1. "That Allah heard her words" does not merely imply hearing her complaint but also signifies redressing her grievances.

2. Generally, translators have translated these sentences in the past tense, implying that at one point of time she lodged her complaint with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), which was heard by Allah. This leaves the impression that the above verse may have been revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at a later stage. However, most of the reports on the occasion of the above verse, as featured in the Ḥadith corpus, inform that, while she was complaining to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about the zihār inflicted on her by her husband and insisting that her separation from her husband would entail misery for her and her children, the usual condition of receiving revelation appeared on the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) at the same time and these verses were revealed. Accordingly, we have preferred rendering these sentences in the present tense.

These verses were revealed in connection with the problems faced by Khawlah bint Tha 'labah of the Khazraj tribe whose husband was Aws ibn al-Ṣāmit al-Anṣārī, the brother of the Aws tribal chief, 'Ubadah ibn al-Ṣāmit. We will discuss later at length the case of the zihār committed by him. What is more remarkable is that the supplication of this lady Companion, readily answered by Allah, was such an incident on the basis of which she received a special place and status among the Companions. Ibn Abi Ḥātim and al-Bayhaqi reported that: "Once, while 'Umar was on his way along with some Companions, he met a lady who asked him to stop. He immediately stopped and listened to her patiently with his head bent down. He did not move forward until she finished talking to him. One of the Companions asked him: 'O Commander of the Faithful, did you keep the Quraysh chief waiting only for the sake of this old woman?' He replied: 'Do you know who she is? She is Khawlah bint Tha 'labah whose supplication was heard from the seventh heaven. By Allah, had she detained me for the whole night, I would have waited for her, and I would have sought her leave only when it was time for the prayers."" In his al-Isti'āb, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr recounts the following report from Qatadah: "When Khawlah met 'Umar on the way, he greeted her. After returning his greeting, she said: 'O 'Umar, I had seen you long ago at the 'Ukāz festival. You were then called 'Umayr and you used to graze goats, carrying a stick in your hand. Then not very long after this you came to be known as Umar. Then a time came when the people began addressing you as Commander of the Faithful so you should fear Allah regarding those who are under your rule. Remember well, a God-fearing person treats even a stranger like his own kith and kin. As to the one who fears death, he is bound to lose his life which he tries hard to preserve."" Upon hearing this, Jārūd al-'Abdi, who was accompanying 'Umar, told her: "O woman, you have talked too much, and impertinently so, with the Commander of the Faithful." Thereupon 'Umar stopped him and said: "Let her to speak. Do you know who she is? Allah responded to her plea on high from the seventh heaven. Given this, I should have listened to her all the more attentively." Imam al- Bukhārī related a similar but abridged report in his Tārīkh.

3. It was common in Arabia at that time for a husband to say to his wife in the heat of quarrelling with her: "You are to me like the back of my mother," which meant that he was making a vow to abstain for good from having sexual intercourse with her, for this would be for him as odious as having sexual intercourse with his own mother. Even today, in the heat of anger during a family quarrel, some foolish people liken their wives to their mothers, sisters or daughters. In other words, they declare their wives to be forbidden for them, as they include them in the category of women with whom marriage is unlawful. This particular practice is called zihār. In Arabic zahr is metaphorically used for mounting a ride and, accordingly, animals used for transportation are called zahr in that one mounts them for riding. To express his utmost revulsion towards his wife, the irate husband used to exclaim that mounting her was as forbidden for him as is having sexual intercourse with his mother. In their terminology, this particular expression was called zihär For the Arabs of the pre-Islamic, pagan period, zihār meant the severance of all ties and this was looked upon as tantamount to a pronouncement of divorce. It meant that not only was the husband severing his marital relations with his wife but he was also declaring her to be unlawful for him as his own mother is and, hence, it was impossible to take her back (ruju) after the pronouncement of zihär.

4. The first divine pronouncement regarding zihār was: "What they say [i.e. declaring their wives to be like their own mothers] is highly contemptible and false" (verse 2). The Qur'an clarified that one's outburst, in which one likens one's wife to one's mother, cannot change the basic reality that one's wife cannot be forbidden for one in the same degree as one's mother is. That is because the woman who has given birth to one is one's only mother and, on the account of this fact, she is forbidden to one in marriage forever. By contrast, another woman who is not one's biological mother cannot become one's mother solely on the basis of one's statement that she is so. Reason, morality and the law do not and cannot support such an absurd statement and one's wife is not unlawful for one in the same degree as one's mother is. The above quoted Qur'ānic verse thus makes void the pre-Islamic practice of zihār which enacted divorce and placed the wife in the category of women with whom marriage was unlawful.

5. According to the Qur'an, likening one's wife to one's mother is, to start with, an absurd and shameful thing which cannot be even contemplated by any decent person let alone utter it, for such an outrageous statement is downright deplorable. Secondly, this statement also contains a falsehood, for if the person who says it is giving the news that his wife has become his mother, then he is uttering a falsehood; and if he is declaring that he has henceforth bestowed on his wife the sanctity of the mother, this claim is also false, for Allah has not given him the authority to treat a woman as his wife when he likes and then treat her as his mother when he likes. Allah Most High is the lawgiver, not him, and Allah has included in the category of motherhood the grandmothers, both paternal and maternal, the mothers-in-law, the foster-mothers and the Prophet's holy wives. No-one has the authority to add any other woman to this category. It is preposterous to include in this category a woman who has been one's wife. This provides the second legal injunction, which is to pronounce the zihār as a grave sin and a forbidden act and whoever violates it is liable to punishment.

