Tafsir LabMethodGitHubTürkçe

al-Nisāʾ 4:3

The Qurʾān · Sūra 4: al-Nisāʾ · verse 3

This commentary was written by Claude (Anthropic); it carries no religious authority and should be checked against the classical sources.

4/3

وإن خفتم ألا تقسطوا في اليتامى فانكحوا ما طاب لكم من النساء مثنى وثلاث ورباع فإن خفتم ألا تعدلوا فواحدة أو ما ملكت أيمانكم ذلك أدنى ألا تعولوا

Wa in khiftum allā tuqsiṭū fi'l-yatāmā fa'nkiḥū mā ṭāba lakum mina'l-nisāʾi mathnā wa thulātha wa rubāʿ, fa-in khiftum allā taʿdilū fa-wāḥidatan aw mā malakat aymānukum, dhālika adnā allā taʿūlū

"If you fear that you cannot act with fairness towards the orphans, then marry of the women lawful to you two by two, three by three, four by four. If you fear that you cannot deal equitably, then one; or what your right hands possess. That is nearer to your not falling into injustice / into a burden."

First, a note on method

This verse is one of the most debated places in the Qurʾān and one of the most often torn from its context.

What will be done in this section is this: 1. That the verse comes in the context of orphans will be shown from the text's own wording. 2. The condition fa-in khiftum allā taʿdilū fa-wāḥida will be brought to the fore. 3. The verse will be read together with 4/129, and the two verses will be compared in a table. 4. The differing readings of the classical commentaries and of the schools of law will be related in the language of "it is transmitted".

And these will not be done: no preference will be imposed, no legal ruling will be issued, no current debate will be entered into, the reader will not be scolded, and no demeaning language about women will be used.

One: the verse's conditional clause concerns orphans — this is a datum of the text

The verse does not begin with a command. It begins with a conditional clause:

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا۟ فِى ٱلْيَتَٰمَىٰ"If you fear that you cannot act with fairness towards the orphans…"

So the subject of the condition standing before the command (fa'nkiḥū) is orphans. This is not a point open to interpretation; it is the wording of the sentence.

And the verse's position says the same thing: the second verse was about the orphan's property, and the sixth verse will again be about the orphan's property. The third verse stands between the two.

VerseSubject
2Give the orphans their property; do not mix it with your own
3If you fear you cannot act justly towards the orphans… → the ruling on marriage
4Give the women their bridal gifts
5Do not hand over property to one who cannot manage it
6Test the orphans; when you see soundness of judgement in them, give them their property

Four of these five verses concern the trusteeship of property directly. The third verse stands in the middle of this cluster, and that is a countable fact.

Two: the link between the condition and its answer — a table of the disagreement

The condition concerns orphans, the answer concerns marriage. What the link between the two is has been one of the most debated questions in the classical commentaries.

The table below shows the main explanations transmitted in the classical sources. None of them is preferred and none is binding.

ExplanationHow the link is madeIts ground
A. The guardian marrying the orphan girl in his careThe guardian, with an eye on the property or the beauty of the orphan girl in his household, would marry her with a bridal gift below what her like would receive. The verse: if you cannot do this properly, marry other womenThe verse's connection with the hundred and twenty-seventh: there the expression wa targhabūna an tankiḥūhunna (you desire to marry them) returns to the same matter
B. The fear of injustice set upon two fields at oncePeople were wary of injustice in the orphan's property but not wary in the number of wives. The verse: what you fear in the one, fear in the other tooThe same verb is repeated in the two clauses: in khiftum allā tuqsiṭū / fa-in khiftum allā taʿdilū
C. Avoiding the burden of caring for orphansTo one who shrinks from caring for orphans it is said to keep his responsibility within limitsReading the closing word allā taʿūlū in the sense of "not to take on a crowd"
D. The regulation of a situation after a battleIt is transmitted in the sources that after a battle the number of widows and orphans left behind grew; it is said that the verse regulates this situationThe presence of post-war regulations throughout the sūra

The four explanations do not wholly exclude one another. A and D are readings that support one another; B rests on the repetition in the wording of the sentence.

I make no choice. The one certain thing is that the subject of the conditional clause is orphans.

Three: مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَٰثَ وَرُبَٰعَ — the pattern itself

These three words are in a special Arabic pattern called maʿdūl, and their meaning is not "two, three, four" but "two by two, three by three, four by four".

