238. The Arabic word adha denotes both a state of ritual impurity and sickness. Menstruation is not merely an impurity, but also a state in which the woman is closer to sickness than to health.
239. With regard to matters such as these the Qur'an resorts to metaphors and figurative language. Hence it instructs men not to approach women. This does not mean that people should either abstain from sitting together on the same floor or eating together when a woman has her monthly period making her virtually an untouchable, as has been the custom among the Jews, Hindus and certain other nations. The explanation of this injunction by the Prophet makes it clear that during this period men are only required to abstain from sexual intercourse; no change is postulated in other relationships, and the woman is to be treated in the normal way. (See, for instance, Bukhari, 'Hayd', 10, 'Itikaf', 2-4, 10, 19; Muslim, 'Hayd', 6-13; Abu Da'ud, 'Taharah', 102, 106 - Ed.)
240. The 'command' of God mentioned here is not a formal legal injunction
from God, but that inherent urge with which the nature of both men and animals
has been imbued and which is apprehended instinctively.
(The verse means, therefore, that after the end of the menstrual course people
may again engage in sexual intercourse - Ed.)
241. That is, God's purpose in the creation of women is not merely to provide men with recreation. Their mutual relationship is like that between a farmer and his tilth. A farmer approaches his field not just for the sake of pleasure, but to acquire produce. Similarly, man ought to approach the tilth of the human race with the purpose of acquiring produce, that is, offspring. What is of concern to the Law of God is not the particular mode of cultivating one's tilth, but rather that one should go only to one's tilth and not elsewhere, and that one should go there for the purpose of cultivation.
242. These words are susceptible to two meanings. First, that a person should try to maintain the continuity of the human race so that when he departs from this world there should be others to replace him in his tasks. Second, that one should be concerned with the quality of the coming generation, i.e., how far it is endowed with religious devotion, moral excellence and humanity, and that one should do all that is possible to promote these qualities. The latter part ot the verse contains the warning that those who deliberately neglect these two duties will he severely taken to task by God.
243. Authentic Traditions indicate that if a person takes a vow and discovers later that righteousness and common good are best served by breaking that vow then he should do so. Expiation consists in either feeding or providing clothes for ten poor people, or setting free a slave, or fasting for three days (see 5: 89).
244. This refers to oaths which one utters either through habit or without any intent and purpose. The breach of such vows neither entails expiation nor makes man liable to God's reproach.
245. In the legal terminology of Islam this is known as ila'. It is obvious
that harmony and cordiality do not always prevail in matrimonial life. There
are occasions when strains and tensions develop, leading to discord and estrangement.
But the Law of God does not approve of that discord which causes a husband and
wife, who are legally tied to one another in matrimony, to remain for all practical
purposes alienated from one another as if they had ceased to be spouses. For
this kind of abnormal discord and estrangement God has fixed a limit of four
months during which the spouses are required either to settle their difference,
or to break the tie of wedlock so that each becomes free to contract marriage
with someone with whom a harmonious matrimonial relationship appears more likely.
Since the verse mentions 'taking a vow', the Hanafi and Shafi'i jurists consider
the injunction to be applicable only when a husband has taken a vow not to have
sexual relations with his wife. According to them, the injunction does not apply
if the husband merely forsakes sexual relations with his wife without taking
any vow to that effect. The Maliki jurists are, however, of the opinion that
irrespective of whether a person has taken a vow, the maximum permissible limit
for abstaining from sexual relations in wedlock is four months. A statement
to that effect is also attributed to Ahmad b. Hanbal. (See Ibn Rushd, Bidayat
al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp. 98 ff. - Ed.)
