al-Aḥzāb 33:37

Wa idh taqūlu li'lladhī anʿama'llāhu ʿalayhi wa anʿamta ʿalayhi amsik ʿalayka zawjaka wa'ttaqi'llāha wa tukhfī fī nafsika ma'llāhu mubdīhi wa takhsha'l-nāsa wa'llāhu aḥaqqu an takhshāh, fa-lammā qaḍā Zaydun minhā waṭaran zawwajnākahā li-kay lā yakūna ʿala'l-muʾminīna ḥarajun fī azwāji adʿiyāʾihim idhā qaḍaw minhunna waṭarā, wa kāna amru'llāhi mafʿūlā

"And when you were saying to the one whom God had favoured and whom you had favoured, 'Keep your wife with you, and guard yourself against God.' You were hiding within yourself what God was to bring out, and you were wary of people; whereas God was the one you should have been wary of. Then, when Zayd had ended his tie with her, We married her to you, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers regarding the wives of their adopted sons, once they have ended their tie with them. And the command of God is carried out."

This verse is one of the most disputed and most abused places in the Qurʾān. I state the method in advance:

One. The account's link with the ruling in verses 4-5 will be shown — the sūra lays down a principle and recounts its application. Two. The imputations circulating in the Isrāʾīliyyāt and story-telling literature about the expression tukhfī fī nafsika will not be entered into. That these imputations were rejected in classical exegesis will be recorded in the language of "it is transmitted", and I shall keep within what the wording of the verse says. Three. The woman's name will not be given; the details of the reports about how the marriage was made and how it ended will not be entered into. The only name the Qurʾān gives is Zayd.

As was recorded at al-Masad: Zayd is named by name at al-Aḥzāb 33/37 — the only place where a Companion's name occurs in the Qurʾān. I rely on that treatment.

And this is a fact worth recording. The Qurʾān scarcely ever names the people of its own period — neither friend nor enemy. The reason was recorded at al-Munāfiqūn: "the description lasts, the exposure passes."

And precisely for that reason, where the single exception is made matters.

In the verse Zayd's name occurs at the very middle of the sentence: fa-lammā qaḍā Zaydun minhā waṭarā. And up to that moment the same person had been named not by his name but by a description: "the one whom God had favoured and whom you had favoured."

I record this as my own reading: the place where the verse gives the name is the place where the ruling is established. A name is written into the Qurʾān in the very context in which the ascription that name carried (Zayd b. Muḥammad) is abolished. That is, what is abolished is not a name but a corrected ascription; and in doing this the Qurʾān enters the person's own name into the record.

This is an inference and not a transmitted report. Its ground is the position of the name within the verse.

The same verb (anʿama), with two different subjects, one after the other.

The verse does not say what they were. In classical exegesis it is said that the first was guidance and the second a kindness the Prophet had done him. I do not enter into detail.

But the word order does a piece of work and I record it: the verse introduces the person by way of a relationship. And both directions of the relationship are named: what came from God and what came from the Prophet.

And this introduction weighs down the situation that follows in the verse: a word said to a person to whom kindness has been done is not an ordinary piece of advice.

أَمْسِكْ — root م-س-ك. To hold, to keep in hand, not to let go. Mask — holding; imsāk — holding, keeping back (the imsāk of fasting is from the same root).

عَلَيْكَ — "with you". The preposition shows that the holding is within a field belonging to the person.

The construction occurs in the Qurʾān in the context of divorce too: "Either holding on in a fitting way (imsāk bi-maʿrūf) or releasing in a fair way" (al-Baqara 2/229). That is, imsāk is the opposite of tasrīḥ (which occurred in verse 28).

And this link is worth recording within the sūra: in the twenty-eighth verse a sarāḥan jamīlā was offered to the Prophet's wives; in the thirty-seventh the Prophet advises imsāk to someone else. The same pair of words, in two different places.

وَٱتَّقِ ٱللَّهَ — the very same command as in the first verse of the sūra. There it was said to the Prophet; here the Prophet says it to someone else.

This is the most disputed place in the verse, and here, per the method (Method), I draw a firm limit.

What the wording of the verse says:

1. The Prophet was hiding something within himself. 2. God was going to bring it out. 3. The Prophet was wary of people. 4. The one to be wary of was God.

What the wording of the verse does not say: what the thing hidden was. The verse does not give it.

In the classical exegetical literature there are two kinds of material on this, and the two must be kept apart.

The first kind — imputations of story-telling and Isrāʾīliyyāt origin. In this literature detailed and tendentious narratives circulate about what the hidden thing was.

This commentary does not enter into these narratives, and I record this: it is widely transmitted that in the classical exegetical tradition these imputations were rejected. A considerable number of exegetes characterised these narratives as material with no source value, without a chain of transmission, or inconsistent under textual criticism, and rejected them.

I give this in the language of "it is transmitted" and mention no name or wording, because the note in Method is plain: a saying of which one is not sure is not ascribed to an exegete.

The second kind — explanations resting on the wording of the verse. In classical exegesis there are also explanations of what the hidden thing may have been that keep within the verse's own sentences:

I do not impose a preference. But I record this: the first explanation agrees with the verse's own clause of ground. The verse writes the reason for the event explicitly: li-kay lā yakūna ʿala'l-muʾminīna ḥarajun fī azwāji adʿiyāʾihim. That is, the ground the verse gives is legal and links directly with verses 4-5.