6. The person who is guilty of zihār deserves a severe punishment. But it is of Allah's kindness that He has first annulled this practice of the pre-Islamic period, thus saving marital life from utter ruin and then He prescribed the lightest punishment for those who are guilty of it. And of His supreme kindness also is that the punishment for it is neither corporal nor involving imprisonment but rather an imposition of a few acts of worship and virtue which are meant to reform one and help spread goodness in society. In this connection, one should also understand that the acts of worship that have been prescribed by Islam as expiations for certain crimes and sins are neither mere punishments devoid of the spirit of worship nor mere acts of worship which do not entail the pain and suffering expected in a punishment. Rather, both aspects are combined so that the guilty person may experience pain and expiate his sin through performing a virtuous act or an act of worship.

7. This marks the beginning of Qur'ānic verses containing legal injunctions regarding the zihār. For its better understanding, it is necessary to keep in mind some specific cases of zihār that took place during the blessed era of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The detailed legal rulings on the zihār are deduced from the above revealed Qur'ānic verses and the Prophet's rulings on the cases brought before him.

'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas stated that the first case of zihar in the Islamic period was the one related to Aws ibn al-Ṣāmit al-Anṣārī. Allah revealed the above verses in response to the pleading of his wife Khawlah. There are several minor variations in the details of this case in the ḥadīths narrated by Hadith scholars. However, the operative parts that have a legal bearing are common to all the versions. The summary of these reports is as follows: Aws ibn al-Ṣamit had turned somewhat irritable in his old age, which was known as Lamam, and some reports indicate that at times he fell prey to fits of anger. In the pre-Islamic period, he had pronounced the zihār several times. However, when he pronounced the zihar after his acceptance of Islam, his wife reported the matter to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). She asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) whether there was any way out for her and her children for averting the disaster of divorce and leaving her and her children without support. The Prophet's reply has been reported variously by narrators. Some reports quote him saying: "I have not received so far any Divine Commandment regarding this issue." Some cite his reply as: "I think you are forbidden for him." Others are more categorical in reporting him saying: "You are forbidden for him." Upon hearing this she started crying and wailing. She repeatedly told the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that Aws has not uttered the word of divorce and that he should do something to save her, her children and her aged husband. However, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) kept repeating the same reply. Then he received Divine Revelations consisting of the above Qur'ānic verses. It was then that he told Khawlah or, according to some reports, summoned her husband, and directed him to free a slave. When he expressed his inability to do so, he told him to fast two months consecutively. Khawlah replied: "If Aws did not get three meals a day, his vision gets blurred." He then told her that Aws will have to feed sixty poor people. She replied that Aws did not have the means to do so and only the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) could rescue him. It was then that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gave him enough provisions to feed sixty people twice a day. Narrators differ on the quantity of provision given by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to her. Some reports indicate that Khawlah gave her husband out of the Prophet's donation the required quantity of provision (Ibn Jarir, Tafsir al-Tabari, 28, 6; Musnad Ahmad, ḥadīth No. 26774 and 26765; Abū Dāwūd, Kitab al-Talaq, Bāb fi al-Zihār, 2214; Ibn Abi Ḥātim).

The second incident of zihār concerns Salamah ibn Şakhr al-Bayāḍī. The latter had a strong sexual drive, and in order to avoid sexual intercourse with his wife in the daytime during the month of fasting, he pronounced the zihar on his wife for the whole month of Ramaḍān. However, unable to control himself, he had sex with his wife at night in that month. Repentant, he informed the Prophet (peace be upon him) of what he had done and, as a result, he was asked to free a slave. When he replied that he did not have anybody except his wife and did own a slave to free, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked him to fast two consecutive months. He replied that his family was so poor that they went sometimes to bed hungry. Upon hearing this, the Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) asked the Companion in charge of the Zakat of Banu Zurayq tribe to give him enough provision to feed sixty poor people as well as his own family. (Musnad of Imām Aḥmad; Abū Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Ṭalāq, Bāb fi al-Zihār, 2213; and Tirmidhi.)

The third incident relates to an anonymous person. It is reported that he pronounced the zihär and had sex with his wife before making an expiation (kaffarah). When he went to the Prophet to ask for his ruling on what happened, he asked him to keep away from his wife until he expiates his wrong. (Abū Dāwūd, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i and Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Talaq).

The fourth incident is as follows: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) heard someone saying to his wife that she was as his sister. Angrily the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked him if she was really his sister. However, the Prophet did not treat it as a case of zihār (Abū Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Talaq, 2210).

These are all the four authentic cases of zihār cited in the standard collections of Hadith, which allow to appreciate better the relevant Qur'anic rulings mentioned in the subsequent verses.

8. The relevant part of the Qur'anic verse reads: "Those who declare their wives to be their mothers and thereafter go back on what they have said" (verse 3). However, according to the Arabic idiom, this is open to several meanings, hence there is difference of opinion regarding the meaning of these words.

