm’’ refers to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his progeny.
There is no difficulty in using the word ‘people’ for a single person,
as it is a usual style of allusion. You say to someone who always gives
you trouble: Why do you trouble people? What have you got to do with
people? By the word ‘people’, you mean your own self.

QUR’ĀN: So indeed We have given to Ibrāhīm’s progeny the Book and

the wisdom: The sentence makes them despair in their envy, cutting off
all hopes that this divine grace might be removed from Muhammad
(s.a.w.a.), that this bounty might be taken back. Allāh has already given
to Ibrāhīm’s descendants whatever He intended to give them of His
grace, bestowed on them of His mercy as He was pleased to. Now, let
them die in their desperation; their envy will not avail them anything. It
shows that Ibrāhīm’s descendants may mean either the Prophet and his
progeny (from among the descendants of Ismā‘īl) or all his descendants
through Ismā‘īl and Ishāq, in order that it may include the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) who was the one envied by the Jews. But it cannot mean the
Children of Israel from among Ibrāhīm’s descendants; otherwise, the
speech will become topsy-turvy, confirming the Jews in their envy of the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.), or of the believers (as the Prophet was among them).
Obviously it would ruin the whole argument.
Also it is obvious from this sentence, as we have written above, that
the envied people are from the progeny of Ibrāhīm, and it supports the
view that the word, ‘‘the people’’, refers to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). As for
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 249

the believers, not all of them were from the progeny of Ibrāhīm, nor was
there any superiority for the believers of his progeny over those who
were not his descendants. The verse therefore cannot be applied to the
believers. Also, mere believing in, and following, the religion of Ibrāhīm
does not entitle the believers to be named, ‘‘descendants of Ibrāhīm’’.
Likewise, the verse, Most surely the nearest of people to Ibrāhīm are
those who followed him and this Prophet and those who believe (3:68),
shows the nearness of the believers to Ibrāhīm, but does not make them
his descendants. Rather, by referring to them as those who followed him,
(and not as his progeny), it proves that unrelated believers cannot be
called as ‘‘descendants of Ibrāhīm’’.
The Ibrāhīm’s progeny, therefore, refers either to the Prophet alone,
or to him together with his (Prophet’s) progeny and his grandfather,
Ismā‘īl and others like him.

QUR’ĀN: and We have given them a grand Kingdom: It has already

been explained that, in the light of the context, the kingdom here has a
comprehensive meaning which encompasses spiritual authority including
prophethood and real mastership over the people’s guidance. It should be
kept in mind that Allāh does not attribute grandness and greatness to
worldly kingdom if it does not lead to spiritual superiority or religious
excellence.
This interpretation is also supported by the fact that Allāh has not
mentioned prophethood and mastership when enumerating His grace to
the progeny of Ibrāhīm (So indeed We have given to Ibrāhīm’s progeny
the Book and the wisdom). It makes it certain that the prophethood and
the mastership are included in the comprehensive term, ‘‘grand
kingdom’’.

QUR’ĀN: So of them is he who believes in him, and of them is he who

turns away from him: As translated here, the contrast between the two
sides is clear and needs no further elaboration. But the latter clause may
also be translated as follows: and of them is he who prevents (others)
from (believing in) him. In that case, it would indicate that the Jews were
not satisfied with just refusing to believe in Muhammad (s.a.w.a.); they
endeavoured their utmost to hinder people from coming to the way of
Allāh and believing in the revelation sent to the Prophet.
250 AL-MĪZĀN

QUR’ĀN: and hell is sufficient to burn ...: It threatens them with burning
in hell because they prevented people from believing in the Divine Book,
and started the fire of mischief against the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the
believers.
Then Allāh describes as to how the hell is sufficient for them; He
says: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our signs, We shall make them
enter fire. It goes on giving a description of their burning which also
gives its reason It is followed by the verse, And (as for) those who believe
and do good deeds, We will make them enter garden ... Thus the
contradistinction between the two groups — those who believe in him
and those who turn away, and hinder others, from him — becomes
crystal clear; showing that they are poles apart so far as the happiness and
unhappiness of the life hereafter is concerned; for one group are the
gardens and their dense shade; for the other, blazing fire of the hell and
roasting in it — May Allāh protect us from it.
The meaning of the verses is quite clear.

QUR’ĀN: Surely Allāh commands you to make over trusts to their

owners and that when you judge between people you judge with justice;
..: The second clause, ‘‘and when you judge ...’’, has a clear connection
with the preceding verses. The divine speech in those verses revolves
around the Jews’ judgment that the polytheists were better guided in path
than the believers. Allāh had mentioned in that verse that they were given
a portion of the Book; and the Book clearly explains the divine signs and
religious realities. It was a divine trust for which God had made them
promise that they would teach it to people and not hide it from eligible
persons.
These associations support the view that the word, ‘trusts’, has a
wider meaning that covers material as well as spiritual trusts like true
divine knowledge whose scholars are obliged to convey it to deserving
persons.
In short, the Jews betrayed the divine trust they were entrusted with,
i.e., they hide the knowledge of monotheism and the prophecies of
Muhammad’s advent, and did not disclose them when the time came. Not
only that, they perverted justice when they adjudged between the
believers and the polytheists, deciding in favour of idolatry against
monotheism. Because of all this perfidy, they were cursed by Allāh and it
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 251

pushed them to the blazing fire of hell. Now, the style changes from first
person to third person, commanding people to hand over the trusts to
their rightful owners and to do justice in judgment. ‘‘Surely Allāh
commands you to make over trusts to their owners and that when you
judge between people you judge with justice; ...’’
Of course, here we have extended the meaning of handing back the
trust and deciding with justice; but it was done because of the context, as
you have seen.

Objection: It is a deviation from the apparent meanings of trust and

judgment. What one immediately understands from this verse is that it
ordains two laws — obligation of handing back trusts to their owners and
of a qādī to judge with justice.
Reply: General legislation cannot be restricted to the rules of fiqh
(Islamic jurisprudence). For example, the Qur’ān has given general order
making it obligatory to make over trusts and to do justice while giving
judgment. A jurisprudent infers from it the laws concerning monetary
trust and judgment of cases. Likewise, a scholar of theology finds in it
reference to fundamentals of religion; and so on.

TRADITIONS

Ibn Ishāq, Ibn Jarīr, Ibnu ’l-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Hātim and al-Bayhaqī
(in his ad-Dalā’il) have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: ‘‘Rifā‘ah
ibn Zayd ibn at-Tābūt was one of the Jewish leaders; when talking to the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), he used to twist his tongue, and say: ‘Give
us your ear, O Muhammad! so that we may explain to you.’ Then he
attacked Islam and criticised it. So Allāh revealed about him: Have you
not seen those to whom a portion of the Book was given?... so they shall
not believe but a little’’. (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Abī Hātim have narrated from as-Suddī, that he said
about the verse, O you who have been given the Book! believe ...: ‘‘It was
revealed about Mālik ibn as-Sayf and Rifā‘ah ibn Zayd ibn at-Tābūt from
Banū Qaynuqā‘.’’ (ibid.)
Ibn Ishāq, Ibn Jarīr, Ibnu ’l-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Hātim and al-Bayhaqī
(in his ad Dalā’il) have narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: ‘‘The
252 AL-MĪZĀN

Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) had a talk with some great Jewish rabbis
including ‘Abdullāh ibn Sūriyā and Ka‘b ibn Asad. He said to them: ‘O
Jewish people! Fear Allāh and accept Islam; for, by God! you surely
know that what I have brought to you is certainly true.’ They said: ‘We
do not know it, O Muhammad!’ Then Allāh revealed about them: O you
who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed …,’’
(ibid.)

The author says: Obviously the noble verses were revealed about
the Jews (among the People of the Book), as has been explained earlier.
But the above-quoted reasons of revelation are no more than attempts to
apply the verses to some known persons — as is the case with most of
traditions purporting to give reason of revelation; and Allāh knows better.

an-Nu‘mānī has narrated through his chain from Jābir a long hadīth
from al-Bāqir (a.s.), describing the uprising of as-Sufyānī, which inter
cilia says: ‘‘And the commander of as-Sufyānī’s army will come down in
a desert; and a caller will call from the heaven: ‘O desert! destroy these
people.’ So they will be sunk into ground, and none will escape except
three persons; Allāh will turn their faces to their back-side; and they will
be from (the tribe of) Kalb. It is about them that the verse was revealed:
O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have
revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them
on their backs, ...’’ (Tafsīr al-Burhān).

The author says: A similar tradition has been narrated by al-Mufīd

through his chain from Jābir from al-Bāqir (a.s.).

[as-Sadūq] has narrated through his chains from Thuwayr from his
father that ‘Alī (a.s.) said: ‘‘No Qur’ānic verse is dearer to me than the
words of [Allāh] the Mighty, the Great: Surely Allāh does not forgive that
any thing should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides
that to whomsoever He pleases.’’ (Man lā yahduruhu ’l faqīh).

The author says: [as-Suyūtī] has narrated it in ad-Durru ’l-manthūr

from al-Fariyābī and at-Tirmidhī (who has said that it was a ‘good’
tradition) from ‘Alī (a.s.).
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 253

Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Abī Hātim have narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that he
said: ‘‘When the verse was revealed: Say: ‘O my servants! who have
acted extravagantly against their own souls, do not despair of the mercy
of Allāh, surely Allāh forgives the faults altogether ...’ [39:53], a man
stood up and said: ‘And polytheism? O Prophet of Allāh!’ The Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) disliked that (question); and then said: Surely Allāh does not
forgive that any thing should be associated with Him ...’’ (ad-Durru ’l-
manthūr)
Ibnu’l-Mundhir has narrated from Abū Mijlaz that he said: ‘‘When
the verse was revealed, Say: ‘O my servants! who have acted
extravagantly against their own souls ...’, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) stood on
the pulpit and recited it before the people. A man stood up and said: .
‘And associating something with Allāh?’ [The Prophet] remained silent.
[This happened] two or three times. Then this verse was revealed: Surely
Allāh does not forgive that any thing should be associated with Him, and
forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases ... But that was
included in [the chapter of] az-Zumar [The Companies] and this in an-
Nisā’ [The Women].’’ (ibid.)

The author says: It has already been explained that the verse of az-
Zumar [39:53], in the context of the verses following it, clearly speaks
about forgiveness through repentance. There is no doubt that repentance
erases all sins including polytheism; and the verse under discussion
[4:48] deals with something other than repentance. There is no
contradiction between the two, and there is no reason to suppose that
either of them abrogates or restricts the other.

There is a tradition on this verse in Majma‘u ’l-bayān, narrated from

al-Kalbī which says: ‘‘It was revealed about certain polytheists, Wahshī
and his companions. It so happened that when he killed Hamzah — and
he was promised emancipation in exchange of Hamzah’s murder, which
was not fulfilled. When he came (back) to Mecca, he felt remorse for his
action — he and his companions. So they wrote to the Messenger of
Allāh (s.a.w.a.): ‘We are sorry for what we have done; and nothing
prevents us from (accepting) Islam except that we had heard you saying
when you were at Mecca: And they who do not call upon another god
with Allāh and do not slay the soul which Allāh has forbidden except in
254 AL-MĪZĀN

the requirements of justice, and (who) do not commit fornication, and he

who does this shall find a requital of sin ... [25:68]. But we have called
upon another god with Allāh, and killed the soul which Allāh had
forbidden, and committed fornication.Had there not been this snag, we
would certainly have followed you.’ Thereupon the following [two
verses] were revealed: Except him who repents and believes and does a
good deed ... he surely turns to Allāh a (goodly) turning (25:70 — 71)
‘‘The Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) sent these (verses) to Wahshī and
his companions. On reading it, they wrote back to him, ‘This is a tough
condition indeed; we are afraid that we might not do a good deed and,
thus, might not be among the people of this verse.’ Then the verse was
revealed: Surely Allāh does not forgive that any thing should be
associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He
pleases ... The Prophet sent it to them; they read it and (again) wrote to
him, ‘We are afraid that we might not be among the people (worthy) of
His pleasure.’ Then came down the verse: Say: ‘O my servants! who have
acted extravagantly against their own souls, do not despair of the mercy
of Allāh; surely Allāh forgives the faults altogether.’ [39:53]. [The
Prophet] sent it to them. When they read it, he and his companions
entered into the fold of Islam, returned to the Messenger of Allāh
(s.a.w.a.), and he accepted from them [their conversion to Islam]. Then
he said to Wahshī: ‘Tell me how did you slay Hamzah?’ When he
informed him, [the Prophet] said: ‘Woe unto thee! Hide yourself from
me.’ Therefore, Wahshī went away to Syria and remained there until he
died.’’

The author says: Also ar-Rāzī has quoted it in his Tafsīr from Ibn
‘Abbās. If one ponders on the contexts of the verses which this tradition
alleges the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) to go on writing to Wahshī, he
will have no doubt that the ‘tradition’ was certainly a forgery. The forger
wanted people to believe that Wahshī and his companions were forgiven
in advance even if they were to commit every big and small sin. He
picked up various Qur’ānic verses from different places, taking an
excepted clause from one place, and a general one from another; while
each verse has a separate context of its own, and is insepararable from its
preceding and following verses with which it is interlinked, and cannot
be looked at in isolation. But the forger dissected and re-arranged them in
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 255

such a way as to suit this astonishing bargaining between the Prophet

(s.a.w.a.) and Wahshī. An exegete has aptly commented on this tradition:
‘‘It looks as if they want to prove that Allāh, Glorified be He, was flirting
with, Wahshī!’’
The forger’s only motive was to glorify Wahshī with an
unprecedented excellence — a firm and irrevocable forgiveness which
could not be affected by any sin he chose to commit, any depravity he
decided to indulge in. This would result in abolition of punishments for
sins; in other words, it would abrogate all system of sharī‘ah, freeing
mankind from all responsibilities, as the Christians think. Rather it would
be more ignominious, because the Christians have abolished the sharī‘ah
in exchange of the sacrifice of a person like Jesus Christ, while this
forger wants to abolish it just in compliance with Wahshī’s desire.
This Wahshī was a slave of Ibn Mut‘im; he killed Hamzah at Uhud
and went back to Mecca. When Tā’if was conquered [after the conquest
of Mecca], he accepted Islam; but the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) told him, ‘‘Hide
yourself from me.’’ He went to Syria and lived at Hims. During the reign
of ‘Umar he was employed as an account clerk, but was dismissed
because of his alcoholism, for which he was flogged several times. He
died during the reign of ‘Uthmān, reportedly of alcoholism.