According to 'Ali, Ibn Abbas and Hasan al-Basri, this injunction is related
to the cessation of sexual relations as a result of unpleasantness in the relationship
of the spouses. It would not apply, however, if a husband were to decide to
abandon sexual relations with his wife out of some beneficial consideration
- say because the wife is breastfeeding - at a time when their relationship
was pleasant. According to other jurists, however, any vow which prevents sexual
intercourse between a husband and wife is ila', and ought not to last longer
than four months irrespective of the state of the matrimonial relationship when
it was taken. (See Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an, vol. 1, pp. 355 ff - Ed.)
246. Some jurists have interpreted this verse to signify that if the spouses break their vow and re-establish sexual relations they will not be liable to any expiation and will be pardoned by God gratuitously. However, the majority of jurists are of the opinion that they, are required to expiate. The statement that God is Oft-Forgiving and Merciful does not mean that God has forgiven them. It means rather that God will accept their expiation and will forgive them for whatever excesses they may have committed against each other.
247. According to 'Uthman, Ibn Mas'ud, Zayd ibn Thabit and others the limit
for the restoration of matrimonial relations is four months. The mere termination
of that period proves that the husband has decided to repudiate the marriage
and so divorce automatically ensues. It will be reckoned as an irrevocable (ba'in)
repudiation. This means that separation between the spouses will come into force
and the husband will not have the right to revoke it during the period of waiting
('iddah). The two parties will, however, have the right to recontract marriage
by mutual consent. Statements from 'Umar, 'Ali, Ibn 'Abbas, and also a statement
from Ibn 'Umar, have been reported in support of this doctrine and have been
accepted by the Hanafi jurists as the basis of their doctrine.
Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Makhul, Zuhri,. and some other early jurists agree with
this doctrine to the extent that divorce comes into force after four months.
But they consider that the husband may revoke it during the period of waiting;
and even after the lapse of that period the spouses may recontract marriage
by mutual consent.
However, 'A'ishah, Abu al-Darda' and the majority of the jurists of Madina are
opposed to this opinion and hold that after four months the matter should be
placed before the court when the judge will order the husband either to resume
matrimonial relations with his wife or divorce her. Statements from 'Umar and
'Ali as well as a statement from Ibn 'Umar have come down in support of this
doctrine. This opinion has been accepted by Malik and Shafi'i. (See Jassas,
vol. 1, pp. 359 f. - Ed.)
248. That is, if a man has abandoned his wife on unreasonable grounds, he should not feel secure from the wrath of God for He is not unaware of the excesses that he may have committed.
249. Jurists disagree about the legal import of this verse. According to some, as long as a woman has not completed her third menstrual period repudiation will not have the effect of irrevocable divorce. This is the view of Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Ali, Ibn 'Abbas, Abu Musa al-Ash'arl, Ibn Mas'ud and several distinguished Companions of the Prophet. This is also the accepted doctrine of the Hanafi jurists. On the other hand, another group of jurists is of the view that, as soon as the third monthly period of a woman begins, the husband ceases to have the right to revoke the divorce. This is the view of , 'A'ishah, Ibn 'Umar and Zayd ibn Thabit, and has been accepted by, the Shafi'i and Maliki jurists. It should be clear, however, that this injunction is applicable only when the husband has pronounced single or double divorce. In case of triple divorce, the husband ceases to have the right of revocation. (See Jassas, vol. 1. pp. 364 ff. - Ed.)
250. This little verse aims at the reform of a serious evil that was rampant
in the social life in pre-Islamic Arabia. According to the customary law of
Arabia, a person was entitled to pronounce any number of divorces upon his wife.
As a result divorce was resorted to at the least provocation and annoyance.
In addition, the husband often exercised his right to revoke the divorce he
had pronounced with the result that the poor wife could neither live with him
in happiness nor free herself to contract a fresh marriage with someone else.
Here the Qur'an seeks to shut the door on this injustice. According to this
verse, a man may pronounce revocable divorce upon his wife not more than twice.
Should he pronounce divorce for the third time after revoking it twice, the
wife will be permanently alienated from him.