One of the possible meanings of the verse is the repetition of zihār, which is the interpretation of the Zahirīs, Bukayr ibn al-Ashajj, and Yaḥyā ibn Ziyad al-Farra'. According to one report, 'Ață' ibn Abi Rabāḥ also subscribed to this opinion. According to them, the pronouncement of the zihār just once is forgiven and only the one who is guilty of repeating it is required to make an expiation. This is clearly flawed on two counts. (i) Allah has described the zihār as something highly contemptible and false, and laid down a penalty for it. Given this, it is unthinkable that such a highly contemptible and false utterance be condoned and not be liable to punishment even if it is pronounced just once. (ii) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never asked those guilty of zihār whether they had pronounced it once or twice. The above interpretation is therefore incorrect for these two reasons.

The second meaning deduced by some scholars from the above verse is that this punishment is directed only at those who habitually resorted to zihār in their pre-Islamic days and then repeated the same after embracing Islam. What this means is that the zihār in itself is liable to punishment and whoever pronounces it must offer an expiation, whether he goes on to divorce his wife at a later stage or his wife dies, or he resolves to abstain from sexual relations with her. Among the jurists who champion this interpretation are Ṭāwūs, Mujahid, al-Sha'bī, al- Zuhrī, Sufyan al-Thawrī and Qatādah. According to them, if one's wife dies after the zihār, one cannot get one's due share of her inheritance unless one makes an expiation for the zihar.

The third interpretation is that the person guilty of pronouncing the words of zihār may wish to rescind his previous statement in order to offset its harmful effects.

The fourth meaning could be his wish to restore the lawfulness of his marital tie after pronouncing the zihār, which means rescinding the unlawful act he committed and resorting to what is lawful. Most of the jurists prefer the third and fourth interpretations.

9. This Qur'anic exhortation is by way of asking the members of the Muslim society to give up altogether this pre-Islamic, reprehensible practice. One should observe certain limits in one's marital disputes.

One may divorce one's wife if one is intent on it, but one should do so gracefully. It is deplorable to declare one's wife as one's mother or sister whenever one has a quarrel with her.

10. If someone resorts to the zihar of his wife without announcing it. He may also resume his conjugal relations with his wife at a later stage without atoning for the sin he had committed (through resorting to zihār). It is stressed here that no matter how hard the person concerned may try to conceal this from the rest of the world, God undoubtedly knows it and, hence, he will not escape His chastisement.

11. This is the Divine Commandment regarding the zihar. Its detailed stipulations deduced by the jurists from the Qur'ānic text, the Prophet's judgements on zihār cases and the general principles of Islam are as follows:

1. This law of zihār abrogates the Arab pre-Islamic custom according to which the marriage contract is annulled and the woman becomes permanently forbidden to the husband upon the pronouncement of zihar. Likewise, this law abolishes all those customs and rulings which upheld the zihār but lets the husband continue his conjugal relations with his wife after declaring her to be like his mother or like any other women who are forbidden for him to marry. This is because Islam is very sensitive about what is forbidden or unlawful and does not allow one to liken one's wife to a forbidden unmarriageable woman. Between these two extreme positions, Islamic law adopts a position based on three principles: (i) the marriage contract is not annulled by the zihār and even if the zihār is pronounced the wife remains married to her husband; (ii) the zihär renders the wife temporarily prohibited for her husband; and (iii) this prohibition lasts only until her husband atones for his pronouncement of zihār and his mere expiation removes the prohibition.

2. The zihār is admissible only if the husband is an adult and sane and his pronouncement takes place when he is in a right mental and physical state. The pronouncement of zihär by a minor or insane person is inadmissible. Likewise, the zihar is inadmissible if it is pronounced while one is mentally or physically unfit, such as pronouncing it during one's sleep or while being unconscious. While the above points are unanimously agreed upon by all jurists, there is nonetheless some difference of opinion amongst them regarding the following:

a. The majority of jurists, including those of all the four schools, maintain that the zihār is admissible if one knowingly takes an intoxicant and then pronounces it (zihār) while under its effect; and the same is true for pronouncing divorce. Since one has self-induced one's state of intoxication, one is legally responsible for one's action. However, if one becomes intoxicated by medicine containing alcoholic ingredients or is forced to drink wine to avoid dying from thirst, then one's zihār or divorce is not admissible. This is the opinion of the Ḥanafi, Shāfi and Ḥanbalī jurists, which was also the same stance generally taken by the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Contrary to them, the caliph 'Uthman held the view that the zihār or divorce in a state of intoxication is not admissible at all. Among the Hanafi jurists, Imam al-Taḥāwī and al-Karkhi have adopted this view and, according to one narration, Imam al-Shafi 'ï, too, adopted it. For the Mālikīs, one's zihār is admissible if one is not drunk altogether and has not completely lost one's senses, such that one is able to speak coherently and is aware of what one is saying.

b. According to Imām Abū Ḥanifah and Imam Malik, only the zihär pronounced by a Muslim husband is admissible as these injunctions do not apply to non-Muslim subjects under the protection of Muslims (dhimmis) and also because the relevant Qur'ānic command appears to be addressed to Muslims. Furthermore, one of the forms of expiating the zihār is fasting which does not apply to the dhimmīs.