Ibn ‘Abdi ’1-Barr has narrated through his chain from Ibn Ishāq,
from ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Fadl, from Sulaymān ibn Yasār, from Ja‘far ibn
‘Amr ibn Umayyah ad-Damrī that he said: ‘‘I went out (on a journey)
with ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Adiyy; we passed through Hims, and Wahshī was
there. We thought, why not go to him and ask him how he had killed
Hamzah. We met someone while we were enquiring about him. That man
said, ‘He is a man worsted by liquor; if you find him in sober condition
you will find him an eloquent person who will tell you whatever you
want from him; but if you find him in another condition, leave him
alone.’ So we proceded until we came to him.’’ (The report continues
with description of Wahshī’s killing of Hamzah in the battle of Uhud.)
(al-Istī‘āb).
Mutrif ibn Shakhīr narrates from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb that he said:
‘‘In the days of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), when one of us died
commiting a major sin, we used to testify that he was among the inmates
of fire; until this verse was revealed — then we refrained from (such)
256 AL-MĪZĀN

testimonies.’’ (Majma‘u ’l-bayān)

Ibnu ’l-Mundhir has narrated through al-Mu‘tamar ibn Sulaymān
from Sulaymān ibn ‘Utbah al-Bāriqī that he said: ‘‘Ismā‘īl ibn Thawbān
told us, ‘I went to the mosque before the great plaque, and heard them
saying: And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is
hell;... [4:93]. The Emigrants and the Helpers then said, ‘‘Hell is firmly
decreed for him.’’ But when the verse [4:48] was revealed: Surely Allāh
does not forgive that any thing should be associated with Him, and
forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; they said,
‘‘Whatever God intends; Allāh does what He pleases.’’ ’ ’’ (ad-Durru ’l-
manthūr)

The author says: Also a nearly similar tradition has been narrated
from Ibn ‘Umar through several chains. But there is something wrong in
all these traditions. We do not think that the companions of the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) in general were so ignorant as not to
understand that this verse (Surely Allāh does not forgive that any thing
should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to
whomsoever He pleases) adds nothing new to the verses of intercession,
as was described earlier. Nor could they be oblivious of the fact that most
of the verses of intercession were long ago revealed at Mecca. For
example,And those who they call upon besides Him have no authority for
intercession, but he who bears witness of the truth and they know
(43:86). Likewise, there are verses in chapters 10, 20, 21, 34, 53 and 74;
all of them are of the Meccan period and all prove intercession, as
explained earlier. These verses cover all sins; they lay down only two
conditions: One on the part of the candidate of intercession, that he
should be following the religion approved by Allāh, that is, monotheism
and rejection of polytheism; the other on the side of Allāh that He
forgives whomsoever He pleases. In short, they say that divine
forgiveness encompasses all sins (except polytheism) depending on the
pleasure of Allāh. This is exactly what this verse says: Surely Allāh does
not forgive that ... and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He
pleases.
Now we come to those verses which threaten one who kills a believer
without legal justification, or eats interest, or misbehaves towards
relatives, with abiding punishment of fire. For example, And whoever
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 257

kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it,

and Allāh will send His wrath on him ... (4:93); about interest: ... and
whoever returns (to it) — these are the inmates of fire; they shall abide
in it (2:275); about those who cut asunder the relationship: ... upon them
shall be curse and they shall have the evil (issue) of the abode (13:25).
There are other verses of the same import; and all of them issue threat of
evil consequences of sin and mention the hell as the recompense. Yet
there is no clear declaration in them that it is a firmly-decreed
punishment which cannot be changed or waived.
In short, the verse under discussion (4:48) does not contain anything
more than the verses of intercession; and there was no reason for the
companions to behave in the way they are reported to do. They could not
have thought that the verses of major sins ordained irrevocable
punishment of fire, so that they could testify for a perpetrator of a major
sin that he was among the inmates of fire. Nor was it possible for them to
understand from the verse 4:48 (the verse of forgiveness) what they had
not already understood from the verses of intercession. How could they
say that this verse had abrogated or restricted the verses of major sins?
Even one of these traditions gives the same indication. as-Suyūtī has
narrated from Ibnu ’d-Durays, Abū Ya‘lā, Ibnu ’1-Mundhir and Ibn
‘Adiyy, through correct chains from Ibn ‘Umar that he said: ‘‘We used to
refrain from asking (from Allāh) forgiveness for perpetrators of major
sins, until we heard from our Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Surely Allāh does not
forgive that any thing should be associated with Him, and forgives what
is besides that to whomsoever He pleases. And he (the Prophet, s.a.w.a.)
said, ‘I have saved my prayer (and) my intercession for the people of
major sins of my ummah.’ Therefore, we stopped from many things that
were in our minds, and we talked and entertained hope (for sinners).’’
(ad-Durru ’l-manthūr).
This tradition apparently shows that the companions understood the
same thing from the verse of forgiveness which they did from the hadīth
of intercession. Yet one question remains: How was it that they
understood the possibility of forgiveness for major sins from the hadīth
of intercession, but had not understood the same from the Meccan verses
of intercession, in spite of their numerousness, and clarity of meaning,
when they were revealed years ago? I don’t know.
There is a tradition about the verse, Have you not seen those to whom
258 AL-MĪZĀN

a portion of the Book was given? ... better guided in the path than those
who believe, narrated by al-Bayhaqī (in the ad-Dalā’il) and Ibn ‘Asākir
(in his at-Tārīkh)from Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh that he said, ‘‘When the affairs
of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) reached the stage they did, Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf
withdrew himself and arriving at Mecca stayed there and said, ‘I will not
help (anyone) against him (i.e., the Prophet) nor will I fight him.’ He was
asked in Mecca, ‘O Ka‘b! Is our religion better, or that of Muhammad
and his companions?’ He replied, ‘Your religion is better and older,
while Muhammad’s religion is new.’ Then the verse was revealed about
him: Have you not seen those to whom a portion of the Book was given?
...’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

The author says: There are various traditions giving the reason of its
revelation in different ways, the soundest of which is the above-quoted
one. But all agree on the basic fact, that some Jews had delivered
judgment in favour of the Quraysh against the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that the
former’s religion was better than the Tatter’s.

ash-Shaykh has narrated through his chain from Jābir about the verse,
Or do they envy the people for what Allāh has given them of His grace?,
that al-Bāqir (a.s.) has said, ‘‘We are the people.’’ (Tafsīr al-Burhān)
[al-Kulaynī] has narrated through his chain from Barīd that al-Bāqir
(a.s.) said in a hadīth, inter alia, about this verse, ‘‘We are the envied
people.’’ (al-Kāfī)

The author says: This meaning has been narrated from the Imāms of
Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.) through numerous, nearly mutawātir chains, which are
found in the books of Shī‘ite tradition, like al-Kāfī, at-Tahdhīb, Ma‘āni
’l-akhbār, Basā’iru ’d-darajāt, at-Tafsīr of al-Qummī, al-‘Ayyāshī and
others.
There are also traditions from the Sunnī chains which give the same
meaning. Ibnu ’1-Maghāzilī has narrated a marfū‘ hadīth from
Muhammad ibn ‘Alī al-Bāqir (peace be on both) that he said about this
verse: ‘‘We are the people, by God!’’

as-Suyūtī has narrated from Ibnu ’l-Mundhir and at-Tabarānī through

‘Atā’ that Ibn ‘Abbās said about this verse, ‘‘We are the people, to the
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 44 — 58 259

exclusion of (other) people.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)

The same book narrates from ‘Ikrimah, Mujāhid, Muqātil and Abū
Mālik that ‘‘the people’’ means the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.). We
have explained that apparently ‘‘the people’’ refers to the Messenger of
Allāh (s.a.w.a.); and that his Ahlu ’l-bayt are joined to him.
Humrān has narrated about the verse, So indeed We have given to
Ibrāhīm’s progeny the Book and the wisdom, and We gave them a grand
kingdom, that al-Bāqir (a.s.) has said: ‘‘The Book means ‘prophethood’;
the Wisdom refers to ‘understanding and judgment’; and the grand
Kingdom is ‘obedience’. (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī).

The author says: Obedience means their obedience which is

obligatory on the ummah, as has been explained in traditions. There are a
lot of ahādīth giving this interpretation; some of which explain the
‘obligatory obedience’ as the Imāmate and Caliphate, see for example the
one given in al-Kāfī through Barīd from al-Bāqir (as.).

The verse, (As for) those who disbelieve in Our signs ...: al-Qummī
writes in his at-Tafsīr that the ‘signs’ are the Leader of the faithful and
the Imāms, peace be on them all.

The author says: It is based on the principle of the flow of the

Qur’ān.

[ash-Shaykh] has narrated through his chain from Hafs ibn Ghiyāth
al-Qādī that he said: ‘‘I was in the presence of the noblest of all Ja‘fars,
[that is] Ja‘far ibn Muhammad (peace be on both) when he was (forcibly)
brought (to Kūfah from Medina) by al-Mansūr. Then Ibn Abi’l-‘Awjā’,
an atheist, came to him and said, ‘What do you say about this verse: so
oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change for them other
skins, that they may taste the chastisement? Suppose these skins had
disobeyed and were therefore punished; but what about the other
(skins)?’ Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) said, ‘Woe unto thee! It is the same and
(yet) it is another.’ (Ibn Abi ’l-‘Awjā’) said, ‘I do not understand this
reply.’ Then he (the Imām, a.s.) said, ‘Suppose a man takes a brick, and
breaks it; then pours water on it, kneads it and returns it to its former
shape. Isn’t it the same (brick) and yet another?’ He said, ‘Certainly. May
260 AL-MĪZĀN

Allāh let (us) benefit from you!’ ’’ (al-Majālis).

The author says: It has also been narrated in al-Ihtijāj, through Hafs
ibn Ghiyāth from him (a.s.); al-Qummī too has reported it without chains
in his at-Tafsīr. The reply points to the fact that with preservation of the
form, the matter remains the same; man’s body, like its various organs
and limbs, remains the same as long as the man is the same — even if
there happen to be some changes in the body.

as-Sādiq (a.s.) was asked about the words of Allāh: they shall have
therein pure mates. He said, ‘‘Pure mates are those who do not
menstruate nor do they drop excrement.’’ (Man lā yahduruhu’l-faqīh).
It is narrated from Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm an-Nu‘mānī through his
chain from Zurārah that he asked Abū Ja‘far Muhammad ibn ‘Alī (peace
be on both) about the words of Allāh: Surely Allāh commands you to
make over trusts to their owners and that when you judge between the
people you judge with justice. (The Imām, a.s.) said, ‘‘Allāh has
commanded the Imām to hand over the trust [i.e., the imāmate] to the
[next] Imām coming after him; he has no right to keep it from him. Do
you not hear the words of Allāh, and that when you judge between the
people you judge with justice; surely Allāh admonishes you with what is
excellent? They are the judges, O Zurārah! [Allāh] has addressed it to the
judges.’’

The author says: The former part of the hadīth is narrated from the
Imāms (a.s.) through numerous chains. The latter part shows that this
interpretation is based on the flow of the Qur’ān; and that the verse has
been revealed concerning general administration of justice and giving
everyone his due right. Consequently, it is applicable also to the Imāmate
as explained earlier.

A similar interpretation has been narrated [by as-Suyūtī] from Sa‘īd

ibn Mansūr, al-Fariyābī, Ibn Jarīr, Ibnu ’l-Mundhir, and Ibn Abī Hātim
from ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib that he said: ‘‘It is incumbent on the Imām to
judge according to what Allāh has revealed and to hand over the trusts.
When he does so, then it is incumbent on people to listen to him, to obey
him and to answer when they are called.’’ (ad-Durru ’l-manthūr)
262
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 263

O you who believe! obey Allāh and the Messenger and those
vested with authority from among you; then if you quarrel about
any thing, refer it to Allāh and the Messenger if you believe in
Allāh and the last day; this is better and very good in the end
(59). Have you not observed those who think that they believe in
what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before
you? They desire to resort to the judgment of tāghūt (Satan),
though they were commanded to deny him, and the Satan desires
to lead them astray into a far-reaching error (60). And when it is
said to them: ‘‘Come to what Allāh has revealed and to the
Messenger’’, you will see the hypocrites turning away from you
with (utter) aversion (61). But how will it be when misfortune
befalls them on account of what their hands have sent before?
Then will they come to you swearing by Allāh: We did not desire
(any thing) but good and concord (62). These are they of whom
Allāh knows what is in their hearts; therefore turn aside from
them and admonish them, and speak to them effectual words
concerning themselves (63). And We did not send any messenger
but that he should be obeyed by Allāh’s permission; and had they,
when they were unjust to themselves, come to you and asked
forgiveness of Allāh and the Messenger had (also) asked
forgiveness for them, they would have found Allāh Oftreturning
(to mercy), Merciful (64). But no! by your Lord! they do not
believe until they make you a judge of that which has become a
matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any
straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit
with total submission (65). And if We had prescribed for them:
264 AL-MĪZĀN

Kill yourselves or go forth from your homes, they would not have
done it except a few of them; and if they had done what they were
admonished, it would have certainly been better for them and
most efficacious in strengthening (them) (66); And then We would
certainly have given them from Ourselves a great reward (67);
And We would certainly have guided them in the straight path
(68). And whoever obeys Allāh and the Messenger, these are with
those upon whom Allāh has bestowed favours from among the
prophets and the truthful and the witnesses and the good ones;
and excellent are these as companion (69). This is grace from
Allāh, and sufficient is Allāh as the Knower (70).

*****

COMMENTARY

As you may see, the verses are not without some connection with the
preceding ones. Beginning from the words, And worship Allāh and do
not associate any thing with Him ... [4:36], the whole speech is directed
towards exhorting people to spend in the way of Allāh for strengthening
all classes of society and fulfilling the believers’ need; and condemning
those who refrain, and prevent others, from discharging this obligation;
then comes this call to obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those
vested with authority, cutting out the roots of discord and avoiding
dispute and disagreement; advising them to refer all disputes — if there
be any — to Allāh and His Messenger; they should guard themselves
against hypocritical behaviour, and must surrender to the decisions of
Allāh and His Messenger. This tenor continues until it arrives at verses
calling for jihād, explaining its underlying reason and ordering the
believers to band together in the way of Allāh. All these prepare the
believers for fighting in Allāh’s way, and put their internal affairs in good
shape on a sound basis. Here and there one or two verses have been
revealed in a parenthetical style which have no adverse effect on
continuity of speech, as was pointed out under the verse 43: O you who
believe! do not go near prayer when you are intoxicated ...
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 265

QUR’ĀN: O you who believe! obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and
those vested with authority from among you;: After calling the people to
worship Allāh alone, and do good to various groups of believers, and
condemning those who cast aspersions on this idea or prevent others
from Allāh’s way, the talk again turns to the basic theme from a different
angle, from which grow up other branches. It leads to reinforcing the
foundation of Islamic society, as it exhorts and urges the believers to
preserve their unity and to remove every type of dispute or discord by
referring it to Allāh and His Messenger.
Undoubtedly, the sentence, ‘‘obey Allāh and obey the Messenger’’,
paves the way for the next order to refer all quarrels to Allāh and His
Messenger, although the sentence is in fact the basis of all divine laws
and sharī‘ah. It is obvious from the order, then if you quarrel about
anything, refer it to Allāh and the Messenger, which emanates from this
origin; then the speech repeatedly turns to the same theme, as it goes on
saying, Have you not observed those who think that they believe in what
has been revealed to you ...; then again says: And We did not send any
messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allāh’s permission; then says:
But no! by your Lord! they do not believe until they make you a judge of
that which has become a matter of disagreement among them,...
There should be no doubt whatsoever that when Allāh tells us to obey
Him, it means that we must obey Him in all the realities and laws which
He has sent to us through His Messenger. As for His Messenger, his
orders emanate from either of his two lawful authorities: First: His
legislative authority based on divine revelation other than the Qur’ān. By
this authority, he teaches the people details of what is mentioned in
general terms in the Qur’ān, and explains all the related matters. Allāh
says: and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear
to them what has been revealed to them (16:44). Second: What he, in his
wisdom, decides in administrative and judicial matters by the authourity
given him by God. Allāh says: ... that you may judge between people by
means of that which Allāh has taught [lit. shown] you; (4:105). It is the
opinion with which he used to judge between people according to the laid
down judicial laws; and it is the decision he used to take in important
affairs. Allāh had told him to consult the people seeking their advice: and
take counsel with them in the affair; but when you have decided, then
place your trust in Allāh (3:159). Thus the people would participate in
266 AL-MĪZĀN

consultation; but the decision would be of the Prophet alone.

The above discourse shows that the Messenger’s obedience has a
connotation distinct from Allāh’s obedience, although the Messenger’s
obedience is in reality the obedience of Allāh Himself, because it is Allāh
who has obliged the people to obey the Messenger, as He has said: And
We did not send any messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allāh’s
permission. People have to obey the Messenger in what he explains by
divine revelation and in what he decides and orders by his divine
wisdom.
It is this variation of connotation which has necessitated repetition of
the order of obedience: ‘‘obey Allāh and obey the Messenger’’. (And
Allāh knows better.) This repetition, however, is not for emphasis, as the
exegetes have opined. Had the intention been of emphasis, it would have
been more appropriate not to repeat; it would have been more to the point
to say, obey Allāh and the Messenger, as it would have implied that
obedience of the Messenger is one with the obedience of Allāh; after all,
not every repetition shows emphasis.