The appropriate procedure for divorce, according to the Qur'an and Hadith, is
that a person should pronounce one divorce outside the time of the wife's menstrual
period. After the first divorce he may pronounce a second in the next clear
period if he wants to, though it is preferable that he should confine himself
to pronouncing the first. In this case the husband retains the right to revoke
the divorce at any time before the lapse of the period of waiting ('iddah) even
if the period of waiting has lapsed, the couple have the right to recontract
the marriage by mutual consent. If the husband, however, pronounces divorce
in his wife's third clear period he has no right to revoke the divorce, and
the spouses are not entitled to recontract the marriage. The pronouncing of
triple divorce in one session is a highly sinful act according to the Law, and
the Prophet has strongly denounced it. (See Nasii, 'Talaq', 6 - Ed.) It has
even been established that 'Umar used to flog those who pronounced triple divorce
in one session. Although this procedure of divorce is considered sinful, the
founders of the four legal schools consider it to have legal effect, with the
result that such divorce, in their view, becomes absolutely irrevocable.
251. This refers to the mahr (bridal gift) and the jewellery, clothes and
so on which the husband offers as a gift to his wife, and to which he has no
right of reclaim. It is, indeed, normally inconsistent with Islamic ethics that
a person should reclaim anything he has made over to another by way of donation
or gift. In the Hadith this disgraceful act is likened to a dog licking its
own vomit. (See Bukhari, 'Hibah', 30; Nasiii, 'Hibah', 3, etc. - Ed.)
In the case of a husband, in particular, it is a matter of the utmost disgrace
that, at the time of saying farewell to his divorced wife he should try to dispossess
her of what he had once given her out of his own goodwill. On the contrary,
the morals that Islam seeks to cultivate require that at the time of parting
the husband ought to present her with a farewell gift. See
(verse 241 below.)
252. In the terminology of Islamic Law this is known as khul', i.e. a woman's
securing the annulment of her marriage through the payment of some compensation
to her husband. Whatever settlement is made between a husband and wife should
come into effect. If the matter is referred to the court, however, it will investigate
only whether the wife has really become too disgusted with the husband to put
up with him. (For the Traditions on the basis of which the author concludes
this see the commentaries on this verse in Ibn Kathir and Qurtubi, see especially
the latter, vol. 2, pp. 946-8 - Ed.) Once this is determined the court is entitled
to fix the amount of payment incumbent on the wife as compensation for the repudiation
of her marriage, and the husband will be bound to accept that amount and divorce
his wife. In general, the jurists believe that the payment, thus fixed, should
not be higher than the original mahr paid by the husband.
The divorce that comes into effect is irrevocable and brings separation into
effect immediately. Since the woman has paid compensation, she has in effect
purchased the right of repudiation and the husband, therefore, has ceased to
have the right to revoke the divorce. If, however, the spouses agree to recontract
marriage, they may do so.
According to the majority of jurists the period of waiting under khul' is the
same as under divorce. However, there are several Traditions in Abu Da'ud, Tirmidhi,
Ibn Majah, etc., which show that the Prophet fixed the period of waiting at
one menstrual period, and that 'Uthman applied this in a case which he decided.
(See Ibn Kathir's commentary on the verse.)
253. It is known from authentic Traditions that it is totally illegitimate for a person to arrange the marriage of his divorced wife with someone else on the understanding that the latter will divorce her to make it possible for the former husband to recontract marriage with that woman. Such trickery would in fact be an act of sheer sexual corruption and would not render the woman liable to remarriage with her former husband. According to a Tradition transmitted from 'Ali, Ibn Mas'ud, Abu Hurayrah and 'Uqbah ibn 'Amir, the Prophet pronounced his curse on those who arrange, as well as on those who agree to contract, such fictitious marriages. (See Muslim. 'Talaq', l5, 71; Nasa'i, 'Talaq', 8; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, P. 314 and vol. 5, p. 334; Al-Muwatta', 'Talaq', 27; Abu Da'ud. 'Talaq'. 10 - Ed.)