In Surah Nisa, verse 136, Allah says: Before the first stop (jeem), Allah describes the Qur'an with "nazzala" (نَزَّلَ), while he describes the previous books with "anzala" (أَنزَلَ). Both of these come from the same root verb, nazala, which means "to descend, to go down." The first is baab two, which is a more severe form, while the second looks like the form used often when you cause something to happen (eg. make something descend). But my Arabic is rusty. What exactly is the difference of meaning of these two verbs, and what's the implication here?

السلام عليكم In surah An-Nisa, ayat 46 it says: >مِّنَ ٱلَّذِينَ هَادُوا۟ يُحَرِّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِۦ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَٱسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍۢ وَرَٰعِنَا لَيًّۢا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًۭا فِى ٱلدِّينِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا۟ سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَٱسْمَعْ وَٱنظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًۭا لَّهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَـٰكِن لَّعَنَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًۭاا "Some Jews take words out of context and say, “We listen and we disobey,” “Hear! May you never hear,” and “Râ’ina!” [Herd us!]—playing with words and discrediting the faith. Had they said ˹courteously˺, “We hear and obey,” “Listen to us,” and “Unẓurna,” [Tend to us!] it would have been better for them and more proper. Allah has condemned them for their disbelief, so they do not believe except for a few." Why is Ra'ina replaced by Unzurna because some of the Jews meant Ra'ina sarcastically with the meaning "Listen, may you become deaf"? They could use some kind of playful, ambiguous connotation to Unzurna as well. Just like in every language I believe you can give every word a negative connotation or positive whether you may like it or not. مع السلامة

> And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and **I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle**, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah." And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss. -- Qur'an 4:119 This makes me wonder why slitting the ears of cattle has any importance. It's certainly not something I could envisage being tempted to do, no matter how persuasive Satan is. **Question**: What is the significance of slitting the ears of cattle in Qur'an 4:119? Tafsir write: > ...surely I will command them and they will cut up the cattle’s ears and this was done to the she-camels they called bahā’ir. -- Tafsir al-Jalalayn > > ...and surely I will command them and they will cut the cattle's ears, what is known as the Bahirah. -- Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs So perhaps this is an historical thing. (It doesn't seem related to Bahira .)

Can someone please define the word "obey" in the context of this verse. > http://quran.com/4/34 Men are in charge of women by [right of] what > Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for > maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly > obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have > them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] > advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and > [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no > means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. Any real world examples what it means for a wife to be obedient?
I can't think of any examples to help me clarify this.

In 4:26 it states that "Allah explains and guides you in the **traditions** of those **believers who came before you**, and to forgive you" Allah is the Knower, the Wise. - could someone please explain what is meant by "believers who came before you"?

> And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things]. -- Qur'an 4:35 I interpret "his/her people" as meaning "his/her family" (which seems to match some translations at Islam Awakened and this answer to my previous question). A convert, for example, may not have any Muslim family members, and I'm wondering if they can use non-Muslim family members for arbitration. **Question**: Can an arbitrator for domestic disputes in Qur'an 4:35 be a non-Muslim?

In [Surat An-Nisā'](http://quran.com/4) , [ayah 119](http://quran.com/4/119) , Allah says; > **Sahih International**
And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them > [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears > of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of > Allah ." And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has > certainly sustained a clear loss. According to this ayah, Satan will command us so we will change the creation of Allah. What is considered as changing the creation of Allah?

> But whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment. -- Qur'an 4:93 However, under sharia law , Muslims may be executed for e.g. murder, adultery, apostasy, sodomy (see this question ), and this is stipulated in the Qur'an (qisas ): > O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered ... -- Qur'an 2:178 Thus, sharia literally includes killing a believer intentionally, which raises the question as how this fits in with Qur'an 4:93. **Question**: How is Qur'an 4:93 compatible with the death penalty? The only way to reconcile this I can think of is that the scope of Qur'an 4:93 is limited to murder (unjust killing) of a believer. If that's correct, I'd like an authoritative reference to back up this guess. A tafsir indicates Qur'an 4:93 was revealed in light of Miqyas Ibn Sababah whose brother was murdered; the murderer could not be found, so Miqyas killed an emissary sent by the Prophet. (The Prophet subsequently sentenced Miqyas to death, but regarded him as having left Islam.) This is consistent with the idea that the scope of Qur'an 4:93 is limited to murder.

