al-Nisāʾ 4:20-21

Wa in aradtumu'stibdāla zawjin makāna zawjin wa ātaytum iḥdāhunna qinṭāran fa-lā taʾkhudhū minhu shayʾā, a-taʾkhudhūnahū buhtānan wa ithman mubīnā · Wa kayfa taʾkhudhūnahū wa qad afḍā baʿḍukum ilā baʿḍin wa akhadhna minkum mīthāqan ghalīẓā

"If you wish to take one wife in the place of another, and you have given one of them a heap of wealth, take nothing back from it. Would you take it by slander and manifest sin? And how could you take it, when you have gone in to one another and they have taken from you a solemn pledge?"

قِنطَار — root ق-ن-ط-ر. The lexicographers differ over whether the word states a definite measure of weight or "much wealth" in general; I cannot give a definite amount and do not give one.

From the same root comes qanṭara — a bridge. The link the lexicographers make is this: a bridge is the structure that binds two banks together; and a qinṭār is wealth gathered and bound. I relate this link as the lexicographers record it.

And the function of the word here must be recorded: by carrying the amount to its furthest extreme, the verse tests the ruling. "Even if you have given a heap of wealth" — that is, whatever the amount, the ruling does not change. This is a technique of argument (iḥtijāj) in law: the rule is reinforced by giving the extreme case.

Having laid down the prohibition, the verse asks a question: "would you take it by slander?"

And in Arabic this is an istifhām inkārī: a question that expects no answer and states a rejection. The pattern was treated in many places in this commentary.

بُهْتَٰن — root ب-ه-ت: to astound, to leave someone stunned. Buhita — he was left dumbfounded. And buhtān is an imputation so baseless as to leave the other party stunned. The word was treated at al-Nūr 24/16 and at al-Aḥzāb 33/58; I rely on those treatments.

What was recorded in the discussion of al-Aḥzāb was this: buhtān names the offence by the state of the victim — that is, the word itself carries the effect the imputation leaves on the other party.

And the context here must be recorded: to invent an accusation in order to take back property. The verse describes a financial greed producing a slander and joins the two acts in one sentence.

أَفْضَىٰ — root ف-ض-و. And the concrete sense of the root must be recorded: فَضَاء (faḍāʾ) — emptiness, openness, wide space. Arḍun faḍāʾ — open ground without obstruction.

And the verb is in Form IV: afḍā ilā — to open out towards something, to reach it with no barrier left in between.

The picture in the word, then, is this: the lifting of the veil between two things, their opening to one another.

The lexicographers explain the word here as "to mingle with one another, to come together in intimacy", and in the classical commentaries it is said that this points to the intimacy of married life.

And the placing of the word here is the finest point of the verse. I record this as my own reading: in refusing a financial claim, the verse gives no financial ground. It does not say "that property is hers" or "you have no legal right". The ground it gives is that the veil between them has been lifted.

A legal text, that is, rests a rule of law on intimacy.

The root م-ث-ق (و-ث-ق): to bind firmly. Wathīqa — a document; thiqa — trustworthy; mīthāq — a word bound fast.

غَلِيظ — root غ-ل-ظ: thick, coarse, heavy. Ghilẓa — thickness.

And now comes a datum of the text, and it can be verified within the sūra:

This exact expression — mīthāqan ghalīẓā — occurs in three places in the Qurʾān:

That verse was treated at al-Aḥzāb 33/7; I rely on that treatment.

Comparing these three places yields an observation, which I record as my own reading: the expression the Qurʾān uses for the pledge taken from the prophets is used for marriage as well. No equality is set up between the two bonds; but the word that states the weight of the pledge is the same.

And there is one further detail of the word order: the verse does not say wa akhadhtum minhunna (you took from them); it says wa akhadhna minkum (they took from you). The party who took the pledge is the women.

This is the wording of the sentence and a datum of the text. I draw no ruling from it; I record the subject of the verb.

One. The three verses between the nineteenth and the twenty-first take aim at a single pattern of conduct: taking back, at the end of a relationship, what is in the other party's hands. The verse closes this off three times, by three separate routes — holding by force, pressing, and slander.

Two. That the command ʿāshirūhunna bi'l-maʿrūf comes in Form III shows that the relationship is named not as a one-way treatment but as a shared life. This is something that can be read off the grammar.

Three. The ground given by the twenty-first verse is as valid today as it was then: where a relationship ends, the intimacy that relationship built cannot be turned into a bargaining counter. The verse says this with the verb afḍā.

And a limit: it does not follow from these verses that one party is right in every case and the other wrong in every case. The verse forbids a particular act and lays down its exception itself. No sweeping ruling is made about a group.