However, the ‘‘ulu ’l-amr’’ ( ‫ = اُوﻟُﻮ اﻟَْﺎﻣْ ِﺮ‬those vested with authority)
— whoever they might be — do not have the privilage of revelation; they
decide and act according to what is right in their opinion; and their
opinion and order must be obeyed just like the Prophet’s opinion and
order. That is the reason why Allāh has not mentioned them when He
orders the believers to refer their disputes to Allāh and the Messenger. He
says: then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allāh and the
Messenger if you believe in Allāh and the last day. The people thus
ordered are the believers, because the verse begins with the address, ‘‘O
you who believe!’’ and the quarrel mentioned here must be an internal
dispute among the believers. We cannot suppose that the believers would
quarrel with those who are vested with authority when they are obligated
to obey them. So this quarrel must be among the believers themselves,
and it cannot be in matters of orders issued by those vested with authority
; 1 rather it has to be about identification of Allāh’s command in a

1
Islam’s history belies the assumption that the believers would not
quarrel with those vested with authority. What was the reason of all the
disputes, wars, bloodshed, oppressions and tortures which have stained the
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 267

particular affair, as may be inferred from the next verses which condemn
those who resort to the judgment of tāghūt, preferring it to the judgment
of Allāh and His Messenger. A believer must resort in such matters to the
religious laws laid down in the Qur’ān and the sunnah; and both the
Qur’ān and the sunnah are final proofs in all affairs, for him who has the
ability to understand the law from them. When the ulu ’l-amr say that
this is what the Qur’ān and the sunnah say on this matter, all argument
has to stop. When they talk, theirs is the final word, because the verse
makes their obedience compulsory without any restriction or condition;
and finally every affair returns to the Book of Allāh and the sunnah.
It shows that the people with authority — whoever they might be —
have no authority to legislate a new law or to abrogate a rule established
by the Qur’ān or the sunnah. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose to
order people to refer their dispute to the Qur’ān and the sunnah, to Allāh
and the Messenger, as may be inferred from the verse 36 of chapter 33:
And it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to have any
choice in their affair when Allāh and His Messenger have decided a
matter; and whoever disobeys Allāh and His Messenger, he surely strays
off a manifest straying. Allāh decides by giving a law; His Messenger
decides by elaborating a divine law, giving an order or pronouncing a
judgment. As for the persons vested with authority, they have the power,
in executive matters, to decide according to their discretion, and in
judicial and general matters, to bring to light the decisions of Allāh and
His Messenger.
In short, as the ulu ’l-amr have no power of legislation, nor do they
have any order other than that which Allāh and His Messenger have
given in the Qur’ān and the sunnah, Allāh did not mention them again in

pages of Islamic history, right from the departure of the Prophet to this day,
if not the Muslims’ rebellion against those vested with authority?
Of course, this premises could be justified if we said that the call, O you
who believe! was addressed not to the whole Muslim ummah (as is usually
the case with this phrase), but to the true believers only who might have
attained a higher level of faith. But in that case, the area of the ulu ’l-amr’s
jurisdiction and authority would be reduced to such an extent as to render
this order devoid of any importance. Also if common Muslims were
excluded from this address, they would have committed no sin by
disobeying the Imāms. (tr.)
268 AL-MĪZĀN

connection with referral of disputes, when He said: then if you quarrel

about any thing, refer it to Allāh and the Messenger. Thus Allāh’s
obedience is in one category and that of the Messenger and those vested
with authority, in another. That is why Allāh has said: ‘‘Obey Allāh and
obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you’’.
Undoubtedly, the obedience, ordered by the words, ‘‘Obey Allāh and
obey the Messenger’’, is general, without any condition or restriction. It
proves that the Messenger cannot issue any order or prohibition contrary
to Allāh’s actual order or prohibition. Otherwise, making his obedience
compulsory would be a contradiction in terms on the part of Allāh; far be
it from His sublime presence. It necessarily follows that the Messenger
(s.a.w.a.) was ma‘sūm (infalible), sinless, free from error.
The same argument applies in case of the persons vested with
authority. But the presence of al-‘ismah ( ‫ = َاﻟْ ِﻌﺼْ َﻤ ُﺔ‬sinlessness) in the
Messenger is independently established by proofs from the reason and
the Qur’ān and the sunnah, without depending on this verse. Apparently,
it is not the case with the people vested with authority. Someone
therefore could imagine that it was not necessary for these people of
authority to be ma‘sūm, sinless, and that the verse could be explained
even without believing in their ‘ismah.
The argument could be put forward as follows: ‘‘This verse ordains a
law aimed at the well-being of the ummah, which would protect the
Muslim society from internal discord and disunity. It aims at nothing
more than what is found in other nations and societies. They give one of
their leaders authority to manage their affairs; they pledge to obey him,
and his orders are carried out. But they know that he may sometimes
contravene the law or err in his judgment. So, when it is clearly known
that he was going against the law, he is not obeyed; rather, his error is
pointed out to him. But when there is only a possibility — without
certainty — that he might be wrong, his orders are obeyed and
implemented although in fact he might have decided erroneously. Yet
that mistake is tolerated for the sake of maintaining the society’s unity,
which is more important and would compensate for such mistakes and
errors.
‘‘The case of ulu ’l-amr (those vested with authority) mentioned in
this verse is not different from other worldly leaders in their authority.
Allāh has ordered the believers to obey them. If they give an order
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 269

contrary to the Qur’ān or the sunnah, it would be invalid and would not
be obeyed; the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) has said: ‘No creature is
obeyed in disobedience of the Creator.’ This meaning has been narrated
by the Shī‘ahs and Sunnīs both, and also the generality of the verse
proves it. If the ulu ’l-amr commit a mistake, and it is definitely known
to be a mistake, it would be changed to conform with the Qur’ān and the
sunnah; but if there is no certainty of mistake, the order would be carried
out as if there was no mistake. It would not do any harm to obey such an
order and implement it even if in reality it was wrong, because the
preservation of the ummah’s unity and continuance of its power and
prestige would compensate for such contravention of the actual divine
law. It would not be unlike the established dictum of the Principles of
Jurisprudence that the decisions derived from apparent proofs of
jurisprudence are binding on man even if they are not in accordance with
the actual divine order, although the divine order would not be changed
by that man-made decision; and the contrariness would be compensated
by underlying good of society.
‘‘In short, it is compulsory to obey the ulu ’l-amr, even if they are not
sinless, and could commit mistakes and even debauchery. They shall not
be obeyed if they indulge in debauchery; they shall be returned to the
Qur’ān and the sunnah when it is known that they had deviated from
them, but in all other cases, their orders shall be obeyed and their
decisions enforced. There is no harm in implementing an order which
does not visibly go against actual divine law (even if in reality it does)
for the sake of preserving Islamic unity and for the well-being of the
Muslim nation.’’

COMMENT: If you ponder on what was written earlier, you will realize
that this fallacy has no leg to stand on. It is possible to use this
‘argument’ for restricting the generality of the verse in case of
debauchery, by putting forward the above-quoted Prophet’s tradition,
‘‘No creature is obeyed in disobedience of the Creator’’, or some
Qur’ānic verses of the same import, e.g., Surely Allāh does not enjoin
indecency (7:28); and other similar verses. Likewise, comparable cases
may be quoted for religious obligatoriness of obeying orders which are
apparently binding, like obedience of the commanders of expeditions
who were appointed by the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), the governors
270 AL-MĪZĀN

he sent to various places like Mecca or Yemen, or who were left in

charge of Medina when he himself went out. Another is the authoritative
nature of rnujtahid’s ruling for his followers, and so on.
But all this cannot restrict the generality of the verses in any way.
Correctness of a theory is one thing, and its being proved by apparent
meaning of a Qur’ānic verse is quite another.
The verse proves obligatoriness of these ulu ’l-amr’s obedience,
without putting any restriction or condition, without attaching any
proviso. Nor is there any other Qur’ānic verse to limit its generality. In
short, there is nothing to show that the order ‘‘and obey the Messenger
and those vested with authority from among you’’, implies, ‘obey those
vested with authority from among you as long as they do not order you to
commit a sin or until you are not sure that they are in wrong; but if they
tell you to commit a sin, you are not obliged to obey them, and if you are
sure of their mistake then correct them by directing their attention to the
Qur’ān and the sunnah.’ Certainly the Qur’ān’s wording does not support
this meaning.
Also we should not forget that when ordering people to obey their
parents, Allāh has said: And We have enjoined on man goodness to his
parents, and if they contend with you that you should associate (others)
with Me, of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them ... (29:8). It
should be noted that parents’ obedience is much less important [and is
restricted to their off-spring]; yet Allāh has attached to it such a clear and
unambiguous proviso. How is it that He did not attach any such condition
in the verse of obedience which deals with a fundamental religious
principles, and on which depends the felicity of mankind?
Moreover, the verse has joined the Messenger and ‘‘those vested with
authority’’ in this order; and mentions both under one obedience: ‘‘Obey
the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you’’; and
the Messenger cannot order sin nor can he issue a wrong judgment. If it
were possible for the ulu ’l-amr to be wrong in an order or a judgment, it
was highly essential to put suitable restriction on this order as far as the
ulu ’l-amr were concerned. Thus the only way out is to interpret this
verse in its general sense without any condition or restriction. This in its
turn proves that the ulu ’l-amr were ma‘sūm, sinless in the same way as
the Messenger (s.a.w.a.) was — without any difference.
al-Amr ( ‫ ) َاﻟَْﺎﻣْ ُﺮ‬in the phrase, ulu ’l-amr the religious or temporal
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 271

affairs of the believers who have been addressed in this verse; as is

supported by the verse, and take councel with them in the affair (3:159),
or as is said in praise of the pious, and their system is to take councel
among themselves (42:38). Although it may possibly be taken to mean
order, which is opposite of prohibition, but it will be a far-fetched
interpretation.
This word is qualified with the phrase, from among you. Obviously it
is an adverbial phrase of place. That is, the ulu ’l-amr will be raised from
among you. It is similar to the words of Allāh, He it is who raised among
the Meccans a Messenger from among themselves (62:2); or the prayer of
Ibrāhīm, Our Lord! and raise up in them a Messenger from among
themselves (2:129); or the divine words, if there come to you messengers
from among you, relating to you My communications ... (7:35). This
explanation leaves no room for the mistaken thought (expressed by
someone) that ‘‘from among you’’ indicates that those vested with
authority would be normal people like us, as they would be one of us,
i.e., mere believers without having the distinction of divine ‘ismah
(protection from sins and errors).
Ulu ’l-amr, being a plural noun, shows that there must be a number of
those vested with authority, and it is correct without any doubt. But
obviously it is possible for them to come one after another, and the
believers would be required to obey the one who manages their affairs at
a given time. Thus all of them taken together will be collectively entitled
to the believers’ obedience, as we say, ‘Pray your compulsory prayers
and obey your superiors and elders.’
Strangely enough, ar-Rāzī has objected to this idea, saying that ‘‘it
would mean using a plural for singular and that is contrary to a word’s
apparant usage.’’ It seems he had forgotten that such usage is very
common in literature, and the Qur’ān itself is full of such verses. For
example, So do not yield to the rejecters (68:8); So do not follow the
unbelievers (25:52), surely we obeyed our leaders and our great men
(33:67); and do not obey the bidding of the extravagant ones (26:151);
Maintain the prayers (2:238); and make yourself gentle to the believers
(15:88) and various other verses containing positive and negative
statements, and having declarative as well as exclamatory sense.
It would be against the apparent meaning of a wcrd if a plural was
used for only a single individual; but it is not against apparent meaning if
272 AL-MĪZĀN

it is used for a group of individuals, in a way that it turns into a series of

numerous orders. For example, we say, ‘Honour the scholars of your
town’; meaning: Honour this scholar, and honour that scholar, and so on.
Another suggestion: Ulu ’l-amr, who are entitled to unconditional
obedience, may be a group — and may thus be referred to with plural
sense. It may be an association of many persons each individual counted
as a possessor of authority, inasmuch as he has influence over people and
his words are obeyed. For example, army commanders, scholars rulers
and community elders. The author of al-Manār has suggested that this
refers to ahlu ’l-halli wa ’l-‘aqd ( ‫ﻞ َو اﻟْ َﻌﻘْ ِﺪ‬
‫ﺤﱢ‬
َ ْ‫ﻞ اﻟ‬
ُ ْ‫ = َاه‬lit. those who tie and
untie; i.e., people having influence and authority), who are trusted by the
ummah; including scholars, military commanders, leaders in fields of
commerce, industry and agriculture, as well as trade-unionists, political
leaders, and chief editors of influential newspapers. This is what we
mean when we say that ulu ’l-amr means people of influence and
authority. It is a collective body of the leaders of the ummah.
COMMENT: The problem is that the complete verse cannot be
explained in the light of this suggestion.
As you have seen, the verse proves the sinlessness of the ulu ’l-amr;
and even those who support the above suggestion, have to admit that the
verse confirms their sinlessness.
The question arises: Who among this body of influential persons is
sinless? Is each of its members sinless, so that the collective body could
be called sinless? Because a group is but the sum total of the individuals.
But it is evident that there never was in this ummah, even for a single
day, a group of influential people who had authority to jointly manage
the Muslim’s affairs and whose every member was sinless and free from
error. Obviously, it is impossible for Allāh to order us to obey a group
which had never existed in reality.
Or does it mean that sinlessness, a real attribute, exists in that
collective body as an adjective exists in its qualified noun? Although
each individual member may commit sins, and in common with all other
human beings can indulge in polytheism and disobedience, and although
the opinion he forms may be erroneous or may lead to sin and straying,
but when the said body collectively reaches at a decision it remains safe
from mistakes and errors — because the collective body is sinless. But
this too is impossible. How can a real attribute, that is, sinlessness, exist
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 273

in an abstract idea, i.e., the collective body? A real attribute cannot stand
in a mentally posited idea.
Or, does it mean that sinlessness of this body is attributable neither to
its individual members nor to the collective body? That it only signifies
that Allāh protects this body in a way it does not order any sin, nor does
it arrive at a mistaken decision. Its case is not different from a mutawātir
( ُ‫ ) اَﻟْ ُﻤﺘَﻮَاﺗِﺮ‬1 information which is protected from falsity, although none of
its narrators or informants is sinless, nor is this, freedom from falsity
attributed to the chain of narrators when looked at as a composite group.
All that it means is that a habit has been formed which prevents
falsehood from seeping in that information. In other words, Allāh
protects a mutawātir information from infiltration of falsehood. In the
same way, opinion of ulu ’l-amr is protected from mistakes and errors,
although neither the collective body nor its individual members are free
from sin and mistake. Nor do they have any special quality or attribute. It
is nevertheless safe from falsehood and error, like a mutawātir tradition.
This is what sinlessness of ulu ’l-amr means. The verse only shows that
their opinion is never confused; it is always right and in conformity with
the Qur’ān and the sunnah. It is a special divine providence for this
ummah; and it has been narrated from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said:
‘‘My ummah will not unite on error.’’

COMMENT: As for this tradition, it is totally irrelevant to this subject.