However, Imam al-Shafi'i and Imām Aḥmad include both the Muslims and dhimmis in this command even if the latter do not have to fast, having the option to either free a slave or feed sixty poor people.

c. Can a woman pronounce the zihār just like men do? For example, if a woman announces that her husband has become to her the same as her father or brother, or declares herself to be the same as her husband's mother, will it be admitted as a zihār? All the jurists of the four schools rule out this form of zihar. Moreover, the legal injunctions of zihār do not apply to such a scenario at all as the Qur'ān explicitly refers to the zihār pronounced by the husband. Hence, only the one who has the power to divorce can pronounce the zihār. The Qur'ānic text is crystal clear on this: "Those who declare their wives to be their mothers" (verse 3). The Shari'ah does not allow women to pronounce either divorce or zihär. This is the stance of Sufyan al- Thawrī, Ishaq ibn Rāhawayh, Abū Thawr and al-Layth ibn Sa'd who maintain that the pronouncement of zihār by a woman is meaningless and null. Imām Abū Yūsuf added that a woman's zihār cannot come into force but she has to atone for it all the same as her utterance underscores her vow not to have any conjugal relations with her husband. Ibn Qudāmah cited the same legal ruling by Imam Aḥmad ibn Hanbal. Imam al-Awzā 'ī stated that if a woman says before her marriage that, were she to marry a certain person, he would be like her father to her, then such a pronouncement amounts to zihär. And if she utters a similar statement after her marriage, she will have to atone for it. By contrast, al-Hasan al-Baṣrī, al-Zuhri, Ibrahim al- Nakhai and Ḥasan ibn Ziyad al-Lu'lu'ï insist that such a woman's declaration is a zihār for which she must make an expiation. Moreover, she does not have the right to stop her husband from approaching her before she makes an expiation. To substantiate this stance, Ibrāhīm al-Nakha'i recounted the following incident: Muş'ab ibn al-Zubayr proposed to 'A'ishah, Talha's daughter, who turned him down, saying: "If I marry him, he would be for me like the back of my father," but after some time she agreed to marry him. When a ruling was sought from the ulema of Madinah, many of them, including some Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), ruled that she must atone for her zihār. After quoting this incident, Ibrāhīm al-Nakha'i said that had she uttered this statement after marriage, she would not have been obliged to atone for it. However, she said it before her marriage when she was free to choose or reject him as her husband and, therefore, atonement was mandatory for her.

3. A sane, adult person who explicitly pronounces the zihar while in good mental and physical health cannot use the pretext that he had uttered it in anger or jokingly or that he did not intend it. However, if he has not used precise and clear words and his ambivalent statement is open to other meanings, then a legal ruling will be issued while taking into consideration the wording of his utterance. We shall tackle later the question of the exact wording that constitutes admissible or inadmissible zihār.

4. It is a unanimous view that the zihār can only be pronounced regarding the woman who is one's wife. Opinions differ on the issue of the zihär pronounced regarding women who are not one's wives. The Hanafis hold that if a man says to a woman who is not his wife: "If I marry you, you will be for me like the back of my mother," and later on marries her, then he cannot touch her without offering an expiation. 'Umar has given a similar legal ruling. During his days someone said to a woman that if he married her she will be to him like the back of his mother but then married her. 'Umar decreed that he had to make an expiation for the zihar.

The Malikis and Hanbalis subscribe to the same view, with the additional clause that if one does not specify a woman and refers to all women, then one will have to offer an expiation before marrying any woman. This opinion was also adopted by Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, 'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, 'Aṭā' ibn Abi Rabāḥ, al- Hasan al-Baṣrī and Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh.

The Shafi'is maintain that the zihär before marriage is ineffective, an opinion also held by Ibn 'Abbās and Qatādah.

5. Can the zihār be for just a specific period of time? The Hanafis and the Shäfi 'is hold that if the husband specifies a certain period of time, then he has to make an expiation if he approaches his wife before the expiry of that period. After the expiry of that specified period of time, the zihār becomes ineffective. This opinion is deduced from the case of Salamah ibn Ṣakhr al-Bayāḍī who had pronounced the zihār upon his wife for the month of Ramaḍān and the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not tell him that the period specified by him was pointless. By contrast, Imam Malik and Ibn Abi Laylā maintain that the zihar is not confined to any time period, it applies to all times, for what has been declared as unlawful cannot become lawful on its own accord upon the expiry of a period of time.

6. If the zihār is conditional, then expiation (kaffarah) becomes incumbent whenever the condition is violated. For example, if a husband says to his wife: "If I enter the house, you will be like my mother's back for me," then every time he enters his house, it is forbidden for him to touch his wife until he first makes an expiation.

7. If the words of zihār are repeated several times to a wife, the Hanafis and Shāfi 'is maintain that the man may have repeated the words only to stress what he had said before. Contrary to this view, Imam Malik and Imām Aḥmad ibn Hanbal maintain that no matter how many times the words are repeated, only one single atonement is required, whether the zihār is repeated for emphasis or for any other reason. Al-Shabi, Tawūs, 'Aṭā' ibn Abi Rabāḥ, Hasan al-Baṣrī and al-Awzā ī subscribe to the above view. Hadrat 'Ali's ruling is that there is only one single atonement even if the zihär is repeated many times in a single sitting. However, there is atonement for each time one utters the zihār in different sittings. Qatādah and 'Amr ibn Dinār adopted the same opinion.