Why does the famous and well known verse about polygyny starts by referring to orphans: > And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]. (4:3 ) There must certainly be a reason why Allah started the verse referring to orphans. Does anybody can explain it?

We're supposed to return the salam; see Islam Q&A and > And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet [in return] with one better than it or [at least] return it [in a like manner]. Indeed, Allah is ever, over all things, an Accountant.
> Qur'an 4:86 Sometimes non-mahram men say salam to me (e.g., through instant messaging). If I respond to the salam, then I enter into a conversation, and sometimes they talk about incrementally less appropriate topics, to the point where (after a while) I'm unsure if I've done something haram. I'm wondering if it's best, in these circumstances, to simply not return the salam (particularly when the non-mahram man has previously engaged in inappropriate conversation). **Question**: Does Qur'an 4:86 ("greet in return") apply to women when greeted by a non-mahram man?

I found examples of verses of the Qur'an which have an identic beginning, but end with different ending: The first examples are in surat an-Nisa': - > Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly **fabricated a tremendous sin.** (4:48 ) - > Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly **gone far astray.** (4:116 ) Is there a deeper meaning or an explanation why in the first verse those who commit shirk have been warned against their sins while in the second they have been described as gone astray?

N. Nurmila, *Polygamous Marriages in Indonesia and Their Impacts on Women’s Access to Income and Property*, Al-Jāmi‘ah: J. Islamic Studies, 2016 (URL ), writes: > The belief that Islam supports polygamy is based on the popular literal understanding of the Quran 4:3, 6 whilst contextualistand progressive Muslims, such as Egyptian reformist Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), understand the verse to discourage and even prohibit polygamous marriage. This is surprising, given what the verse says: > And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]. -- Qur'an 4:3 **Question**: How did Muhammad Abduh come to understand Qur'an 4:3 as meaning to discourage and even prohibit polygamous marriage? (After writing this question, I found an answer, which I'll post as an answer.)

> وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ ٱلرَّسُولَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ ٱلْهُدَىٰ وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَآءَتْ مَصِيراً
> And **whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him** and follows other than the way of the believers - We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination.
> Qur'an 4:115 There seems to be two possible interpretations of "after guidance has become clear to him" here: 1. "after guidance has become clear to the Messenger" and 2. "after guidance has become clear to the person who opposes the Messenger". The first means after Allah has made the message clear to Muhammad, whereas the second means after the message has reached the person, and it is clear to that person. I'm not sure which is correct. **Question**: Who is "him" in "whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him" in Qur'an 4:115? The Arabic doesn't seem to make this clear; (his لَه "belonging to a man or boy who you have already talked about"). I didn't find the answer at altafsir.com .

In regards to the ayah > Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. **But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.** But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. -- Quran 4:34 In the West, people sometimes quote this ayah to support their claim Islam promotes "wife beating". At the same time, parents in the West will strike their child for being disobedient, but they don't analogously to claim that Christianity promotes "child beating". It's even in the Bible: > Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. -- Proverbs 13:24 (along with stoning to death in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ). The conditions of what's appropriate and what's going too far in both striking one's rebellious wife and spanking one's disobedient child seem to overlap; basically, don't do it needlessly, nor cause injury (see: https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/7483/17163) . Although it could be interpreted as condescending towards women, it seems like it would be useful point of comparison for Islamic speakers. **Question**: Do Islamic speakers compare "strike them" in Qur'an 4:34 to spanking a disobedient child?

Surah an-Nisa verse no-2 > And give orphans their properties, and do not substitute the bad for the good. And do not consume their properties by combining them with yours, for that would be a serious sin.* Who are the orphans according this verse.