Even if it is accepted as correct, it only says that the ummah will not
unite on error. It does not say that people of influence and authority from
among the ummah would not join hands on error. Ummah has its own
meaning, and ahlu ’l-halli wa ’l-‘aqd has another; there is no evidence
that the former means the latter. Moreover the tradition does not say that
whatever they unitedly decided would be free from error; it rather says
that they would not be united on error — and the two propositions are not
the same.
The tradition accordingly would mean as follows: Never will the
entire ummah unite on error concerning any matter; there will always be
among them those who would be on right guidance — either all or some

1
al-Mutawātir: A tradition narrated in every stage by so many narrators
as to make their collusion for a lie impossible. (tr.).
274 AL-MĪZĀN

of them, at least the sinless one. It will correspond with the verses and
traditions showing that Islam; the religion of truth, would never disappear
from the earth, would continue upto the Day of Resurrection. Allāh says:
... therefore if these disbelieve in it, We have (already) entrusted with it a
people who are not disbelievers in it (6:89); And He made it a word to
continue in his posterity (43:28); Surely We have revealed the Reminder
and We will most surely be its guardian (15:9); Falsehood shall not come
to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the
Praised One (41:42). There are many verses having the same
connotation.
Also this is not a speciality of the ummah of Muhammad (s.a.w.a.),
because the correct traditions prove otherwise. Look at the traditions
narrated from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) through various chains of narrators
which describe the division of the Jews into seventy-one sects, of the
Christians into seventy-two and of the Muslims into seventy-three sects,
all of which would go to hell — except one. We have quoted it in the
‘‘Traditions’’ under the verse, And hold fast by the cord of Allāh all
together ... (3:103).
In short, there is no need to further discuss this tradition, because,
even if its chain of narrators be free from defects, it has no relevance to
the subject under discussion. We should look at the meaning of
sinlessness as applied to the influential people of authority from this
ummah, if it is they who are referred to as ‘‘those vested with authority
from among you’’.
What is the genesis of ‘ismah (sinlessness) of the influential people of
authority among the Muslims? What makes their opinion free from error?
This body of influential people which manages the public affairs is not
something unique for the Muslim ummah. There are found in every big
and small nation, and even in the tribes and clans, a number of people
who have prestige and influence in their society; and who exercise power
and have authority over public affairs. Look into the histories of the
ancient people as well as the present nations; you will find countless
instances where the people of influence and power unanimously agreed
on a course of action about some very important matter and their plan
was carried out. Later events sometimes showed the decision was correct;
at other times it proved wrong. There is, of course, greater chance of
mistake in individual decision than in a collective one; yet there is no
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 275

guarantee that a decision jointly arrived at after thorough debate and

discussion will never be wrong. History and our own experience provide
ample proof for it.
Now, if collective decisions of influential and powerful leaders of
Muslim ummah are always free from mistakes and errors, we will have to
find for it a cause other than the normal ones; it will have to be
something supra-natural and miraculous. If so, then it would be a
manifest miracle reserved for this ummah, which would strengthen their
power, defend their land and protect them from all types of mischief that
could endanger their unity. In short, such a cause would be a divinely
given miracle parallel to the Glorious Qur’ān, and it would live as long as
the Qur’ān lives; it would have the same relation to the practical life of
the ummah as the Qur’ān has to its intellectual one. In that case, it was
necessary for the Qur’ān to describe its boundary and area; Allāh would
have mentioned it as one of His special graces for this ummah, as He has
done with reference to the Qur’ān and Muhammad (s.a.w.a.). Also, He
should have explained to this group its collective responsibilities as He
has done in connection with His Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Likewise, the Prophet
should have given detailed instructions to his ummah concerning this
extra-ordinary group, and more particularly to his companions; after all,
they were the people who bacame ahlu ’l-halli wa ’l-‘aqd after him and
took the control of the ummah in their hands. The Prophet should have
explained about this band which is supposed to be vested with authority
what was its reality? What was its boundary? How wide was the area of
its jurisdiction? Would there be a single body to rule over the whole
Muslim ummah in all public affairs? Or would there be separate bodies
of ulu ’l-amr in different Muslim societies to rule over their lives, honour
and properties?
Also, it was incumbent on the Muslims — and especially the
companions — to pay more attention to it. They should have asked
questions and gone into its details. They had asked about things which
had no importance compared to this basic matter; they had asked about
crescent, the things to be spent and war booty, as Allāh has mentioned:
They ask you about crescents [2:189]; They ask you as to what they
should spend [2:215]; They ask you about spoils of war [8:1].
So why did they never ask about it? Or was it that they had asked but
it was manipulated by people and hidden from us? But this meaning was
276 AL-MĪZĀN

not against the desire of the majority of the ummah (which follows the
same system) so that we could think that they neglected and discarded it
until it was completely forgotten!
Also it should inevitably have been quoted during the disputes and
strifes which had repeatedly erupted after the Prophet’s death. What
happened to this ‘reality’ that it was never quoted or referred to in their
argumentations and polemics, while the narrators have transmitted all
their arguments word by word? Why is it not found in any speech or
letter? Why was it not known to the early exegetes among the
companions and their disciples until it was ‘discovered’ by a handful of
later writers like ar-Rāzī and some who came after him?
Even ar-Rāzī has objected to this view after mentioning it. He says
that it is against the composite consensus; the phrase, ulu ’l-amr has been
explained in not more than four ways: The rightly-guided caliphs,
commanders of expeditions, religious scholars and sinless Imāms. This
fifth explanation goes against the above composite consensus. Then he
has replied that this new explanation is in fact' based on the third meaning
[i.e., religious scholars]. In this way he has destroyed all that he himself
had built. It is now clear that things were not like that at all; nobody ever
thought it was a noble and unique divine gift to the clique of influential
and powerful leaders of the Muslims, which would constitute a great
miracle of Islam.
Or do they want to say that this freedom from error did not emanate
from any supra-natural cause? Rather, Islam had generally trained its
followers so nicely, basing its teachings on such balanced principles, that
it was bound to produce this result — that the people of power and
influence among this ummah, be-cause of this training, make no mistake
in their collectively arrived at decisions and do not err in the opinions
they form.
First of all, this supposition is wrong because it goes against the
common sense. Perception of a whole is the sum total of the perception
of its components. When each of them is liable to be wrong, the whole
group cannot be safe from error and mistake.
Secondly, if the opinion of the group of influential persons is always
correct and free from error, and if this extra-ordinary feature is based
upon such invincible cause, then it should never fail in producing the
desired result. Then what else was the cause of all this falsehood,
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 277

disturbance and mischief which has overfilled the Muslim world?

There were countless gatherings after the Prophet’s death, in which
influential and pwerful leaders of the Muslims collectively decided
whatever they thought correct, and followed what in their opinion was
the right path; but all this led them to nowhere; they went on blundering
into far-reaching errors; their attempts to bring happiness to the Muslims
increased only the ummah’s misfortune and unhappiness. The society
which was based on religion turned soon after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) into
an imperialism — oppressive and destructive. Let scholars make in-depth
study of the disturbances and mischiefs that raised their head, since the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) departed from this world; and have a look
at what followed. On every page of Islamic history they will find blood
spilled, honours defiled, properties looted, religious laws ignored and
divinely ordained punishments nullified. Let them look for its origin and
discover its roots. Was there any effective cause other than the opinions
formed and decisions taken by the powerful and influential leaders,
which they had yoked the ummah with?
So this is the position of the most important pillar on which they want
to build the structure of Islam! This is the effect of the ‘opinion’ of
influential and powerful leaders who, they tell us, are referred to by the
words, ulu ’l-amr (those vested with authority), and who, according to
them, are free from error in their opinion!
Those who believe that ulu ’l-amr refers to the people of influence
and power, have no escape from admitting that those people were not
sinless, not free from mistakes and errors. That the ulu ’l-amr, like all
other people could be right in some cases and wrong in the others. But
inasmuch as theirs was a distinguished group, experienced in public
affairs, the ratio of their mistakes was much smaller. Allāh has made
their obedience compulsory. Although they could at times be wrong, but
Allāh has granted indulgance to such mistakes, keeping in view the
overwhelming good emanating from their management of affairs. If they
issue an order or give a ruling which contravenes the Qur’ān and the
sunnah, and that order or ruling happens to be congruous with the good
of the ummah — even if it reinterprets a religious law contrary to what
was hitherto done, or changes it to bring it into line with the demands of
time or inclinations of the ummah or conditions of the modem world —
this new verdict will be followed, and religion will recognize it as good.
278 AL-MĪZĀN

Why? Because religion aims only at society’s happiness and

advancement. This attitude is clearly seen in the way the Islamic
governments behaved in the early days of Islam as well as later on.
Whenever a law prevalent in the Prophet’s days was changed or any
system established by him discarded, the only reason given was that that
law or system was in conflict with one or another right of the ummah;
and that the good of the nation demanded that a new law should be
enforced and a new system established which would satisfy people’s
aspirations for blessings of life. A scholar has openly written 1 that a
caliph has full authority to act contrary to explicit religious laws if he
thinks it to be in the best interest of the ummah.
Accordingly, the Muslim nation would not be any different from
other civilized societies inasmuch as they all have an elected body which
decides the laws of the society keeping in view the demands of the
situation at a given time.
This opinion, as you see, is held by those who think that religion is a
social system presented in the garb of religion. It is governed by the same
factors which govern other human societies leading them on the path of
evolution step by step. Islam was a high ideal which was perfectly
suitable for those who lived during and near the days of the Prophet.
Islam, according to them, is only a link in the chain of human
civilization — and the time has left it behind. One should not study it
except in the way the archaeologists look at the artifacts from the earth.
We have nothing to discuss about the verse: obey Allāh and obey the
Messenger and those vested with authority from among you, with the
persons holding the above-mentioned view. That view is based on a
theory which would adversely affect all fundamentals of religion and the
whole system established by the Prophet’s traditions, including the basic
gnosis and belief, moral values and rules of jurisprudence. If we look in
this light at all that was done by the companions in the days of the
Prophet and during his last Illness; at the disputes and strifes they caused;
at the changes they made in some laws and systems established by the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.); at the happenings in the days of Mu‘āwiyah and the
caliphs who followed him, the Umayyads, then the ‘Abbāsids and then
the later ones — and all things resemble one another — we shall arrive at

1
Ahmad al-Amīn in Fajru ’l-Islām. (Author’s note)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 279

a stunning conclusion.
A most astonishing view has been expressed about this verse by a
writer, who has opined, ‘‘The verse, obey Allāh and obey the Messenger
and those vested with authority from among you, does not imply any of
the things said by the exegetes — divided as they are among themselves:-
‘‘First, because the obligatoriness of ulu ’l-amr’s obedience —
whoever they might be — does not prove that they have any distinction
or superiority over others. We are also obliged by religion to obey unjust
oppressive rulers when there is no alternative, for the sake of warding off
their evil, and those unjust rulers can never be superior to us in the sight
of Allāh.
‘‘Second, because the order given in the verse is not unlike other
religious commands which can be implemented only when its object is
available. For example, it is obligatory to spend on poor, and forbidden to
help oppressors; but it is not obligatory for us to create a poor or an
oppressor in order that we could spend on him or resist from helping him,
respectively.’’

COMMENT: The fallacy of these two ‘reasons’ is transparent. Add to it

his supposition that ulu ’l-amr in the verse means rulers and kings,
unsoundness of which has already been shown.
As for his first reason, he seems oblivious to the fact that the Qur’ān
is full of verses forbidding obedience of the unjust, the oppressors and
the unbelievers. It was impossible for Allāh to order us to obey them,
after all that prohibition; and then to go a step further and join their
obedience with His and the Messenger’s obedience. If that obedience
were allowed for the sake of one’s safety, Allāh would have used words
like ‘permission’, etc., as He has done in one place: except when you
guard yourself against them for fear of them (3:28). Not that He should
clearly make their obedience compulsory, which would lead to all types
of horrible results.
As for the second reason, it is based on the same assumption as the
first one. However, if it is supposed that their obeidence was made
obligatory because they had a special status in religion, then they would
be sinless, as explained earlier. And it is impossible for Allāh to oblige us
to obey someone who did not exist or who was rarely found — and this
too in a verse which contained the most fundamental aspect of religious
280 AL-MĪZĀN

good, a factor without which the equilibrium of Islamic society could not
be maintained. You have seen that the ummah needs ulu ’l-amr for the
same reason it needs the Messenger for, that is, for guarding and
managing the affairs of the urnmah. We had talked on it when discussing
about the decisive and ambiguous verses 1 . Now we return to our original
topic.
It is now clear that it would be meaningless to interpret the phrase:
those vested with authority from among you, as ‘the people having
influence and power’ (whatever meaning we give to this latter phrase).
The only meaning now possible is: Those individuals from among the
ummah who are sinless, free from error and mistake in their words and
deeds, whose obedience has been made obligatory. The only way to
recognize them is through clear divine affirmation, either in His own
words or through His Prophet. This explanation corresponds with what
has been narrated from the Imāms of Ahlu ’l-bayt that it is they.
As for the claim that ulu ’l-amr refers to the rightly guided caliphs,
commanders of expeditions or religious scholars whose opinions and
words are followed, it is rebuted on two counts:
First: The verse proves their sinlessness, and undoubtedly, none of
these three groups was or is sinless — except what a group of Muslims
believes about the right of ‘Alī (a.s.)
Second: All these interpretations are just claims without any
evidence.
Objections have been raised against the explanation that the phrase
refers to the sinless Imāms of Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.):
First Objection: In case this meaning were correct, it was necessary
for Allāh and the Messenger to clearly identify them [to the ummah]; and
if it were done, no two persons would have disputed about them after the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.).
Reply: It is clearly mentioned in the Qur’ān and the sunnah, like the
verses of Guardianship, Purity and others; and the traditions like that of
the Ark (The parable of my Ahlu ’l-bayt is like the parable of Noah’s
Ark; whoever boarded it was saved, and whoever stayed away from it
was drowned); and that of the Two Precious Things (Surely I am leaving
among you two precious [or weighty] things, the Book of Allāh and my

1
Vide al-Mīzān (Eng. transl.), vol.5, pp.46 — 129 (tr.).
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 281

offspring who are my Ahlu ’l-bayt; as long as you would hold fast to both
of them you would never go astray after me.). These have been quoted in
the discourse on ‘‘Decisive and Ambiguous Verses’’ in the third [Ar.]
volume [Eng. vol.5, pp.46 — 93]. There are also traditions about the ulu
’l-amr, narrated through Shī‘ī and Sunnī chains, some of which will be
given under coming ‘‘Traditions’’.
Second Objection: Their obedience is conditional to their
identification, because an order to obey them without recognizing them
would be a command to do the impossible. As their obedience is
conditional, this verse cannot apply to them because it is unconditional.
Reply: This objection bounces back to the objector. Every obedience
[even of the people of influence and power] is conditional to their
recognition. The only difference is that we may recognize the people of
influence and power by ourselves without referring it to Allāh and His
Messenger, while a sinless Imām can be identified only through an
introducer. However the condition of recognition is equally present in
both cases; so both should be contrary to the verse.
The fact is that although identification is counted as a condition, it is
not like other conditions. It only means that when one is obliged to do
something, he has to recognize the object of obligation and its other
concomitants; but the obligation does not depend on it. If recognition
were like other basic conditions which affect the obligation itself, like
‘ability’ for hajj or existence of water for wudū’, then nobody would be
obliged to do anything at all.
Third Objection: We are unable, these days, to reach a sinless Imām
and learn knowledge and religion from him. Therefore, he cannot be the
ulu ’l-amr whose obedience is obligatory for the ummah, because there is
no way to have any contact with him.
Reply: This problem is created by the ummah itself, not by Allāh or
the Messenger. The ummah opted for wrong ways and was untrue to
itself. Thus the responsibility and obligation to obedience stays
unchanged. Suppose a nation killed its prophet. Can they claim that now
they were unable to obey him because he was no more? Morever, the
objection may be directed to the objector himself, because nowadays
there is not a single ummah in Islam in which the people of influence and
power from among themselves could enforce what they would decide for
it.
282 AL-MĪZĀN