8. If one pronounces the zihār upon two or more wives simultaneously with a similar wording - for example if addressing them one says: "you are to me as the back of my mother" - the Ḥanafi and Shafi'ī opinion is that one will have to atone for each of his wives to make each of them lawful. This view is also ascribed to 'Umar, 'Ali, 'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, Tawūs, 'Aṭā', Hasan al-Başri, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhai, Sufyan al-Thawri and Ibn Shihab al-Zuhrī. Imām Mālik and Imām Aḥmad, however, were of the view that a single atonement suffices in this case. Rabi'ah, al-Awzā 'ī, Ishaq ibn Rāhawayh and Abū Thawr also held the same opinion.

9. If one commits zihār and makes an expiation for it but then does it again, one's wife is unlawful for him until one makes another expiation. This is a point upon which there is scholarly unanimity.

10. If one engages in intimate relations with one's wife before making an expiation, then one is committing a sin according to the jurists of all four schools. One should therefore seek Allah's forgiveness for this and not commit the same sin again even though one is required to make one single expiation because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) exhorted people who committed the same offence in his time to seek Allah's forgiveness and not touch their wives again until they had made an expiation. He did not impose on them any additional expiation apart from that of zihār. Nonetheless, 'Amr ibn al-'Āṣ, Qabīṣah ibn Dhu'ayb, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Zuhrï and Qatādah were of the view that this entails two expiations. Al-Hasan al-Baṣrī and Ibrāhīm al-Nakha 'i, on the other hand, were of the view that one should make an expiation three times. It is probable that the prophetic traditions in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gave his ruling on this matter did not reach these scholars.

11. The jurists have expressed different views on the issue of with whom exactly the husband likens his wife for a pronouncement to constitute a zihār.

'Amir Sha'bi was of the opinion that only likening her to his mother's back constitutes a zihār. The Zahirīs restrict it further to likening his wife to the back of his mother. However, in general, the jurists do not endorse the above views because the Qur'an condemns likening one's wife to one's mother as a highly contemptible and absurd thing to do. Given this, likening one's wife to any other unmarriageable relative is a sin which is identical to the sin of likening her to one's mother. Therefore, there is no reason why the commandment on that case should be different from the case of likening her to the mother.

According to the Hanafis, the command covers all those women who are permanently forbidden to men in marriage on account of lineage, fosterage or marital relationship. However, such women are not included in those who are temporarily prohibited through marriage and can become lawful were the situation to change, such as the sister of one's wife, her maternal and paternal aunts or any other woman who is not in his wedlock. The zihār also takes place when one likens one's wife to the body part of an unmarriageable women. However, one is not guilty of committing the zihār if one likens the hands, feet, head, hair and teeth, etc., of one's wife to the back, head, feet, hair and teeth, etc., of an unmarriageable woman, as it is not forbidden to look at these body parts of one's mother or sister. Likewise, saying to one's wife: "Your hand is like my mother's hand, or your foot is like my mother's foot" does not constitute a zihār.

The Shafi'is maintain that this command includes only those women who were and still are permanently unlawful for one to marry, i.e. one's mother, sisters and daughters, etc. However, not included in this category are those women who were lawful for one at some point of time, such as one's foster mother, foster sister, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, or such women who may become lawful at any time, such as one's sister-in-law. Apart from these temporarily prohibited women, the zihār is not upheld upon likening one's wife to such parts of the body of permanently prohibited women which are not normally mentioned out of reverence and respect. As for likening her to those parts which are mentioned out of reverence and respect, the zihār is upheld only when this is done with the intention of zihār. For instance, if a man says to his wife: "You are to me like my mother's eye or soul, or like my mother's hand or foot or belly," or he likens his wife's belly or breast to his mother's belly or breast, or says that his wife's head, back or hand is to him like his mother's head, back or hand, or says to his wife: "You are to me like my mother" - in all these cases the zihār stands if said with the intention of zihār, but if it is said with the intention of reverence, the zihār does not stand.

According to the Mālikīs, likening one's wife to any woman who is unmarriageable to one constitutes a zihār to the extent that this is upheld even if a man says to his wife "You are to me like the back of such-and-such woman." Moreover, it is said that it is an instance of zihār to liken any part of one's mother's body, or of a permanently prohibited woman's body, to one's wife or to any part of her body on condition that the likened parts are forbidden for one to look at, for it is forbidden for one to look at some body parts of one's mother, sister, etc., while one is allowed to look at the same body parts of one's wife.

The Hanbalis include in this all those women who are unmarriageable to one as well as those who were lawful to one at any particular point of time, such as one's mother-in-law and foster-mother. As for the women who may become lawful for one later, such as one's sister-in-law, one opinion of Imam Ahmad concerning them maintains that likening one's wife to them constitutes a zihār and a second opinion maintains that likening

one's wife to them does not constitute a zihär. The Hanbalis also subscribe to the view that the zihär is committed if one likens any body part of one's wife to the same body part of women who are unmarriageable to one. However, non-permanent parts such as the hair, nails and teeth, etc., are excluded from the above legal ruling.