WordPatternMeaning
مَثْنَىٰMafʿalmaʿdūlTwo by two
ثُلَٰثَFuʿālmaʿdūlThree by three
رُبَٰعَFuʿālmaʿdūlFour by four

The pattern carries two pieces of information, and both are grammar, not interpretation:

One. The pattern of repetition/distribution shows that the address is not to one person but to a community. It means "each of you two by two, three by three, four by four" — distribution, not addition.

Two. The same pattern occurs in one other place in the Qurʾān: al-Fāṭir 35/1 — of the wings of the angels, mathnā wa thulātha wa rubāʿ. That verse was treated in Fāṭir. The pattern therefore states not the number itself but the distribution.

And the particle itself must be recorded: between the words stands wa (the conjunction), not aw (or). In classical grammar it is said that this wa states an alternative here; this is a point the grammarians dwell on, and it has not been brought to a firm conclusion.

Four: فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا۟ فَوَٰحِدَةً — the condition

The second half of the verse sets a condition upon the first half, and this condition must be brought to the fore:

فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا۟ فَوَٰحِدَةً"If you fear that you cannot deal equitably, then one."

The structure of the sentence deserves attention:

ElementWhat it says
خِفْتُمْ (khiftum)The measure is not injustice that has occurred but the fear of injustice. The threshold has been drawn forward
أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا۟The verb is from ʿadl — to hold the balance, to treat equally
فَوَٰحِدَةًThe answer is a single word: one
ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰٓAnd a ground is given: "this is nearer to your not…"

The verse's own logic is this, and it is read off the wording of the sentence: the permission has been tied to a condition, the measure of the condition has been lowered to the level of fear, and the place to be reached when the condition holds is stated in a single word.

Five: the difference between عَدْل and قِسْط

Two different roots are used in the verse, and this must be recorded.

RootWordThe distinction the lexicographers record
ق-س-طTuqsiṭū (in the first condition)To give the share, the portion; fairness in dividing. Qisṭ — a share. In Form IV "to be just", in Form I "to swerve from the right" (one of the aḍdād, the words that carry contrary senses)
ع-د-لTaʿdilū (in the second condition)Equivalence, holding two sides at the same weight. ʿAdl — the equal of a thing

And the placing of the two roots is worth recording: the root that concerns the share is used for the orphans, the root that concerns equivalence for marriage.

I record this as an observation about word order; I draw no ruling from it.

The root ق-س-ط was treated at al-Ḥujurāt 49/9 and at al-Raḥmān 55/9; I rely on those treatments. The root will return once more in this sūra, in the hundred and thirty-fifth verse, this time in the context of testimony: kūnū qawwāmīna bi'l-qisṭ.

Six: أَلَّا تَعُولُوا۟ — the disagreement over the word

تَعُولُوا۟ — root ع-و-ل. And there is a classical disagreement over the meaning of the word.

ReadingWhat taʿūlū meansIts ground
1To do injustice, to incline to one sideThe root's sense of "to bend, the balance tipping to one side". ʿĀla'l-mīzān — the balance tipped
2That the number of dependants one must support increasesThe root's derivative ʿiyāl (the family one supports). ʿĀla'l-rajul — the man had many mouths to feed

Both are found among the lexicographers. I do not impose a preference.

And neither reading changes the outcome of the verse: in the one it says "not to fall into injustice", in the other "not to take on a burden you cannot carry". In both cases the function of the sentence is limitation.

Seven: 4/3 together with 4/129

The sūra returns to the same subject in the hundred and twenty-ninth verse, and there it says something else:

وَلَن تَسْتَطِيعُوٓا۟ أَن تَعْدِلُوا۟ بَيْنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ فَلَا تَمِيلُوا۟ كُلَّ ٱلْمَيْلِ فَتَذَرُوهَا كَٱلْمُعَلَّقَةِ "You will never be able to deal equitably among women, however much you desire it. So do not incline wholly to one side and leave the other as though suspended." (4/129)

I set the two verses side by side. The table compares the wording of the two verses; it establishes no ruling.