This is an observation, not a ruling.

خَشِىَ — root خ-ش-ي. To fear; and what the lexicographers record about its difference from khawf: khashya is fear resting on knowledge and on reverence. Khawf is more general.

And this sentence is one of the examples of a fact treated at ʿAbasa. What was recorded there and what I bring over here:

• There are places in the Qurʾān where a choice of the Prophet's is corrected, and they were given as a list: al-Tawba 9/43, al-Anfāl 8/67-68, al-Aḥzāb 33/37, al-Taḥrīm 66/1.
• This was presented not as a proof but as an observation.
• It was also recorded there that in a report stated to be found in al-Bukhārī and Muslim it is transmitted that ʿĀʾisha said of this verse something to the effect that had Muhammad been going to conceal anything of the revelation, he would have concealed this verse — its wording not quoted verbatim, its sense given.

I rely on that treatment and do not repeat that section.

I add one thing here and record it as my own reading: what the verse corrects is not a sin but an order of priority. In the sentence the elative aḥaqqu (having more right) is used — that is, being wary of people is not forbidden, it is put in order.

And this links with the first verse of the sūra: "do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites." There too the matter was aligning oneself with people's expectations. The sūra repeats the same matter thirty-six verses later for the Prophet himself.

I record this link as my own reading; its ground is that both verses fix an attitude in the face of "people's reaction".

وَطَر — root و-ط-ر. The need, want or business a person looks for from a thing. Qaḍā waṭarahu — he finished his business, he met his need.

The construction occurs only in this verse in the Qurʾān — and twice in this verse.

And the choice of the expression is worth recording. The verse does not say "he divorced her" (ṭallaqa). The expression it uses is a veiled way of stating that the relationship had in fact ended.

This is the level of language the Qurʾān prefers in such matters and it agrees with the measure recorded at al-Muzzammil: in matters that enter the field of privacy the Qurʾān chooses indirect expression.

And the expression occurs twice in the verse so that at the second occurrence it may be tied to the general ruling: idhā qaḍaw minhunna waṭarā. The same expression, once a single event and once a general rule. The word order makes the passage from event to ruling by repeating the word.

The verb is first person plural: "We married her to you."

This is the most striking grammatical fact of the verse and must be recorded. The sentence does not say "he married her" or "you married her". The agent of the verb is stated directly.

And this has a function: the event is presented not as a personal choice but as the application of a ruling. Indeed the verse gives the ground immediately afterwards.

I record this as a datum of the text.

This is the most important sentence in the verse, because the verse itself says why the event took place.

حَرَج — root ح-ر-ج. And the concrete sense of the root is narrowness, constriction: ḥaraj — a place hard to get into, cramped; ground thick with trees that gives no passage.

The Qurʾān uses the root in several places: "He has laid upon you no difficulty (ḥaraj) in religion" (al-Ḥajj 22/78); "his breast becomes tight and constricted (ḥarajan)" (al-Anʿām 6/125).

And the clause of ground links directly with the fourth and fifth verses:

The same word — أَدْعِيَآء — occurs in all three verses. And this completes the structure of the sūra: the principle was laid down (4-5), its application recounted (37).

And why the application was needed can be understood: the legal abolition of an institution does not of itself abolish that institution's social effect. It had been said that an adopted son is not counted a son; but in people's minds the ascription went on. The verse puts an end to that continuation by an application.

And this is the hardest test of the sūra's founding principle, and I record it: the fourth verse had said "a name does not change reality". But there is something a name establishes socially, and that is not undone by a sentence. The sūra is aware of this and therefore follows the principle with an application.

I record this as my own reading; its ground is that the clause of ground is given explicitly inside the verse.

مَفْعُول — a passive participle: "that which has been done". That is, the command is named not as something still to be done but as something done.

The construction occurs in several places in the Qurʾān and always conveys a certainty (al-Nisāʾ 4/47; al-Anfāl 8/42).

A great many details circulate about this verse in the classical and modern literature: how the marriage was made, what the parties thought, the cause of the separation, the date of the event.

These details are not entered into in this commentary. The reasons:

One. The reports differ from one another at the level of detail, and per the method (Method) a detail of which one is not sure cannot be presented as certain knowledge.

Two. The wording of the verse gives none of these details. To make a piece of information the Qurʾān does not give into a condition of a verse's meaning is a breach of the three-layered frame set up at al-Fatḥ.

Three. The verse gives its ground itself. When the reason for an event is written in the text, looking outside for another reason is unnecessary.

One. The abolition of an institution and the abolition of its effect are different things.

This is exactly the ground the verse gives. The legal regulation has been made (4-5); but people's behaviour continues. And to change the behaviour the verse does not write another legal text — it shows an application.

This can be recorded as an observation about social change: for a habit to fall away it is not enough for the rule to change; it must be seen that the rule works.

Two. Being wary of people's reaction.

The most human sentence in the verse is wa takhsha'l-nās. And the verse does not stamp this as a weakness; it corrects it as a matter of order.

Its present-day form is plain: the most common obstacle to doing a thing one knows to be right is not believing that the thing is wrong; it is being wary of how it will be received. The verse does not pretend this wariness away — it only says which wariness has priority.