12. All the jurists are unanimous that saying to one's wife: "You are to me like the back of my mother" constitutes a manifest zihār. Such was the customary zihār prevalent among the Arabs and the above Qur'anic command was revealed about this prevalent form. Muslim jurists nonetheless differ on the exact wording of the zihar which clearly falls under its prohibited form and which one is settled depending on the intention of the speaker.

The Ḥanafis hold the view that zihār is clearly committed when the husband explicitly likens his wife or her body parts to any woman who is forbidden for him to marry or to any of her body parts which are forbidden to look at. For example, if one says to one's wife that she is for one like the belly or thigh of any woman who is forbidden for one to marry, this represents a zihār. Any other words other than the above are disputed. According to Imām Abū Ḥanifah, a zihār is committed when the husband says to his wife: "You are to me like the back of my mother," for this is a plain zihār. However, Imām Abū Yusuf and Imām Muḥammad qualify the above with the provision that it is a zihār if it is said with the intention of zihar, but if it is said to pronounce divorce, then divorce takes effect. The standard Hanafi ruling is that one's intention decides whether it is a zihār, a revocable divorce or an irrevocable divorce. If the above statement is made without any specific intention, then it has no weight. Imam Muhammad, nonetheless, considers it a zihār. Likening one's wife to one's mother, sister or daughter is indecent; it is an act about which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had expressed his intense anger. Yet, he did not consider it a case of zihār. If one says: "You are forbidden to me like my mother is," one's intention behind saying so will be taken into account and whether it constitutes a zihār or a divorce is adjudged accordingly. However, if one says: "You are to me like my mother," once again, one's intention will be the deciding factor. It has to be ascertained whether one has said it intending zihār, divorce or respect and reverence. If one did not mean anything specific, Imam Abū Hanifah considers such a statement null and void. Imam Abū

Yusuf, however, is of the opinion that one has to atone for such a statement, but not for zihār, while Imam Muhammad considers even such a statement as an expression of zihār.

For the Shafi'is what constitutes express words of zihār is one's statement to one's wife: "You are to me like the back of my mother," or "your body is like that of my mother." For any other wordings, one's intention is taken into account.

According to the Hanbalis, if one likens any vital organ of one's wife's body to that of any woman who is forbidden for one to marry, it is considered an express zihār.

The Malikis' opinion shares the same in principle but they differ with other schools on its detailed rulings. Moreover, for the Mālikīs one's intention decides whether it is a case of zihār or divorce; and the Hanbalis, too, give pre-eminence to intention. According to the Mālikīs, one's statement to one's wife: "You are my mother," amounts to a zihär. The Hanbalis, however, are of the opinion that it is a zihar only if the above statement is said in a fit of anger. However, if one pronounces the same statement out of love and affection, it is not considered a zihār, though saying so is something indecent. If one says to one's wife: "You are divorced; you are like my mother," The Hanbalis consider this a case of divorce, not zihar. If one says: "You are to me like my mother and I divorce you," it is to be construed as both a pronouncement of divorce and a zihār. The Hanbalīs and Mālikis are of the view that one's statement to one's wife: "You are forbidden to me like my mother's back is," constitutes a zihār whether he intends a zihār or does not mean anything specific by saying so.

Let this clearly be understood that the above juristic discussion on zihār is centred on the wording of zihār in Arabic. It goes without saying that the people who speak other languages will not use Arabic while pronouncing the zihār. So, in deciding whether or not an utterance faithfully corresponds to the Arabic statement, the focus should be on the thrust of that pronouncement in any other language other than Arabic. If the husband likens his wife to any women who is forbidden for him to marry in a sexual context, then this should be taken into account. And that utterance should be studied in relation to the standard zihār pronouncement which is unanimously reported by the Qur'anic scholars and jurists. The Qur'ānic command is about the pronouncement of zihār in the following wording: "You are to me like my mother's back" (verse 1). In other languages one may not use the same exact wording that may constitute a literal translation of the Arabic sentence. However, one's statement may carry the same sense denoted by the Arabic original. The meaning of the Arabic sentence is: "To have sexual intercourse with you would be like having sexual intercourse with my mother," or as some ignorant person might say to his wife; "If I come inside you, I would be coming inside my own mother."

13. In the Qur'an what has been mentioned as entailing an expiation (kaffarah) is not the mere zihār but one's "returning" ('awad) after the zihär. If a man only pronounces the words of zihār and does not "return" ('awad)," he does not have to make an expiation. Now the question is: What is this 'awad (returning) that entails an expiation? In this respect the jurists have held the following opinions:

According to the Hanafis, "awad" signifies one's intention for sexual intercourse. This does not, however, mean that one has to make expiation just for one's intention. No expiation is due unless one acts in such manner. What is meant is that the person who has committed the zihār should first make an expiation in order to remove the prohibition which he had imposed upon himself regarding sexual intercourse with his wife. Without expiation this prohibition cannot be lifted.

Three opinions on this issue are attributed to Imām Mālik. According to the Mālikīs, the most well-known and authentic opinion is identical with the above Hanafi stance. It stipulates that what the man had made unlawful for himself by zihār is sexual relation with his wife and 'awad means that he should return to re-establish the same relation with her.