4/34/129
VerbTaʿdilū — to deal justlyTaʿdilū — the same verb
MoodConditional: in khiftum allā taʿdilūNegated future: lan tastaṭīʿū an taʿdilū
What it saysIf you fear you cannot deal justlyYou will not be able to realise justice fully
Degree of forceKhiftum — a possibilityLan — the strongest negation of the future in Arabic
Added qualificationWa law ḥaraṣtum — "however much you desire it"
Concluding clauseFa-wāḥida — oneFa-lā tamīlū kulla'l-mayl — do not incline wholly to one side
GroundAdnā allā taʿūlūFa-tadharūhā ka'l-muʿallaqa — do not leave her suspended

What follows from the wording of the two verses and is not in dispute is this: the first verse sets justice as a condition; the second states that this condition cannot be fulfilled completely.

On how these two verses are to be reconciled, different tendencies are transmitted in the classical commentaries:

TendencyHow it reconciles them
aThe justice in 4/129 is the inclination of the heart, the justice in 4/3 is conduct and maintenance. A person can act equally in conduct; he cannot command the inclination in his heart. This is the explanation most widely transmitted in the classical commentaries
b4/129 came to show how heavy the condition in 4/3 really is; read together, the two verses narrow the permission in practice
cThe two verses are on two separate matters and are not directly linked; 4/129 regulates the management of an existing situation

I prefer none of these three tendencies, and none of them is binding. All three have been defended in the classical literature, and the rulings drawn from these verses differ among the schools of law.

One thing I record separately, because it is a datum of the text: the continuation of 4/129 runs wa in tuṣliḥū wa tattaqū fa-inna'llāha kāna Ghafūran Raḥīmā, and in 4/128 it says wa'l-ṣulḥu khayr (settlement is better). That is, the sūra closes this discussion not with a sanction but with a call to setting right. The same thing will happen in the thirty-fifth verse.

Eight: the points on which the schools of law divide — transmitted, not preferred

The table below shows the principal divergences that arose from this verse in classical jurisprudence. None of them is this text's preference, none of them is binding, and within each school there are differences of view as well.

QuestionThe main tendencies transmitted
The limit of numberThe great majority of classical jurisprudence agrees that the number is limited to four. There is a grammatical debate over how the pattern (mathnā wa thulātha wa rubāʿ) yields this
The legal character of the condition of justiceSome jurists count it a binding condition; some count it an obligation that is diyānī (a matter between the person and God, not enforceable in court). The divergence has to do with whether justice can be measured
The scope of justiceThere is broad agreement on equality in maintenance and in the turn of nights; on the inclination of the heart it is said, on the strength of 4/129, that a person is not held responsible
The relation between 4/3 and 4/129The three tendencies above (a, b, c) apply here too
The consequence of breaching the conditionThe schools differ over whether it affects the validity of the marriage and over what claims the woman may bring

This table is not a fatwā and cannot be read as a guide to practice. The reason it is placed here is the rule on disagreement in the method (Method): the disagreement is not concealed, no preference is imposed.

And current debates are not entered into. How this verse is understood today, how it is regulated in this or that country, and the social debates around it are not the subject of this text.

Nine: three limiting devices in the verse's own word order

I record this as an observation about word order, and its ground is the wording of the verse. In giving the permission, the verse narrows it three times:

OrderClauseWhat it does
1Wa in khiftum allā tuqsiṭū fi'l-yatāmāIt gives the permission as the answer to a condition — not as an absolute command
2Fa-in khiftum allā taʿdilū fa-wāḥidaIt sets a second condition and brings the answer down to one
3Dhālika adnā allā taʿūlūIt gives the ground in the direction of narrowing

So the sentence structure of the verse produces more restriction than permission. This is a countable fact: the sentence contains one command, two conditions and one ground.

What this says to the present

It is possible to write the bearing of this verse on the present without entering current debates and without scolding the reader; what is treated is the measure the verse itself establishes.

One. The threshold drawn back to fear. The verse does not say "if you commit injustice", it says "if you fear you will commit injustice". This is a rare threshold in law: not the act but the anxiety about the act is made the measure. The decision whether one can carry an obligation is left to the person's own foresight.

Two. Responsibility tied to number. The logic of the verse is this: as the number of relationships undertaken rises, the share of justice falling to each one falls. This logic works independently of marriage too — a child cared for, a job taken on, a promise given. When capacity is exceeded, the party beyond the limit is the one who suffers.

Three. And a limit. No general conclusion such as "a person sets his own measure" follows from this verse; the verse speaks within a particular field of ruling. And no judgement about the morals of a person or a society today can be built from here.


Roots analysed in this section

ق-س-ط

The whole of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