> They call upon instead of Him none but female [deities], and they [actually] call upon none but a rebellious Satan. Whom Allah has cursed. **For he had said, "I will surely take from among Your servants a specific portion. And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them [sinful] desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of Allah."** And whoever takes Satan as an ally instead of Allah has certainly sustained a clear loss. -- Qur'an 4:117-119 I'm wondering if this is (or is considered to be) a literal quote from Satan, i.e., Satan actually said those words, and his exact words are reproduced in the Qur'an. **Question**: Is Qur'an 4:118-119 considered as directly quoting Satan? I didn't find an answer by looking through altafsir.com. It seems unnecessary, even counterproductive for Satan to declare his evil plans. However, it may be that this were his initial plans, and they have evolved over time; I don't see many slitting the ears of cattle being particularly problematic nowadays.

Verse 24 of surat An-Nisa'say: > وَ الْمُحْصَناتُ مِنَ النِّساءِ إِلاَّ ما مَلَکَتْ أَيْمانُکُمْ کِتابَ > اللَّهِ عَلَيْکُمْ وَ أُحِلَّ لَکُمْ ما وَراءَ ذلِکُمْ أَنْ تَبْتَغُوا > بِأَمْوالِکُمْ مُحْصِنينَ غَيْرَ مُسافِحينَ فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ > مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَريضَةً وَ لا جُناحَ عَلَيْکُمْ > فيما تَراضَيْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ الْفَريضَةِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ کانَ > عَليماً حَکيماً > > And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this > is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) > besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, > taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those > whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is > no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; > surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.(4:24) As I searched, there are 2 interpretations for this verse. One interprets the verse to be about permanent marriage (Tafsir al-Manar of Rashid Reza) And one interprets to be about temporary marriage (mut’ah)(Tafseer Kabeer of Tabari,al-Kashāf of Al-Zamakhshari,the sharh (explanation) of Sahih Muslim by Nawawi) So, which one is the correct interpretation in Shia view? Please provide strong reasons.

I saw a verse in Quran saying not to give your property to the foolish but rather cloth and feed them. So what type of beggars or people are deemed as foolish, as referred to in this verse? > An-Nisa Verse No: 5 > وَلاَ تُؤْتُواْ السُّفَهَاء أَمْوَالَكُمُ الَّتِي جَعَلَ اللّهُ لَكُمْ قِيَاماً وَارْزُقُوهُمْ فِيهَا وَاكْسُوهُمْ وَقُولُواْ لَهُمْ قَوْلاً مَّعْرُوفًا >And give not unto the foolish your property which Allah has made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice.

According to following verse ,what does' الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاء 'mean? > الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاء بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ > عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُواْ مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِمْ فَالصَّالِحَاتُ > قَانِتَاتٌ حَافِظَاتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ اللّهُ وَاللاَّتِي > تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ > وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلاَ تَبْغُواْ عَلَيْهِنَّ > سَبِيلًا إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا > > men are the maintainers of women for that allah has preferred in > bounty one of them over another, and for that they have spent of their > wealth. righteous women are obedient, guarding in secret that which > allah has guarded. those from whom you fear rebelliousness, admonish > them and desert them in the bed and leave them. then, if they obey > you, do not look for any way against them. allah is high, great.

Qur'an 4:34 (other translations at Islam Awakened ) says: > ... But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; **[then if they persist], forsake them in bed**; and [finally], strike them. ... > > ... وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ... However, regarding this verse TheQuranDilemma.com claims: > While the word hajr is interpreted to mean “to refuse to share their beds,” the word hajr has several meanings. **One of these meanings indicates the hajr of the camel when the owner binds the animal with a hijar, or rope. This disturbing interpretation means that the term used in Q 4.34 (“refuse to share their beds”) can actually mean to bind the wife and force her to have sexual intercourse.** > > This meaning is the adopted view of al-Tabari , a renowned classical Islamic commentator. Other scholars, who also support this interpretation, state “it means to tie them up and force them to have [sexual] intercourse.” I want to fact-check this claim. **Question**: Does the word "hajr" also mean "to bind", and thus Qur'an 4:34 can also be interpreted to imply "tie up your wife and force her to have sex"? The purportedly problematic word seems to be هْجُرُ (abandon ), although I'm not 100% sure about this. It doesn't seem to have the meaning ascribed to it by TheQuranDilemma.com.