Fourth Objection: Allāh says, then if you quarrel about any thing,
refer it to Allāh and the Messenger. If ulu ’l-amr means a sinless Imām,
it was necessary to say, ‘refer it to the Imām’.
Reply: Its reply has already been given in the Commentary; and it
shows that it actually means referring to the Imām.
Fifth Objection: The believers in a sinless Imām say that his
obedience rescues the ummah from darkness of strife and evil of
disagreement. But evidently the verse ordains a law related to quarrel —
in spite of the existence of Imām and obedience of the ummah. It points
to disagreement among the ulu ’l-amr themselves in reaching at a
dicision about some event or occurance. But according to those who
believe so, it is not possible to quarrel or dispute in presence of a sinless
Imām, because in their views he is like the Messenger (s.a.w.a.).
Accordingly, tnis sentence would be without any purpose or benefit.
Reply: Its reply too is clear from the preceding Commentary. The
quarrel mentioned in the verse refers to the believers’ disagreement
concerning rules of the Qur’ān and the sunnah, not concerning executive
orders issued by the Imām in various events and happenings. It was
mentioned earlier that no one has any right to legislate a law other than
Allāh and His Messenger. If the quarreling parties are capable of
inferring its law from the Qur’ān and the sunnah, they have the right to
do so, or they could ask the Imām about it, because he is free from error
in his opinion. But if they are unable to infer it, then the only way is to
ask the Imām. It is just like the days of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
when his contemporaries had the option of inferring the law from the
Qur’ān (if they could) or asking the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) about
it; but in case they could not infer it, the only remedy was to ask him
(s.a.w.a.).
As the verse shows, the ulu ’l-amr are just like the Messenger in
obligatoriness of their obedience. As for the believers’ quarrel, the verse
describes the procedure to be adopted, and it makes no difference
whether the Messenger be present (as the following verses show) or
absent (as the unrestrictedness of the verse proves). The order to refer the
matter to Allāh and the Messenger is, therefore, confined to the dispute
among the believers themselves, as is shown by the word if you quarrel;
it should be noted that Allāh has not said, if those vested with authority
quarrel; nor has He said, if they quarrel. The matter will be referred, in
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 283

the presence of the Messenger, by asking him the relevant law or

inferring it from the Qur’ān and the sunnah (for those who have the
ability to do so); and in his absence, the question is to be asked of the
Imām, or its reply inferred as discribed above. Obviously, the sentence,
then if you quarrel about any thing ..., is not without purpose or benefit,
as the objector had claimed.
All this proves that the word, ulu ’l-amr, in this verse refers to some
men from among the ummah, each of whom is similar to the Messenger
in two aspects: He too is free from sin and mistake, and his obedience too
is obligatory and compulsory. However, we do not say that the phrase,
ulu ’l-amr, does not have a wider connotation according to language, or
that it may not be used in a more general way if one wants to. But
meaning of a word is one thing, and applying it to appropriate objects is
another. For example, meaning of messenger is general, and it is used in
the same meaning in this verse; yet the intended personality is of the
Messenger of Allāh, Muhammad (s.a.w.a.).
QUR’ĀN: then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allāh and the
Messenger ...: It branches out from the restriction understood from the
context. The proceding sentence, obey Allāh and obey the Messenger ...,
makes obedience of Allāh and the Messenger compulsory. This
obedience is in the sphere of religion which ensures erasure of every
possible dispute and guarantees fulfilment of every possible need. It
leaves nothing uncared for, and no referral is required to any one other
than Allāh and His Messenger. The sentence, thus, implies: obey Allāh
and do not obey tāghūt. This is the implied restriction which we have
mentioned above.
The speech is addressed to the believers. It shows that the ‘quarrel’
refers to their dispute among themselves, and not to any putative quarrel
between them and the ulu ’l-amr, nor to any supposed dispute among the
ulu ’l-amr themselves. It is because the former, i.e., quarrel among the
believers and the ulu ’l-amr, goes against the obligation of their
obedience, and the latter, i.e., dispute among the ulu ’l-amr themselves,
does not conform with obligatoriness of their obedience [which shows
that they are always right] because in dispute one party is surely wrong.
Moreover, this idea is not in accord with the verse, as it is addressed to
the believers; Allāh says: ‘‘then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it
...’’.
284 AL-MĪZĀN

The word, ‘thing’, is general and could possibly include all decisions
and orders given by Allāh, His Messenger and ulu ’l-amr; yet the next
words, ‘‘refer it to Allāh and the Messenger’’, show that the verse speaks
about quarrel in something outside the direct responsibility of the ulu ’l-
amr. They have full authority and control over executive matters which
come within the area of their wilāyah ( ‫ﻻ َﻳ ُﺔ‬
َ ‫ = َاﻟْ ِﻮ‬guardianship; mastership),
like their order to join an expedition, to fight or to make peace, and so on.
The order to refer a matter to Allāh and the Messenger does not cover
such things, because people are obliged to obey the ulu ’l-amr in these
things. This sentence, therefore, is confined to religious laws only; no
one, other than Allāh and the Messenger, has any authority to issue or
abrogate a law. The verse somewhat explicitly shows that no one has any
right to manipulate any religious law explained by Allāh and His
Messenger, and ulu ’l-amr and others all are equal in this respect.
The proviso, if you believe in Allāh and the last day, puts utmost
emphasis to this order, and indicates that its contravention emanates from
defect in belief. The order has a direct connection with faith; its
contravention would show that although the person concerned pretended
to believe in Allāh and His Messenger, disbelief was hidden in his heart;
and this is hypocrisy, as the following verses prove.
This is better and very good in the end. The indicative, ‘this’, points
either to referring the matter in dispute or to obeying Allāh, His
Messenger and those vested with authority. ‘‘at-Ta’wīl’’ ( ُ‫= اَﻟ ﱠﺘﺄْ ِوﻳْﻞ‬
translated here as ‘‘in the end’’) refers to the underlying good on which
the order is based and which is realized when the order is carried out. Its
meaning has been explained in the third volume 1 , under the verse,
seeking to give it (their own) interpretation, but none knows its
interpretation except Allāh (3:7).

QUR’ĀN: Have you not observed those who think that they believe in
what has been revealed to you ...: ‘‘az-Za‘m’’ ( ‫ ) اَﻟﺰﱠﻋْ ُﻢ‬means to think, to
claim, no matter it conforms with reality or not. It is different from ‘‘al-
‘ilm’’ ( ‫ = َاﻟْ ِﻌﻠْ ُﻢ‬to know) which is used for a knowledge that conforms with
fact. As az-za‘m is generally used for thoughts and claims not
conforming with facts, people often think that this non-conformity is part

1
al-Mīzān, (Eng. transl.), vol.5, pp.65 — 73 (tr.).
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 285

of its connotation; but it is not so. ‘‘at-Tāghūt’’ ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ ) اَﻟﻄﱠﺎﻏُﻮ‬is a masdar in

the meaning of ‘‘at-tughyān’’ ( ‫ن‬ ُ ‫ﻄﻐْﻴَﺎ‬
‫ = اَﻟ ﱡ‬to exceed proper bounds) on the
paradigm of ‘‘ar-rahbūt’’ ( ‫) اَﻟ ﱠﺮهْﺒُﻮت‬, ‘‘al-jabarūt’’ ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ﺠ َﺒﺮُو‬
َ ْ‫ ) َاﻟ‬and ‘‘al-
malakūt’’ ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫ ;) اَﻟْﻤَﻠَﻜُﻮ‬but generally it is used for active participle in
exaggerated sense. The Arabs say: Taghā ’l-mā’ ( ‫ﻃﻐَﻲ اﻟْﻤَﺂ ُء‬ َ = Water
overflowed the banks). Its use for man began as an extended metaphor;
then it became common until it is now taken as its real meaning; it
indicates his exceeding the proper limits laid down by reason or sharī‘ah.
at-Tāghūt therefore means oppressor and tyrant, who rebels against, and
discards the demands of divine worship showing hauteur against Allāh.
That is why scholars say that at-tāghūt refers to every one who is
worshipped — other than Allāh.
The words, what has been revealed to you and what was revealed
before you, mean, what Allāh has revealed to His messengers. This
expression was preferred to the phrase, ‘they believe in you and in those
before you’, because the talk is about obligation of referring disputed
matters to the Book of Allāh and its laws. It also indicates that the
‘command’ in the clause, they were commanded to deny him, refers to the
order contained in divine books and revelations sent to the prophets,
Muhammad and the preceding ones, may Allāh bless him, his progeny
and them all.

The opening words, ‘‘Have you not observed’’, clarify a possible

query: Why has the order been given to obey Allāh and obey the
Messenger and those vested with authority [and to refer the disputes to
them]? The reply: Have you not seen how they indulge in disobedience
by resorting to the judgment of tāghūt? The question reflects pity; it is a
matter of pity that they were doing so, while they claimed to believe in
the Books revealed to you and the other prophets; these books were sent
down to judge between the people in matters they disputed about. Allāh
has clearly said in the verse, Mankind was but one nation; so Allāh sent
the prophets as bearers of good news and warners, and He sent down
with them the book with truth, that it might judge between the people in
that in which they differed ... (2:213). Yet they resort to the judgment of
tāghūt in their disputes, i.e., to the judgment of those who have exceeded
the limit, rebelled against divine religion and crossed the boundary of
truth. They do so in spite of their being clearly ordered in these books to
286 AL-MĪZĀN

deny tāghūt. Was it not enough reason for forbidding them to resort to
tāghūt for judgment, that it was tantamount to discarding the books of
Allāh and abrogating His laws?

The sentence at the end, and the Satan desires to lead them astray
into a far-reaching error, shows that they did so coming under the
Satan’s influence and his misguidance, as he wanted to lead them into a
far-reaching error.

QUR’ĀN: And when it is said to them: ‘‘Come to what Allāh has ate,
revealed and to the Messenger;’’...: ‘‘Ta‘ālaw’’ ( ‫ = َﺗﻌَﺎَﻟﻮْا‬come) is
imperative of at-ta‘ālī ( ‫ = اَﻟ ﱠﺘﻌَﺎﻟِﻲ‬to rise); ‘‘sadda’’ ( ‫ﺻ ﱠﺪ‬
َ = turned away).
‘‘Come to what Allāh has revealed and to the Messenger’’, means, come
to the law of Allāh and to him who decides according to it.... turning
away from you with (utter) aversion: The speech is addressed to the
Messenger alone, although they were called not to him alone, but to him
and the book together. The verse comments on those who claimed to
believe in what was revealed by Allāh; they were not unbelievers that
they could openly reject the Book of Allāh. Such people were in fact
hypocrites, showing that they believed in what Allāh had revealed, but
turning away openly from His Messenger.
It clearly proves that any attempt to differentiate between Allāh and
His Messenger by accepting the order of Allāh and hesitating about the
order of the Messenger is unmitigated hypocrisy.

QUR’ĀN: But how will it be when misfortune befalls them on account of

...: It is a warning that this turning away from the order of Allāh and His
Messenger, and resorting to the judgment of someone else, i.e., tāghūt, is
sure to bring misfortune in its wake, and its only cause will be this
turning away from the order of Allāh and His Messenger, and that resort
to the tāghūt’s judgment. The words, Then will they come to you
swearing by Allāh: We did not desire (anything) but good and concord,
give prior information of their excuse that it was not with any bad
intention that they had resorted to the tāghūt’s judgment. The meaning
thus will be as follows — and Allāh knows better: If they persisted in
that behaviour, then how would they feel when its evil consequences
overwhelmed them, and then they would rush to you swearing by the
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 287

name of Allāh that their only desire, in resorting to the judgment of other
than the divine book and the Messenger, was to bring good and accord in
society and removing the disagreement between the parties.

QUR’ĀN: These are they of whom Allāh knows what is in their hearts;
...: It is a rejection of their excuse. Allāh did not describe what was in
their heart, nor did He say that their motive was bad, because the words,
turn aside from them and admonish them, were enough to expose it.If
their intention was not bad, it would have been true and good; and Allāh
would not order His Messenger to turn aside from a person who spoke
truth and described fact. The words, and speak to them effectual words
concerning themselves, mean: Say to them such words as would reach
their hearts and they would come to realize the evil of their activities;
they should understand that it was hypocrisy which on coming in open
was bound to bring Allāh’s wrath and punishment to them.

QUR’ĀN: And We did not send any Messenger but that he should be
obeyed ...: It is an all-encompassing refutation of these hypocrites’ evil-
doings described above: resorting to tāghūt’s judgment, turning aside
from the Messenger, swearing and offering excuse of having intention of
good and concord. All this is, in one way or another, disobedience of the
Messenger of Allāh, whether accompanied by any excuse or not. Allāh
has made his obedience compulsory without any restriction or condition;
He has sent him only to be obeyed by Allāh’s permission. No one should
imagine that it was only Allāh’s obedience that was required, while the
Messenger was merely one of the human beings, who was obeyed only
for people’s good; and if such a result could be achieved without his
obedience then there was no harm in going ahead independently, leaving
the Messenger aside; otherwise it would mean associating him with
Allāh, and worshing him. This attitude was reflected, every now and
then, in their talk with the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), when he took a
decision about some important matter, and someone would ask him: Is it
by Allāh’s order or by yours?
Therefore, Allāh has made it clear that the obligation to obey the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is all-encompassing and unconditional; it is nothing but
Allāh’s obedience because it is by His permission. The verse in effect
says what is declared in the verse 80 of this same chapter: whoever obeys
288 AL-MĪZĀN

the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allāh.

Then Allāh says that if they had returned to Allāh and His Messenger,
repenting for the sin of disobeying the Messenger and turning aside from
him, it would have been better than their swearing in the name of Allāh
and offering lame and useless excuses which could not please the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), as Allāh would inform him of the reality
behind that facade. This is the import of the second half of the verse: and
had they, when they were unjust to themselves, come to you and asked
forgiveness of Allāh and the Messenger had (also) asked forgiveness for
them, they would have found Allāh Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.

QUR'AN: But no! by your Lord! they do not believe until they make you
a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement ...: ‘‘ash-
Shajr’’ and ‘‘ash-shajūr’’ ( ‫ﺠ ُﺮ‬ ْ ‫اَﻟﺸﱠ‬،ُ‫ﺸﺠُﻮر‬
‫ = اَﻟ ﱠ‬to mingle, to jumble). From it
are derived ‘‘at-tashājur’’ and ‘‘al-mushājarah’’ ( ‫ﺟﺮَة‬ َ ‫َاﻟْ ُﻤﺸَﺎ‬،‫ = اَﻟ ﱠﺘﺸَﺎﺟُﺮ‬to
quarrel, to dispute), as if the claim and counter-claims are mixed up and
jumbled together; the same is the root of ash-shajar ( ‫ﺠ ُﺮ‬ َ ‫ = اَﻟﺸﱠ‬tree)
because its branches look jumbled and mixed together; ‘‘al-haraj’’ (
‫ج‬
ُ ‫ﺤ َﺮ‬
َ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬straitness, tightness).
At first glance it appears that it is a rebuttal of the hypocrites’
thinking that they believed in the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) even while resorting
to the Satan’s judgment. It seems to mean: This claim is not correct; they
will not be counted as believers until they come to you for judgment and
then do not find any straitness in their hearts when you gave your
judgment. But the generality of the clause, until they make you a judge ...
total submission, and that of the next verse, And if We had prescribed for
them ... except a few of them, supports the view that this admonition is
not restricted to the hypocrites; it covers others too inasmuch as they
apparently think that mere acceptance of what Allāh has revealed
including gnosis and commands constitutes true belief in Allāh, His
Messenger and all that the Messenger has brought. But it is not so. True
belief means total submission from the depth of one’s heart as well as in
appearance. How is it possible for true believers not to submit to the
Prophet’s order in appearance (turning aside from him and going against
him) or in their inner self by feeling straitness in their hearts when that
judgment goes against their wishes. Allāh has said to His Messenger, ...
that you may judge between people by means of that which Allāh has
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 289

taught you (4:105). Now, if any one feels annoyed with the Prophet’s
judgment, he is in fact annoyed with Allāh’s judgment, because it is
Allāh who has made his obedience compulsory and given him authority
to enforce his decisions.
If they surrendered to the Messenger’s order and judgment without
finding any straitness in their hearts on that account, they would have in
fact surrendered to Allāh’s order and judgment, whether it be a
legislative one or creative. It is one of the stages of faith, on reaching
which a believer attains to many superior virtues (the most prominent
being submission to Allāh’s order), and becomes free from many bad
traits like finding staitness in heart and objecting to divine order by
tongue or heart. The ‘submission’ required in the verse is general and
comprehensive.
It is now clear that, although the wording of the verse, But no! by
your Lord! they do not believe ... with total submission, apparently makes
it restricted to the Prophet’s judgment only (because it refers to their
resorting to the judgment of someone else even when they were obliged
to refer every dispute to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), yet its import is general
and covers orders of Allāh and His Messenger both, and in matters of
legislation as well as creation, as described above. Not only that. It
encompasses all judgments he delivered, all systems he established and
all actions he performed, because the order is general; and it is not
possible for the one who truly believes in Allāh to reject, be annoyed or
feel disturbed on account of a judgment, order or system that in any way
emanates from Allāh or His Messenger. Otherwise, it would be, to a
certain degree, associating others with Allāh. Allāh says: And most of
them do not believe in Allāh without associating others (with Him),
(12:106).

QUR’ĀN: And if We had prescribed for them ... except a few of them.: It
was described under the verse, but Allāh has cursed them on account of
their unbelief, so they shall not believe but a few (4:46), that this style
indicates that the statement is applicable to the collective body of people,
i.e., to the society as a whole, and that the exception only serves to
remove any possible misunderstanding that it covers each and every
member without sparing a single person. The exception, therefore, is
rather separated than attached, or it falls between the attached and the
290 AL-MĪZĀN

separated exceptions inasmuch as it has two sides.

