al-Nisāʾ 4:23

Ḥurrimat ʿalaykum ummahātukum wa banātukum wa akhawātukum wa ʿammātukum wa khālātukum wa banātu'l-akhi wa banātu'l-ukhti wa ummahātukumu'llātī arḍaʿnakum wa akhawātukum mina'l-raḍāʿati wa ummahātu nisāʾikum wa rabāʾibukumu'llātī fī ḥujūrikum min nisāʾikumu'llātī dakhaltum bihinna, fa-in lam takūnū dakhaltum bihinna fa-lā junāḥa ʿalaykum, wa ḥalāʾilu abnāʾikumu'lladhīna min aṣlābikum wa an tajmaʿū bayna'l-ukhtayni illā mā qad salaf, inna'llāha kāna Ghafūran Raḥīmā

"Forbidden to you are: your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, your brother's daughters, your sister's daughters, the mothers who nursed you, your sisters through nursing, the mothers of your wives, your stepdaughters in your care, born of wives you have gone in to — if you have not gone in to them there is no fault upon you — the wives of your sons who are of your own loins, and that you should join two sisters together. Except what is already past. God is forgiving, merciful."

This verse is the foundational text of the discussion of marriage in classical jurisprudence, and detailed rulings have been developed upon every item in it.

What is done in this section is this: the verse's list is set in order, the terms are analysed, and the logic of the list is shown. On such matters as the scope of the tie of nursing, the position of the stepdaughter, and whether the qualification "in your care" is a condition, there are differences among the schools of law; those differences are not entered into in this section, no preference is adopted and no legal ruling is issued.

The verse counts thirteen items, and these fall into four groups. This is the verse's own order:

And the order itself must be recorded: the list begins with the tie of blood, continues with the tie of milk, and ends with the tie made by marriage. It moves, that is, from the most natural to the most constructed.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is the verse's own order.

The root ر-ض-ع: to suckle. And this item of the verse is worth recording: a tie produces the same effect as a blood tie although it is not one.

I record this as an observation: the verse does not tie the source of a bond to descent alone. That a child grew up on a woman's milk establishes a legal tie.

On the scope of the tie of nursing, how many feedings establish it and up to what age it holds, there is a wide disagreement in classical jurisprudence. That disagreement is not entered into in this section and no ruling is issued.

The root ر-ب-ب — the same root as rabb in the first verse. Rabība: a girl who grows up under a person's nurture. The word itself contains the relation of care.

And the qualification in the verse must be recorded: allātī fī ḥujūrikum — "who are in your laps / in your houses".

حِجْر — root ح-ج-ر: the lap; and also a barrier, a bound (ḥijr — a forbidden zone; ḥajr — legal interdiction). The two senses of the word — lap and bound — are in the same root.

Whether this qualification is a condition or a description of the usual case is one of the disputed questions of classical jurisprudence. I impose no preference and issue no ruling.

But the choice of the word yields an observation, which I record as my own reading: the word ḥujūr carries both "lap" and "bound". The word holds within itself the link between protection and prohibition.

In counting the wives of sons, a qualification is added: alladhīna min aṣlābikum — "who are of your own loins".

This qualification is directly connected with the matter treated at al-Aḥzāb 33/4-5 and 33/37: that an adopted child is not counted as a child of one's own.

The principle recorded in the discussion of al-Aḥzāb was this: "calling a child 'my son' does not make him one's own son." This qualification in al-Nisāʾ is the counterpart of the same principle within a ruling on marriage. I rely on that treatment.

This link between the two sūras is a datum of the text, and the places of the words can be counted.

What do those counted in the list have in common?

I record this as my own reading, and its ground is the list itself: all the ties counted are ties the person did not choose or that are already established. Mother, daughter, sister, paternal aunt, maternal aunt — these are not chosen. The tie of milk — it is formed in childhood. Mother-in-law, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law — these arise from a marriage already made.

The list, that is, prevents a new tie from being built on top of existing ties. And the prohibition of marrying two sisters at once is the clearest instance of this: a tie already exists between two sisters, and a marriage could turn that tie into a rivalry.

This is an interpretation, not a transmitted report. But it can be read from the list itself.

It occurred in the twenty-second verse too. It is repeated two verses later.

And the verse-ending changes: the twenty-second verse ended with sāʾa sabīlā (an evil way); the twenty-third ends with Ghafūran Raḥīmā.

I record this as an observation about word order: the same exception occurs twice, but one closes with reproach and the other with forgiveness. That the new ruling does not run backwards is said with two different names.