Imām Aḥmad ibn Hanbal, as reported by Imam Ibn Qudāmah, subscribes to almost the same Ḥanafi and Mālikī opinion. For him, atonement is a prerequisite for resuming conjugal relations after the zihar. By doing so, the one who committed the zihār wants to make it lawful and return from the prohibition. Therefore, he is asked to make an expiation before making it lawful for himself, precisely like any man who wants to make any other woman lawful for him has to marry her before she could be lawful for him.

Imam al-Shāfiī, however, has a different opinion. For him, retaining one's wife after pronouncing the zihār is an 'awad which calls for an expiation, for zihār amounts to one's decision to abstain from any conjugal relations with her and not keeping her as one's wife. Hence, if one does not immediately divorce her after the zihār and retain her for the period of time in which one can pronounce divorce, one is obliged to make an expiation. In other words, if one does not pronounce both the zihār and divorce simultaneously, one has committed an 'awad and the expiation becomes incumbent upon him. It does not matter whether or not one decides later on against keeping her as one's wife and not have conjugal relations with her. Even if one divorces her a few minutes after pronouncing the zihār, one would still have to make an expiation according to Imam al-Shafi'i.

14. The Qur'anic command is that the pronouncer of zihār must make an expiation before the two (the husband and the wife) "touch" each other. The jurists of all four schools agree that the Qur'ānic command entails that not only is sexual intercourse prohibited before making an expiation but it is also prohibited for the husband to touch her in any way. Imām al-Shafi'i, however, takes this to mean that what is prohibited is only touching her lustfully. The Ḥanbalīs regard any kind of pleasure-seeking as forbidden while the Malikīs insist that the husband is not even allowed to look at the body of his wife for the sake of pleasure. However, according to them, looking at her face and hands is not forbidden.

15. If the husband divorces his wife after pronouncing the zihar, he cannot touch her without making an expiation in the case of a revocable divorce. In the case of an irrevocable divorce, if he remarries her later on [after she becomes lawful for him again], he still has to make an expiation before he could touch her. This is because he had made her unlawful for himself and, without making an expiation, her lawfulness cannot be restored since he is guilty of likening her to his mother or other women whose marriage is forbidden for him. All the four Imāms agree about this.

16. It is incumbent upon the wife not to let her husband approach her until he atones for the zihār committed by him regarding her. And if he does not make an expiation, she may go to the court as she is entitled to conjugal rights, of which she is deprived due to her husband's zihār. The court will compel him to make an expiation which will restore her being lawful for him. If he

still fails to make an expiation, the court can imprison, lash him or impose on him both of these punishments. The above ruling is agreed upon by the jurists of all the four schools. The only divergence of opinion among them is that the Hanafi School prescribes it as the only way out, irrespective of the duration of the zihar. And if the court does not provide her with any solution, she will face a lifelong suspended marital status as the zihār does not annul her marriage but only forfeits her husband's right to have conjugal relations with her. The Mälikīs are of the view that if the husband leaves her in the state of zihar to torture her, then the rulings relating to ila' come into force (TUQ, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. 1, Surah al-Baqarah 2: nn. 245-247). The Shafi'i position is that the rulings on ila' are effective only if the husband commits the zihār for a particular period, not exceeding four months because, according to them, the expiation becomes incumbent upon the husband from the very moment he keeps her as his wife, as it is not possible to keep her suspended indefinitely, and the rulings of ila' mean that he cannot keep her suspended for more than four months.

17. The Qur'an and Sunnah's express command is that the first form of expiation for the zihār is to free a slave. If one is unable to afford this, one may offer an expiation by way of fasting two consecutive months. If one is unable to do even this, then one may feed sixty poor people. However, if one is unable to offer an expiation in any of the above three ways, one will have to wait until one has the means to do so because the Shari'ah has not prescribed any other form of expiation. It is nonetheless clear from the Sunnah that one who finds oneself in such a predicament should be helped out to feed sixty people. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) helped out from the public treasury those who were caught in this awkward situation, by a mistake of their own, and then were helpless to make an expiation in any of the three prescribed ways.

18. The Qur'an requires that a slave be freed. One may therefore free either a male or female slave without any restriction on age. Freeing a baby slave also suffices as an expiation. The jurists, however, differ on whether or not it is allowed to free both believing and unbelieving slaves. The Ḥanafis and the Zahirīs allow either because the Qur'an prescribes only the freeing of a slave, without specifying that he or she be a believing one. By contrast, the Shafi 'īs, Ḥanbalīs and Mālikīs insist on freeing only a believing slave. They consider this ruling to be analogous to the other expiations in which the release of a slave (raqabah) is made conditional on his or her being a believer.

19. If one is unable to free a slave, the Qur'an enjoins one to fast for two consecutive months, before the couple are allowed to touch each other. As for the details of acting on this Divine Command, the opinions of the different juristic schools are as follows:

a. The unanimous view is that the reference is to the lunar months. If one commences fasting on the 1st of the month, one should fast uninterruptedly for two lunar months. However, the Hanafi and Ḥanbali jurists state that if one starts in the middle of any other month, then one must fast for sixty days. For the Shafi is, one should fast for thirty days in the first month and for twenty-nine or thirty days in the second month, depending on the visibility of the moon and whether the month is 29 or 30 days.