Therefore, the sentence, ‘‘they would not have done it except a few
of them’’, describes the condition of the collective body that as a society
they do not obey the orders which seem unpalatable to them and which
affect the things to which their hearts are firmly attached like their lives
and homes; and the exception of the few has been added to remove a
possible misunderstanding.
The meaning: If We had prescribed for them and ordered them to kill
themselves or go forth leaving their homes and places of residence which
they were emotionally attached to, they would not have done it, would
have disobeyed Us. Nevertheless, as the above statement could have
given an impression that there was not among them even a single true
believer who would submit to the command of Allāh, this
misunderstanding was removed by excepting a few of them; although the
preceding statement in fact had not included them in the first place,
because it had commented on the society per se, and had not looked at
individual members except as components of that society.
It shows that the verse speaks about killing of the whole by whole
group, and their collective dispersion from their villages and towns. It
does not refer to individuals — that every one should kill himself or go
out from his personal home. It is the same style as used in the verse,
therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), and kill your people [lit.:
yourselves] (2:54), because this verse too is addressed to the group, not
to individuals.

QUR’ĀN: and if they had done what they were admonished,: The word
‘prescribed’ used at the beginning, has been changed here to
‘admonished’. It is an indication that these directives given as commands
and orders are in fact pointers leading to what contains their good and
bliss. They are in their essence admonitions and sympathetic guidance
ordained for their good.

QUR’ĀN: it would have certainly been better for them and most
efficacious in strengthening (them);: That is, in all matters that concerns
them in this world and the next. It is because the good of the next world
is inseparable from this world’s good; rather the former follows the latter.
‘‘Most efficacious in strengthening’’, i.e., strengthening their hearts and
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 291

souls with true faith, as the speech revolves around faith. Allāh has said:
Allāh strengthens those who believe with the sure word in this world’s
life and in the hereafter (14:27).

QUR’ĀN: And then We would certainly have given them from Ourselves
a great reward;: That is, when they got strengthened with firm faith. The
vagueness of ‘‘a great reward’’ has the same implication as the
unrestrictedness of ‘‘better for them’’.

QUR’ĀN: And We would certainly have guided them in the straight

path.: The meaning of the straight path was explained in the first volume
under the verse, Guide us to the straight path (1:6).

QUR’ĀN: And whoever obeys Allāh and the Messenger, these are with
those upon whom Allāh has bestowed favours from among the prophets
and the truthful and the witnesses and the good ones; and excellent are
these as companion: Obedience of Allāh and the Messenger has been
joined in this good news although the preceding verses had spoken
specifically about the Messenger’s obedience and submission to his
command and judgment; it is because of some intervening verses
referring to Allāh, e.g., And if We had prescribed for them ... The
obligation therefore is of obeying Allāh and obeying His Messenger; as
was clearly laid down in the beginning of this topic: obey Allāh and obey
the Messenger …
The words, ‘‘these are with those upon whom Allāh has bestowed
favours’’, show that the obedient ones would join the company of the
prophets and the other favoured ones, not that they would become one of
them. Those bestowed with favours are the people of ‘‘the straight path’’;
and this phrase has not been attributed in the Qur’ān to any one other
than Allāh, with exception of this group, as the Qur’ān says: Guide us to
the straight path, the path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed
favours (1:6 — 7). In short, the obedient ones will enjoy the company of
the prophets, truthful ones, etc., without becoming themselves prophet,
etc. Also, the end clause, ‘‘and excellent are these as companion’’, points
to this direction. It was explained earlier that the favour specifically
refers to mastership and guardianship.
Coming to these four groups, the prophets are recipients of revelation
292 AL-MĪZĀN

who are given news of the unseen. We know nothing more about them
except what is seen of their achievements in society. Also it has earlier
been described that ‘‘ash-shuhadā’ ’’ ( ‫ﺸ َﻬﺪَﺁ ُء‬
‫) اَﻟ ﱡ‬, when used in the Qur’ān,
means witnesses of people’s actions, not martyrs in the battle-field; and
that the good ones are those who deserve favours from Allāh.
As for the truthful ones, the word ‘‘as-siddīq’’ ( ‫ﻖ‬ ُ ْ‫ ) اَﻟﺼﱢﺪﱠﻳ‬is the
exaggerative form of as-sidq ( ‫ق‬ُ ْ‫ = اَﻟﺼﱢﺪ‬truth). Truth occurs in speech as
well as in acts. Truth in action means its conformity with the words,
because it shows firm belief. When one is true in one’s words, it gives a
true picture of his inner belief without any contradiction; a word is true
when it conforms with reality. As the speech itself is an action, the one
who is truthful in action would not say except what he knows to be true
and real. His words therefore are doubly true — the narration and the
matter narrated both are true
The truthful one, who never lies, is the one who does not do except
what he knows to be right, without following his desires, and does not
say except what he knows to be truth, and does not think except that
which is true; he sees the reality of the things, says truth and does right.
In this way the ranks are fixed: The prophets (and they are the leaders
and chiefs); then the truthful ones (and they are witnesses of realities and
people’s deeds); then the witnesses (who are witnesses of deeds); and
lastly the good ones (who are qualified to receive divine favours).
The last word, ‘‘rafīqā’’ ( ‫ = َر ِﻓﻴْﻘًﺎ‬companion) is accusative of
specification; and means: as companion, in the manner of a companion.
That is why it has been used in singular form. Some others have said that
it is a circumstantial clause and means: each of these is excellent as
companion. In that case, the style is similar to that found in the verse, ...
then We bring you forth as baby ... (22:5).

QUR’ĀN: This is grace from Allāh, and sufficient is Allāh as the

Knower: The sentence begins with the indicative pronoun, dhālika ( ‫ﻚ‬ َ ‫= ذِﻟ‬
lit.: that), and that pronoun is made for distant objects; then the predicate
al-fadl ( ‫ﻞ‬ُ ْ‫ = َاﻟْ َﻔﻀ‬grace) is strengthened with the definite article al ( ْ‫َال‬
).All these literary devices signify the magnificence of the grace, as
though it is the grace in its totality. The verse ends with the mention of
divine knowledge, because the preceding speech describes the ranks of
faith and belief, which cannot be identified except by the divine
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 293

knowledge.
It should be noted here that these noble verses have changed several
times the style from first or second person to the third and vice versa
without affecting the flow of speech or weakening their interlinked
arrangement. The series begins addressing the believers in second person
[O you who believe!], then talks of them in third person (And if We had
prescribed for them). Likewise, Allāh has mentioned Himself in the first
verse in third person (obey Allāh), then turns to first person plural (And
We did not send ... ), then at once to the third person in the same verse
(by permission of Allāh); then again to the first person plural (And if We
had prescribed), and finally to third person (And whoever obeys Allāh).
Likewise, the Messenger of Allāh has been described in the first
verse in third person (and obey the Messenger), then addressed in the
second person (come to you) and then turns to third person (and the
Messenger had asked forgiveness for them), then it turns again to second
person (by your Lord!), it then turns third time to the third person (And
whoever obeys Allāh and the Messenger), and finally uses the
demonstrative pronoun, ulā’ika ( ‫ﻚ‬ َ ‫ = اُوﻟ ِﺌ‬these) with second person
pronoun ka ( ‫ = ك‬you). Altogether there are ten changes here, and the
reasons are not difficult to understand for anyone who ponders on the
context.

TRADITIONS

Ibn Bābawayh has narrated through his chain from Jābir ibn
‘Abdillāh al-Ansārī that he said: ‘‘When Allāh, the Mighty, the Great,
sent to His Prophet, Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), the verse, O you who believe!
obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from
among you, I said, ‘O Messenger of Allāh! We know Allāh and His
Messenger; but who are those vested with authority whose obedience
Allāh has conjoined to your obedience?’ (The Prophet) said: ‘They are
my caliphs, O Jābir! and the Imāms of the Muslims after me. The first of
them is ‘Alī son of Abū Tālib, then al-Hasan, then al-Husayn, then ‘Alī
son of al-Husayn, then Muhammad son of ‘Alī who is mentioned as al-
Bāqir in the Torah; you will surely meet him, O Jābir! when you see him
convey my salām (greetings) to him. Then as-Sādiq Ja‘far son of
294 AL-MĪZĀN

Muhammad; then Mūsā son of Ja‘far; then ‘Alī son of Mūsā; then
Muhammad son of ‘Alī; then ‘Alī son of Muhammad; then al-Hasan son
of ‘Alī; then Muhammad (whose name and patronym will be the same as
mine) son of al-Hasan son of ‘Alī, the Proof of Allāh on His earth and
Baqiyyatullāh ( ‫ = َﺑ ِﻘ ﱠﻴ ُﺔ اﻟﻠّ ِﻪ‬the one kept safe by Allāh) among His servants;
he is the one by whose hands Allāh, Sublime is His remembrance, will
conquer the whole world from the east to the west; he it is who will
remain hidden from his followers and friends for such a long period that
no one will remain firm on the belief of his imamah except he whose
heart has been tested by Allāh for faith.’ ’’

Jābir says: ‘‘I said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh! Will his followers get any
benefit from him during his occultation?’ (The Prophet, s.a.w.a.) said:
‘Certainly, by Him Who has sent me with prophethood! they will be
guided by his light and benefit from his wilāyah ( ‫ﻻ َﻳ ُﺔ‬ َ ‫ = َاﻟْ ِﻮ‬love,
mastership) during his occultation as people benefit from the sun when it
is hidden in cloud. O Jābir! this is part of the hidden secrets of Allāh and
the treasured knowledge of Allāh. So keep it hidden except from the
people who deserve to know.’ ’’ (Tafsīr al-Burhān)

The author says: an-Nu‘mānī has narrated through his chain from
Sulaym ibn Qays al-Hilālī from ‘Alī (a.s.) a tradition of the same
meaning as above. Also ‘Alī ibn Ibrāhīm has narrated it through his chain
from Sulaym from ‘Alī (a.s.). There are other traditions narrated through
Shī‘ī and Sunnī chains, describing the imāmah of the above Imāms
together with their names; which may be seen in Yanābi‘u ’l-mawaddah,
and al-Bahrārī’s Ghāyatu ’l-marām and other books.
Jābir al-Ju‘fī has said: ‘‘I asked Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) about the verse, obey
Allāh and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from
among you. He said: ‘The Imāms.’ ’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)

The author says: al-‘Ayyāshī has narrated in his Tafsīr another

similar tradition through ‘Umar ibn Sa’īd from Abu ’l-Hasan (a.s.), in
which the following reply is given: ‘‘ ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib and the Imāms
after him.’’

Ibn Shahrāshūb narrates: ‘‘al-Hasan ibn Sālih asked as-Sādiq (a.s.)

 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 295

about it and the Imām replied: ‘The Imāms from the Ahlu ’l-bayt of the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.).’ ’’

The author says: A similar tradition has been narrated by as-Sadūq

through Abū Basīr from al-Bāqir (a.s.) in which it is said: ‘‘The Imāms
from the children of ‘Alī and Fātimah until the Hour (of resurrection)
comes.’’

Abū Masrūq has narrated a tradition from Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.); he

says: ‘‘I told him: ‘We have discussion with theologians and we argue
against them with the words of Allāh, the Mighty, the Great, obey Allāh
and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among
you; but they say: ‘‘It was revealed about the believers.’’ And we argue
against them with the words of Allāh, the Mighty, the Great, Say: I do
not ask of you any recompense for it except the love for near relatives;
and they say: ‘‘It was revealed about the near relatives of the believers.’’
Thus I did not leave anything like this which came to my mind but I
mentioned it (to him).’ Thereupon he said to me: ‘In that case, call them
to al-mubāhalah ( ‫ = َاﻟْ ُﻤﺒَﺎ َهَﻠ ُﺔ‬imprecation).’ I said: ‘And how should I do
it?’ He said: ‘Keep yourself good and happy for three days; keep fast;
take bath; and go forth you and he to the mountains; then entwine your
right hand’s fingers in his fingers; then show justice to him and begin
with yourself and say: ‘‘O Allāh, the Lord of the seven heavens and the
Lord of the seven earths, the Knower of the unseen and the seen, the
Beneficent, the Merciful! If Abū Masrūq has rejected truth and claimed
wrong, then send on him reckoning from the heaven and a painful
chastisement.’’ Then turn the same imprecation on him and say: ‘‘And if
he (i.e., your adversary) has rejected truth and claimed wrong, then send
on him reckoning from the heaven and a painful chastisement.’’ ’
‘‘Then (the Imām, a.s.) said to me: ‘Thus it will not be long that you
will see it (chastisement) in him.’ But, by Allāh, I did not find anyone
who would answer to this call.’’ (al-Kāfī)
‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Ajlān has narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said
about this verse of obedience: ‘‘It is about ‘Alī and the Imāms; Allāh has
put them in places of prophets except that they do not make anything
lawful or unlawful.’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
296 AL-MĪZĀN

The author says: The exception in this tradition confirms what was
written in the Commentary that according to this verse legislating a law
was reserved for Allāh and His Messenger.

Burayd ibn Mu‘āwiyah has narrated that Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) recited:
‘‘Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority
from among you; then if you fear a dispute about anything, refer it back
to Allāh and the Messenger and those vested with authority from among
you.’’ Then he said: ‘‘How can it be that He orders their obedience and
then allows disputing with them? He (Allāh) has said it to the rebellious
ones who were told, obey Allāh and obey the Messenger.’’ (al-Kāfī)

The author says: All that this tradition shows is that the Imām (a.s.)
was explaining the verse and elaborating on it; as we have described in
the Commentary. It does not mean that the Imām (a.s.) was giving a
separate version of the verse, as might be misunderstood by the word,
‘recited’. A proof of what we have said may be found in the fact that
different wordings have been used in other traditions [giving the same
meaning, and even in the same tradition recorded in another book]. For
example.

Harīz has narrated from Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) that he said: ‘‘It was
revealed, then if you quarrel about any thing, refer it to Allāh and to the
Messenger and to those vested with authority from you.’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-
Qummī). Also al-‘Ayyāshī has narrated from Burayd ibn Mu‘āwiyah
from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) (and it is the same tradition which has been quoted
above from al-Kāfī), and this narration says, inter alia: ‘‘Then (Allāh)
said to the people, ‘O you who believe!’, and He has gathered [in this
address] all the believers upto the Day of Resurrection; obey Allāh and
obey the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you. He
has meant us particularly. Then if you fear a dispute about anything, refer
it back to Allāh and the Messenger and those vested with authority from
among you. It was revealed in this way. And how would He order them
to obey those vested with authority and then allow them to quarrel with
them? It was said to those who were ordered [to obey and] who were
told: Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority
from among you.’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 297

Abū Basīr has narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that he said: ‘‘It (i.e.,
the verse of obedience) was revealed about ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib (a.s.).’’ ‘‘I
said to him: ‘People say to us, ‘‘What was to prevent Him from naming
‘Alī and his Ahlu ’l-bayt in His Book?’’ ’ Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) said: ‘Tell
them, ‘‘Verily Allāh revealed (the order of) prayer to His Messenger; but
He did not name three (rak‘ah) or four, until it was the Messenger of
Allāh who explained it; and He revealed (the order of) hajj and did not
reveal, ‘circumambulate seven times’, until the Messenger of Allāh
(s.a.w.a.) explained it. [Likewise] Allāh revealed: ‘obey Allāh and obey
the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you’; and it
was revealed about ‘Alī and al-Hasan and al-Husayn (peace be on them);
and he (the Messenger of Allāh, s.a.w.a.) said about ‘Alī: ‘Whoever’s
master am I, ‘Alī is his master.’ Also the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
said: ‘I admonish you concerning the Book of Allāh and my Ahlu ’l-bayt;
verily I have asked Allāh not to let them be separated from each other
until He brings them to the hawd ( ُ‫ﺤﻮْض‬َ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬reservoir [of al-Kawthar]),
and He has granted it to me.’ And he said: ‘Do not teach them because
they are more knowledgeable than you; verily they shall never take you
away from the gate of guidance and shall never let you enter the gate of
misguidance.’ If the Messenger of Allāh had remained silent and not
identified the people (of his Ahlu ’l-bayt), surely the progeny of ‘Abbās,
and the progeny of ‘Aqīl and someone else’s progeny would have
claimed (to be among them); but Allāh revealed in His Book: Allāh only
desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House!
and to purify you a (thorough) purification [33:33]; and ‘Alī and al-
Hasan and al-Husayn and Fātimah (peace be on them) were the
interpretation of this verse; so the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) took the
hands of ‘Alī and Fātimah and al-Hasan and al-Husayn (blessings from
Allāh be upon them) and entered them under the mantle in the house of
Umm Salamah and said: ‘O Allāh! every prophet had had his precious
things and his people; and these are my precious things and my people’
Umm Salamah said: ‘Am I not from your people?’ He said: ‘Verily you
are (preceeding) to good but these are my precious things and people of
my (house).’... (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)

The author says: al-Kulaynī has narrated in al-Kāfī, through his

chain of narrators from Abū Basīr from the same Imām (a.s.) a similar
298 AL-MĪZĀN

tradition with minor differences in wordings.

Ibn Shahrāshūb has quoted from at-Tafsīr of Mujāhid that this verse
[of obedience] was revealed about the Leader of the faithful [‘Alī, a.s.]
when the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) left him in Medina as his deputy.
(‘Alī) said: ‘‘O Messenger of Allāh! Are you leaving me to look after the
women and the children?’’ He [the Messenger of Allāh] said: ‘‘O Leader
of the faithful! Are you not pleased that you should have the same
position with me as Hārūn had with Mūsā, when (Mūsā) said to him:
‘Take my place among my people, and act well’? Then Allāh said: ‘and
those vested with authority from among you’.’’ (The Imām then) said: ‘‘
‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib, Allāh appointed him as the master of the ummah’s
affairs after Muhammad and when the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
made him take his place at Medina. Thus Allāh ordered the servants to
obey him (‘Alī) and not to go against him.’’ (Tafsīr al-Burhān).
Mujāhid has also narrated from Ibānah al-Falakī that it was revealed
when Abū Buraydah complained against ‘Alī (a.s.) (ibid.)
A tradition has been quoted in ‘Abaqātu ’l-anwār from Yanābī‘u ’l-
mawaddah of ash-Shaykh Sulaymān ibn Ibrāhīm al-Balkhī who quotes
from al Manāqib, from Sulaym ibn Qays al-Hilālī from ‘Alī (a.s.) which,
inter alia, says: [‘Alī, a.s.] said, ‘‘The least by which a servant goes
astray is that he does not know the Proof of Allāh, the Blessed, the
Sublime, and His witness over His servants, whose obedience Allāh has
ordered and whose love and obedience made obligatory.’’ Sulaym says,
‘‘I said, ‘O Leader of the faithful! describe them to me.’ He said, ‘(They
are) those whom Allāh has joined with Himself and His Messenger, and
said: O you who believe! obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those
vested with authority from among you.’ I said to him, ‘May Allāh make
me your ransom! explain (it) to me.’ He said, ‘Those (about whom) the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) had said in several places and his last
sermon on the day when Allāh, the Mighty, the Great, took him to
Himself: ‘‘Surely I am leaving among you two things, you shall never go
astray after me if you hold fast to them: the Book of Allāh, the Mighty,
the Great, and my progeny who are my Ahlu ’l-bayt; because [Allāh,] the
Kind, the Knower, has promised me that they shall never be separated
(from each other) until they come to me at the Reservoir — like these
two (saying this, the Prophet joined his index fingers together) and I do
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 299

not say ‘like these two’ (saying which he joined his index and middle
fingers together); so hold fast to them both and don’t go ahead of them,
otherwise you would go astray.’’ ’ ’’

The author says: Traditions narrated from the Imāms of Ahlu ’l-
bayt, giving similar meanings as above are very numerous. What we have
presented here gives examples of all types of meanings described in
traditions. Anyone wanting more details should consult collections of
ahādīth.
As for ancient exegetes, they are divided about the meaning of the
phrase, ulu ’l-amr. Some say, it means the rightly guided caliphs; others
say, commanders of expeditions; a third group says, the scholars. ad-
Dahhāk has reportedly said that it refers to the companions of the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.); but it boils down to the third interpretation, because reportedly
he has said: ‘‘They are companions of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)
as they were the callers (to Islam) and narrators of traditions.’,
Obviously, this reasoning is based on their knowledge, and this
interpretation would ultimately mean the scholars.
It should be noted that many things and various stories have been
reported concerning the reason of revelation of this verse; but if one
ponders on them one would be in no doubt that all of them are mere
attempts by the narrators to apply the verse on one or the other view or
situation. We therefore have not quoted any of them as it was of no
value. You may look into ad-Durru ’l-manthūr and at-Tafsīr of at-Tabarī
and other books like them for verification of this observation.
al-Barqī has narrated through his chain from Abu ’l-Jārūd that Abū
Ja‘far (a.s.) said about the verse, But no! by your Lord! they do not
believe until they ... submit with total submission: ‘‘Submission is
pleasure and satisfaction with His decree.’’ (al-Mahāsin)
‘Abdullāh al-Kāhilī has said that Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) said: ‘‘If a
people worshipped Allāh alone who has no partner, and established
prayer, and gave zakāt, and performed hajj of the House, and fasted in
the month of Ramadān, and then said about a thing done by Allāh or by
His Messenger (s.a.w.a.), ‘Why did he do this?’ Or, ‘If he had done it in
another way [it would have been better]’ or felt [annoyance] in their
hearts, they would become polytheists because of it.’’ Then he recited
this verse, But no! by your Lord! they do not believe until they make you
300 AL-MĪZĀN

a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them,

and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have
decided and submit with total submission. Then Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) said:
‘‘It is incumbent upon you to submit.’’ (al-Kāfī)
‘Abdullāh ibn Yahyā al-Kāhilī has narrated that he heard Abū
‘Abdillāh (a.s.) saying: ‘‘By Allāh, if a people worshipped Allāh alone
who has no partner, and established prayer, and gave zakāt, and
performed hajj of the House, and fasted in the month of Ramadān, and
then said about a thing done of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), ‘Why
did he do this or that? or felt [annoyance] in their hearts, they would
become polytheists because of it.’’ Then he recited, But no! by your
Lord! they do not believe until they make you a judge of that which has
become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any
straitness in their hearts as to what — Muhammad and the progeny of
Muhammad — have decided and submit with total submission. (at-
Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī).

The author says: There are other traditions similar to these two. The
meaning given by the Imām (a.s.) extends the theme of the verse on two
counts: First, that the verse covers all decisions and decrees, be they
legislative or creative; Second, it makes no difference whether the
decision or decree was issued by Allāh or by His Messenger.
It should be mentioned here that there are other traditions which
apply the verse, But no! by your Lord! they ... submit with total
submission, to the wildyah of ‘Alī (a.s.) or the wilāyah of the Imāms of
Ahlu ’l-bayt (a.s.); they provide examples of applying a verse to one or
the other of its prominent models. Certainly the verse is applicable to
Allāh, His Messenger and the Imāms of Ahlu ’l-bayt, and it continues in
them.

ash-Shaykh has narrated through his chain from ‘Alī (a.s.) that he
said: ‘‘A man from the Helpers (ansār) came to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
and said: ‘O Messenger of Allāh! I cannot bear separation from you; so
much so that if I enter my home and remember you, I leave my property
and come (here) for looking at you, in your love. Then I remembered that
when the Day of Resurrection would come, you would be made to enter
the Garden and raised to the highest level of ‘illiyyīn ( ‫ﻋﱢﻠﻴﱢﻴﻦ‬
ِ = highest
 CHAPTER 4, VERSES 59 — 70 301

place). Then how could I see you? O Messenger of Allāh!’ Then the
verse was revealed: And whoever obeys Allāh and the Messenger, these
are with those upon whom Allāh has bestowed favours from among the
prophets, and the truthful, and the witnesses, and the good ones; and
excellent are these as companion! Thereupon the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) sent
for the man and recited it to him and gave him the good news.’’ (al-
Amālī, ash-Shaykh)

The author says: This theme is also narrated through Sunnī chains in
ad-Durru ’l-manthūr quoting from at-Tabarānī, Ibn Marduwayh, Abū
Nu‘aym (in Hilyatu ’l-awliyā’) and ad-Diyā’ al-Maqdisī (in Sifatu ’l
jannah, saying that this tradition was ‘good’), all narrating from
‘Ā’ishah; also quoting from at-Tabarānī and Ibn Marduwayh both
through ash-Sha‘bī from Ibn ‘Abbās; and through Sa‘īd ibn Mansūr and
Ibnu ’l-Mundhir from ash-Sha‘bī; and through Ibn Jarīr from Sa‘īd ibn
Jubayr.

Ibn Shahrāshūb has narrated from Anas ibn Mālik from someone he
had named from Abū Sālih from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said about this verse:
‘‘And whoever obeys Allāh and the Messenger, these are with those upon
whom Allāh has bestowed favours from among the prophets — i.e.,
Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) — and the truthful — i.e., ‘Alī, and he was the
first to verify — and the witnesses — i.e., ‘Alī, Ja‘far, Hamzah, al-Hasan
and al-Husayn, peace be on them.’’ 1 (Tafsīr al-Burhān)

The author says: There are other traditions giving the same
meaning.

al-Bāqir (a.s.) said: ‘‘Help us with piety, because whoever met Allāh
with piety, would get happiness near Allāh, as Allāh, the Mighty, the
Great, says: And whoever obeys Allāh and the Messenger ...’’ After
reciting the verse, he said: ‘‘So from us is the Prophet, and from us is the
truthful, and from us are the witnesses and the good ones.’’ (al-Kāfī)
as-Sādiq (a.s.) has said: ‘‘The believers are of two kinds: (One is) a

1
This tradition obviously interprets the word ash-shuhadā’ ( ‫ﺸ َﻬﺪَﺁ ُء‬
‫ ) اَﻟ ﱡ‬as
martyrs, not witnesses. (tr.)
302 AL-MĪZĀN

believer who fulfils the conditions Allāh had imposed on him; he will be
with the prophets, and the truthful, and the witnesses, and the good ones;
and excellent are these as companions! and he is among those who will
intercede and will not need intercession (by others); and he is among
those who are not inflicted with terror of this world, nor of the hereafter.
(Another is) a believer who has made mistakes. He is like a green stalk,
which inclines to whichever direction wind pushes it and then returns to
its position. He is among those who are inflicted with terrors of this
world and that of the hereafter, and he would be interceded for; and he is
on good.’’ (ibid.)

The author says: as-Sihāh says: ‘‘al-Khāmah ( ‫ ) َاﻟْﺨَﺎﻣَﺔ‬is a green soft

plant.’’ The Imām (a.s.) in this hadīth points to what was described in the
Commentary of the verse, The path of those upon whom Thou hast
bestowed favours (1:7), that ‘favour’ means al-wilāyah ( ‫ﻻﻳَﺔ‬ َ ‫ = َاﻟْ ِﻮ‬love,
mastership, friendship). This explanation thus corresponds with the
verses, Now surely the friends of Allāh, they shall have no fear nor shall
they grieve. Those who believed and were pious (10:62 — 63). Terror of
mishaps cannot reach the friends of Allāh who rely on none other than
Allāh.

*****
O you who believe! take your precaution, then go forth in
detachments or go forth in a body (71). And surely among you is
he who would certainly hang back! If then a misfortune befalls
you he says: ‘‘Surely Allāh conferred a benefit on me that I was
not present with them’’ (72). And if grace from Allāh comes to
you, he would certainly cry out, as if there had not been any
 friendship between you and him: ‘‘Would that I had been with
them, then I should have attained a mighty good fortune’’ (73).
Therefore let those fight in the way of Allāh, who sell this world’s
life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allāh, then
be he victorious, We shall grant him a great reward (74). And
what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of
Allāh and of the weak among the men and the women and the
children, (of) those who say: ‘‘Our Lord! take us out of this town,
whose people are oppressors, and make for us from Thee a
guardian and give us from Thee a helper’’ (75). Those who
believe fight in the way of Allāh, and those who disbelieve fight in
the way of the Satan. Fight therefore against the friends of the
Satan; surely the strategy of the Satan is weak (76).

*****

COMMENTARY

The preceding verse, as you may see, had prepared the ground for the
central theme contained in these verses which stimulate and exhort the
believers to fight in the way of Allāh. The believers spent their days
under very perilous circumstances, when these verses were revealed,
probably during the second spring of the Prophet’s stay at Medina. 46
Arabs had risen against them from all around in order to extinguish the
light of Allāh and demolish the slowly rising edifice of Islam. The
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) was busy in fighting the Meccan idol-
worshippers and Qurayshite friends, sending precautionary expeditions to

46
The hadīth of Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh al-Ansārī about the verse of obedience
(quoted in the Traditions above) clearly indicates that it was revealed well
after the birth of al-Husayn (a.s.) in Sha‘bān, 4th year of hijrah, because it
mentions al-Hasan and al-Husayn (peace be on both) as if Jābir knew them
and there was no need for the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to tell him who they were.
Now, if these verses, exhorting to take precaution and to fight, were
revealed in the second spring, i.e., second year of hijrah, it is very difficult to
claim that the preceding verses had prepared the ground for these, or that
both series were revealed together. (tr.)
various directions and raising structure of religion in the society. But that
society was honeycombed with groups of hypocrites, and those internal
enemies enjoyed great power and influence. On the day of Uhud it was
clearly seen that their number was not much less than half of the
believers’ number. 47 Those hypocrites used to upset the plans of the
Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.), and waited for him to meet with some
disaster. They hindered the believers from carrying out their duties, while
some of the believers too were not free from spiritual disease, and who
used to give various informations to their enemies. All around, Medina
was ringed with Jewish tribes who deceived and misguided the believers.
From old days, Arabs of Medina respected those Jews and accorded them
honour. Taking its advantage, the Jews misled them with false statement
and wrong advice, in order to weaken their will and nullify all their
endeavours. On the other hand, they used to instigate the polytheists
against the Muslims, and encourage the idol-worshippers in their
struggle, telling them to remain firm in their denial and disbelief, and to
harass and torture the believers who were still in Mecca.
The preceding verses aimed at nullifying the Jewish plots against the
Muslims and to erase the effects of their malicious whisperings from the
believers’ hearts. The comment, in these verses, about the hypocrites
aims at completing the believers’ guidance and making them aware of the
condition prevailing at that time, in order that they might have an insight
into their actual position and be on guard against the hidden disease
which had seeped into their society and infected a considerable
population. It would also help in nullifying the conspiracies of their
external enemies who had surrounded them; the light of religion would
shine brightly illuminating the world, and Allāh is sure to complete His
light even if polytheists and unbelievers disliked it.

QUR’ĀN: O you who believe! take your precaution, then go forth in

detachments or go forth in a body: ‘‘al-Hidhr" ( ‫ = اَﻟْﺤِﺬْر‬instrument used
for precaution, e.g., arms and ammunitions); it is also said that it is a

47
It was mentioned in the traditions of the Battle of Uhud that the Prophet
(s.a.w.a.) had left Medina for Uhud with a thousand men, three hundred of
whom returned with ‘Abdullāh ibn Ubayy (the leader of the hypocrites) and
only seven hundered remained with the Prophet. (Auth. ’s note)
masdar like al-hadhar ( ‫ﺤ َﺬَر‬
َ ْ‫ = َاﻟ‬to be cautious). ‘‘an-Nafar’’ ( ‫ = اَﻟﻨﱠﻔَﺮ‬to go
forth, or proceed, towards intended destination); basically it means to be
frightened; it is as though being frightened, one runs away from one
place seeking refuge at the other. [The same word is used, with different
prepositions, for both starting and finishing points.] ‘‘ath-Thubāt’’ ( ‫ت‬ ُ ‫اَﻟ ﱡﺜﺒَﺎ‬
) is plural of ath-thubbah ( ‫ ) اَﻟﺜﱡﺒﱠ ُﺔ‬which means separate groups or bands;
thubātan ( ‫ ) ُﺛﺒَﺎﺗًﺎ‬in the verse, therefore, means group after group; one
group departs, then the other starts separately, and so on. This meaning is
supported by parallellism of the clause, ‘‘go forth in detachments’’, and,
‘‘go forth in a body’’.
The order to go forth is based on the order to ‘‘take your precaution’’,
as the conjunctive fa ( ‫ف‬ َ = then) shows. Apparently it strengthens the
view that ‘precaution’ refers to means of precaution. That is, it alludes to
fully-fledged preparation for jihād. The meaning: Take your arms, make
full preparation and go forth to your enemy either in separate
detachments (for minor expeditions) or all together (for major battles).
Understandably, preparation and equipments would differ from one
operation to another, depending on number and power of enemy. The
alternatives of going forth in detachments or all togher are not meant to
give option or choice to the fighters; rather it looks at the strength and
number of enemies — if they are few in number, go in small detachment,
but if they are numerous, then go all together.
The verse, specially in the context of the next one, And surely among
you is he who would certainly hang back, is a warning to the believers
not to let down their arms, not to slacken their efforts and not to show
any laxity in the conduct of jihād; otherwise, their morale will go down,
their zeal for raising the standard of truth will be inflicted by inertia,
holding back from fighting the enemies of Allāh. In this way, they will
lose the opportunity to cleanse the earth from uncleanness of disbelief
and polytheism.

QUR’ĀN: And surely among you is he who would certainly hang back!:
[The Arabic sentence is: wa inna minkum la-man la-yubatt’ianna = ‫ن‬ ‫َو ِا ﱠ‬
‫ ] ِﻣﻨْ ُﻜﻢْ َﻟ َﻤﻦْ ﻟﱠ ُﻴﺒَﻄﱢﺌَﻦﱠ‬It is said that the first la ( ‫ل‬
َ ) is for beginning as it is
attached to the subject of inna ( ‫ن‬ ‫ ;) ِا ﱠ‬and the second one is for oath
because it is attached to the predicate; it is a verbal clause, emphasized
with nūn ( ‫ ) ن‬which is intensified with doubling sign. ‘‘at-Tabtiah’’ and
‘‘al-ibtā’ ’’ ( ‫َاﻟِْﺎﺑْﻄَﺂ ُء‬،‫ﻄﺌَﺔ‬
ِ ْ‫ ) اَﻟ ﱠﺘﺒ‬both have the same meaning: to be tardy, to be
late in a work.
The words, ‘‘among you is he’’, show that those who would hang
back were from among the believers who have been addressed with, O
you who believe! This view is supported also by a coming verse, Have
you not seen those to whom it was said: ‘‘Withhold your hands’’;
obviously these also were from among the believers, as the next words
show, but when fighting is prescribed for them, lo! a party of them fear
men. Then the next verse also points to it: and if a benefit comes to them,
they say: ‘‘This is from Allāh’’... Likewise the words, Therefore let those
fight in the way of Allāh ..., and the following verse, And what reason
have you that you should not fight in the way of Allāh ..., as well as the
verse, Those who believe fight in the way of Allāh ..., prove it; all these
verses aim at exhorting and urging the believers to fight, and the group of
hangers back is certainly included among them, as the interlocking of the
verses shows.
Apart from that, there is nothing in these verses to suggest that those
tardy people were from among the hypocrites who had not believed
except by tongue. Moreover, some of their words quoted in these verses
show that to a certain extent there was faith and belief in their hearts; for
example, If then a misfortune befalls you he says: ‘‘Surely Allāh
conferred a benefit on me’’ ...; and, ‘‘Our Lord! why hast Thou ordained
fighting for us?’’.
Of course, some exegetes have written that the words, ‘‘among you is
he’’, refers to hypocrites, and that they have been described as being
‘among’ the believers because they were generally counted among the
believers’ group. Or because they were from the same family tree, so
they were from among the believers’ clans or families. Or because they
were joined with the believers in the laws of sharī‘ah, e.g., their lives
were protected and they inherited from believers and other rules too
applied to them as they had apparently uttered the two witnesses.
But you have seen that such an explanation goes against the apparent
meaning of the Qur’ān without any valid reason.
However, let us see what was the reason which had compelled them
to adopt this view. It was their inordinately good opinion of all the
Muslims of the early days of Islam, i.e., anyone who saw the Prophet and
believed in him. But if you make an indepth study of what history has
recorded of their character and behaviour during the life-time of the
Prophet and after him, this opinion would be completely shaken. This
blind faith will lose its hold if you ponder on the cutting remarks the
Qur’ān passes about them.
We have never heard till this day of any pure nation or group which
was composed of hundered per cent pure members, all of whom were,
without any exception, true believers, firmly standing on truth, never
slipping even a little from the straight path (except the martyrs of
Karbalā’, as reports say). The believers of the early days of Islam were
no exception. They too, like other human groups had all types of people
among them. There were hypocrites; there were those suffering from one
or the other spiritual disease; there were some who followed their desire;
and others whose weakness of character was open for all to see.
The distinction of the early Muslims rests on the fact that theirs was
an excellent society headed by the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.); light of
faith had enveloped it and rule of religion was enforced in it. This was
the condition of the society, per se; although there were among them
good as well as bad elements; and there was virtue as well as vice in their
psychological make up, and the whole spectrum of mental traits and
natural dispositions was found among them.
That is how the Qur’ān describes their condition and comments on
their character. Allāh says: Muhammad is the Messenger of Allāh, and
those with him are severe against the unbelievers, compassionate among
themselves, you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves,
seeking grace from Allāh and pleasure; their marks are in their faces
because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Torah
and their description in the Injīl; like as seed produce that puts forth its
sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its
stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on
account of them; Allāh has promised those among them who believe and
do good, forgiveness and a great reward (48:29). Mark how the verse
begins with description of their collective merits and virtues in general,
without attaching any restriction or proviso; but when it comes in the end
to individual members of the society, the forgiveness and reward is made
conditional to their belief and good deeds.

QUR’ĀN: If then a misfortune befalls you: i.e., if you are slain or

wounded; he says: ‘‘Surely Allāh conferred a benefit on me that I was
not present with them’’; otherwise, I too would have suffered as they did.

QUR’ĀN: And if grace from Allāh comes to you: i.e., spoils or war, etc.;
‘grace’ refers to wealth and riches, and similar other things; he would
certainly cry out, as if there had not been any friendship between you and
him: ‘‘Would that I had been with them’’: The words portray their
condition in dramatic style. After all, they are believers, and the Muslims
are limbs of one body; they are joined together with the strongest band —
belief in Allāh and His revelation — which controls all other
relationships, be it family-tie, guardianship, pledge of allegience or
friendship. But their faith is so weak that they do not feel there was any
connection between them and the believers. That is why they express
their wish to be present with the believers in jihād, as a stranger
expresses his desire when he sees someone acquire some wealth: Would
that I had been with them, then I should have attained a mighty great
fortune. The weakness of their faith and belief is reflected in the high
esteem they accord to spoils of war and in their counting the acquirement
of worldly riches as ‘a mighty good fortune’; while they treat every
trouble faced by the believers — being killed or wounded or undergoing
other hardships — as ‘a misfortune’.

QUR’ĀN: Therefore let those fight in the way of Allāh, who sell this
world’s lift ... a great reward: ‘‘It is said, ‘‘sharaytu’’ ( ‫ﺖ‬ ُ ْ‫ﺷ َﺮﻳ‬
َ ) i.e., I
sold; and ishtarayatu ( ‫ﺖ‬ ُ ْ‫ ) ِاﺷْ َﺘ َﺮﻳ‬i.e., I bought. The meaning will be as
follows: They sell this world’s life in exchange for the hereafter.’’
(Majma‘u ’l-bayān)
The verse branches out from the preceding exhortation of jihād and
condemnation of those who hold back from going forth for it. It urges
them again to fight in the way of Allāh by reminding them that all of
them were believers who had already sold their worldly life — by
accepting the Islam — and bought the hereafter in exchange, as Allāh has
said in another place: Surely Allāh has bought of the believers their
persons and their properties for this, that they shall have the garden
(9:111). Then it exponds the desirable benefit of that fighting, by
showing that it brings in a great reward in any case: and whoever fights
in the way of Allāh, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant
him a great reward.
It makes it clear that the endeavours of a fighter in the way of Allāh
are sure to bring in one of the two good results: either he will be killed in
the way of Allāh or gain victory over the enemy of Allāh; and in either
case he shall find a great reward from Allāh. It does not mention the third
possibility, i.e., defeat and retreat; it is a hint that a fighter in the way of
Allāh never retreats, never runs away.
The possibility of being slain is mentioned before that of victory,
because martyrdom has much greater and more confirmed reward. A
fighter who vanquishes an enemy of Allāh is certainly eligible for a great
reward; but there is always a danger of forfeiture, if he committed some
sins which would make his good deeds forfeit, or if he indulged in evil
acts after that. But there is no such risk in martyrdom, as it is the end of
this world’s life and beginning of that of the hereafter. A martyr therefore
is sure to get his great reward in full, while the victorious fighter in the
way of Allāh may only hope to get his full reward.

QUR’ĀN: And what reason have you that you should not fight in the
way of Allāh and of the weak among the men and the women and the
children ...: The word, ‘weak’, is in conjunction with the name of Allāh.
The verse uses the style of questioning for spurring and invigorating the
believers to fight. It reminds them that their fighting is in the way of
Allāh (and the only goal of your blessed life is to attain His pleasure, and
no felicity is more blissful than His nearness), and in the way of your
weak men, women and children.
This verse, in fact, uses a very effective style to exhort, urge and
incite the whole believing community to fight. As for the sincere pure-
hearted believers, it should be enough for them that Allāh was calling
them; they would stand up for truth, answer the call of their Lord and
respond with all their might to the Messenger’s invitation. As for other
believers, if that was not enough, they should realize that, apart from its
being a jihād in the way of Allāh, it is also a fight in the way of their own
men, women and children who are suffering at the hands of the
unbelievers; let them have a zealous sense of honour and partisanship and
fight for those weakened fellow-religionists.
Islam initially negates every relationship through blood relation or
other causes except the relationship of faith. Once a person becomes
Muslim, his/her other relationships are re-instated [in the framework of
Islam]. Now it becomes incumbent on a Muslim to offer sacrifices to
save his Muslim brother who is related to him through faith; also he must
do so in case of his other relatives — men, women and children — if
they are Muslims, as this sacrifice of wealth and life will actually be an
offering in the way of Allāh [as it will be for safety of the Muslims].
Those weak ones who, being related to these believers, are a part of
them, are true believers. See how they pray to Allāh, saying: ‘‘Our Lord!
take us out of this town’’. Also they are humiliated, oppressed and
tortured by the polytheists; they are crying out and asking for divine help;
‘‘Our Lord! take us out of this town, whose people are oppressors’’. The
oppression mentioned here is general; also it does not say that those
people were indulging in sins and were therefore unjust to themselves.
The clear meaning is that the town’s people were oppressing and
tormenting them with various kinds of torture — as the history confirms.
Their call for help was couched in a sublime style with excellent
wordings. They did not say: ‘O our men!’, ‘O our leaders!’, ‘O our
people!’ or ‘O our clan!’. Allāh says that they called their Lord and
sought help from their True Master; they said: ‘‘Our Lord! take us out of
this town, whose people are oppressors’’. Then they pointed to the
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the brave believers who were with him, saying:
and make for us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper.
They wished that they should have a guardian and a helper, but they
prayed to their Lord, the True Guardian and Helper, to give them human
guardian and helper.

SENSE OF HONOUR VIS-A-VIS BIGOTRY

Look at the divine manner manifested by the Honoured Book; and

compare it with our own natural instinct — you will see a wonderful
reality. No doubt, there is an instinct ingrained in human nature which
inspires man to stand for the defence of things he holds dear and
considers them as inviolable, like children, women, dignity, national
honour and things like that. It is a dictate of nature and is the mainspring
of many human actions. But this defence is sometimes praiseworthy, if it
is on right course and for right cause; at other times it is blameworthy
and causes infelicity and disturbance in society, if it is unjustified and
against the truth.
Islam accepts it in principle to the extent the nature demands, but it
nullifies all its details. After erasing all traces of base instincts, it diverts
it towards Allāh, turning it away from all worldly things. Reaching this
stage, it allows it to function in many of the original situations, but
moulding it in the matrix of monotheism. It urges man to have a zealous
sense of honour for his men, women and children, in short for his every
right — gearing it to Allāh’s pleasure. Thus Islam confirms the dictate of
nature, but cleanses it of pulluted desires and unhealthy emotions; it
purifies it and turns it into a safe highway which man proceeds on,
helped by his nature. Islam takes it out from darkness of conflict to light
of concord and peace. There is no contradiction or disharmony in various
parts or aspects of the sense of honour which Islam encourages man to
have, and regulates its application. All share the basic characteristics of
being various aspects of monotheism, and manifestation of following the
truth. Accordingly, all its relevant directives and rules have turned into
broad-based, lasting and comprehensive principles, without any
contradiction or discordance.

QUR’ĀN: Those who believe fight in the way of Allāh ... Satan: It is a
comparison between the believers and the unbelievers in their respective
styles of fighting; or more precisely, in the two groups’ motives of
fighting. This comparison clearly shows the excellence of the believers’
way over that of the unbelievers. The way of the believers leads to, and
relies on Allāh, in sharp contrast to the unbelievers’ way. This provides
another motivation for the believers to fight.

QUR’ĀN: Fight therefore against the friends of the Satan; surely the
strategy of the Satan is weak: The unbelievers by following the Satan’s
way have gone out from the guardianship of Allāh. Now they have no
guardian or friend except the Satan who is the friend of polytheists and of
those who worship other than Allāh. So, he is their friend and they are his
friends.
The strategy of the Satan is weak, because it is the way of tāghūt
which is against the way of Allāh, and all power and strength belongs to
Allāh alone. Now, nothing is left for the way of tāghūt, that is, for the
strategy of the Satan, except weakness. Allāh by expositing the weakness
of the unbelievers’ way, encourages the believers to fight against them.
Obviously, the statement that the Satan’s strategy is weak vis-a-vis the
power of Allāh, is not a denial of its hold on those who follow their
desires.

TRADITIONS

[at-Tabrisī] has written under the verse, O you who believe! take your
precaution ...: ‘‘Arms have been called ‘precaution’, because it is the
instrument with which one guards oneself from danger.’’ He has further
written that this meaning is narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.). Again he
writes: ‘‘It has been narrated from Abū Ja‘far (a.s.) that in detachments
means (small) expeditions, and in a body refers to the army.’’ (Majma‘u
’l-bayān)
Sulaymān ibn Khālid has narrated from Abū ‘Abdillāh (a.s.) that he
said: ‘‘O you who believe!; He has called them believers, but they were
not believers, and it is no honour (for them).’’ (Then) he recited: O you
who believe! take your precaution, ...then I should have attained a mighty
good reward; then he said: ‘‘If (all) the inhabitants of the heaven and the
earth had said, ‘Surely Allāh conferred a benefit on me that I was not
with the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.)’, they would have become
polytheists; and when a grace from Allāh comes to the believers, he says:
‘Would that I had been with them, then I would have fought in the way
of Allāh.’ ’’ (at-Tafsīr, al-‘Ayyāshī)

The author says: This theme has been narrated also by at-Tabrisī in
Majma‘u ’l-bayān, and by al-Qummī in his at-Tafsīr, from the Imām
(a.s.). The polytheism in this hadīth refers to the inner polytheism, nat to
the open disbelief which deprives man from the protection of Islam —
and we have explained it earlier.

Humrān has narrated that al-Bāqir (a.s.) said about the verse, ... and
of the weak among the men ...: ‘‘We are those.’’ (ibid.)

The author says: The same book has narrated the same meaning
through Sumā‘ah from as-Sādiq (a.s.), and its wording is as follows:
‘‘And as for His word, and of the weak among the men ..., those are we.’’
These two traditions do not aim at giving the explanation of the verse;
they fit it on an obviously very apt situation; it is a painful complaint
against the rebellious oppressors of this ummah.
[as-Suyūtī writes:] It has been narrated by Abū Dāwūd (in his an-
Nāsikh), Ibnu ’l-Mundhir, Ibn Abī Hātim and al-Bayhaqī (in his as-
Sunan) through ‘Atā’ from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said about the (verse of
the) chapter of ‘‘The Women’’: take your precaution, then go forth in
detachments, or go forth in a body: ‘‘It was abrogated by (the verse), And
it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together, ...
[9:122].’’

The author says: The two verses are not mutually contradictory, so
that it could be said that the latter had abrogated the former, and this non-
contradictoriness is quite obvious. Even if there were any
contradictoriness, it would have amounted to particularization or
restriction, not abrogation.

And all praise is for Allāh.

*****