b. The Hanafi and Shāfi i jurists recommend that one should not commence the fasting in a period coinciding with Ramaḍān, the two 'Ids or days of tashriq (10th to 13th of Dhu'l-Hijjah), for one's non-observance of fasting in these days disturbs the cycle of fasting two consecutive months, which would compel one to fast afresh on account of any break. The Hanbalis, however, hold that one's fasting during Ramaḍān and not fasting on the days in which it is forbidden to fast do not break the uninterruptedness of one's fast.

c. According to the Hanafi and Shafi'ī schools, there is an

interruption if one fails to fast without any valid reason, and hence one must fast afresh for two consecutive months. This is the opinion of Imām Muḥammad al-Bāqir, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhai, Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Sufyan al-Thawrī. Imām Mālik and Imam Ahmad, however, excuse the existence of a break if it is due to one's illness or journey as, for them, this does not entail a real break, but if one does not fast for a valid reason, then there is a break. They also argue that the fasting for expiation is not more important than the fasting of Ramaḍān. And since one may skip the fasting during Ramaḍān, one may also do so in the fasting of expiation. This opinion is held by 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbās, al-Hasan al- Baṣrī, 'Aṭā' ibn Abī Rabāḥ, Sa‍īd ibn al-Musayyib, 'Amr ibn Dinar, al-Sha bi, Tawūs, Mujahid, Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh, Abū 'Ubayd and Abū Thawr.

d. If, in the two-month period, the husband has sexual intercourse with his wife on whom he had pronounced the zihār, all the Imams are of the opinion that he has to begin fasting afresh for the Qur'anic command stipulates fasting two successive months before he could touch his wife.

20. According to the Qur'an and Sunnah, the third type of expiation, i.e. feeding sixty poor people, may be done by the one who is unable to fast two consecutive months. The details of acting on this command as worked out by the jurists are as follows:

a. One's inability to fast may be due to old age, illness or lack of self-control over having sexual intercourse for two consecutive months. The above three grounds are validated by the hadith concerning Aws ibn al-Ṣāmit al-Anṣārï and Salamah ibn Sakhr al-Bayāḍī. The jurists, however, differ among themselves regarding the nature of illness that constitutes a valid excuse. The Hanafis accept only those illnesses that are curable or those that may be aggravated by fasting. The Shafi'is, however, interpret this in the sense that it one fears for one's health, were one not to refrain from fasting, then one's excuse is tenable. The Malikīs hold that if one thinks that one's health is likely to improve, one may defer fasting. However, if one strongly feels that one will not get better, then one should feed the poor. The Hanbali stance is that the ground for fearing the worsening of one's disease by fasting is tenable.

b. Food can be given only to the poor (masākīn) whose maintenance is not the obligated responsibility of the man concerned with expiation.

c. The Ḥanafis stipulate that both Muslim and non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state (dhimmis) can be fed but combatant unbelievers and those unbelievers enjoying an amnesty with the Muslims are not. The Mālikīs, Shāfi 'is and Hanbalis insist that only poor Muslims are fed.

d. The unanimous view is that the reference is to feed the poor two meals a day which fill the stomach. However, there is some disagreement on its forms. For the Ḥanafis, this is done by providing cooked meals twice a day or through offering sufficient grain to meet the food requirement of a needy person twice a day. This is because the Qur'an has used the word it'ām, which means both to provide food and to feed. However, the Mālikīs, Shafi'is and Hanbalis do not allow offering cooked meals and insist on giving grains, and such grains should be the local staple food in that city or area. All the poor should get an equal share.

e. The Ḥanafis allow that a single poor person be fed for sixty days but they don't allow giving him enough food for sixty days on the one and same day. The other three juristic schools contest the Hanafi position of feeding one single person for sixty days. No school of law allows providing food for sixty people at one time and for another sixty at another time.

f. No 'school of law allows fasting for thirty days and then feeding thirty poor people, as these two different forms of expiation cannot be combined. One should fast two consecutive months or feed sixty poor people.

g. Although the Qur'an does not stipulate that the feeding of the poor be carried out before the couple touch each other, the context requires that this restriction also applies to this third kind of expiation. All the jurists of the four schools therefore do not condone one's approaching one's wife before the feeding of the poor is completed. However, the Hanbalis state that one who does so will have to feed sixty poor people again. The Ḥanafi jurists nonetheless condone it for the Qur'an does not forbid the couple from touching each other in the case of the third form of expiation as there is no mention in the Qur'an of "min qabli an-yatamāssā" [before the two touch each other] and this provides a basis for the concession.

The above rulings are gleaned from the following sources: The Hanafi school: al-Hidayah, Fath al-Qadir, Bada'i' al-Sana'i, al- Jaṣṣāṣ's Aḥkām al-Qur'ān; the Shafi'i school: al-Minhaj together with Sharh Mughnī al-Muḥtāj and al-Tafsir al-Kabir; the Mālikī school: Ḥashiyat al-Dasūqī ‘alā al-Sharḥ al-Kabir, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid and Ibn al-'Arabi's Aḥkām al-Qur'ān; the Ḥanbali School: Ibn Qudamah's al-Mughni; and the Zahiri Fiqh: Ibn Hazm's al- Muḥallä.

12. Here, 'to embrace Islam' means to adopt the attitude of a true and sincere believer. It is evident that the verse is not addressed to the pagans and polytheists. It is directed to the Muslims who had already affirmed the Faith; they are given a Shari'ah command, followed by the assertion that this command is given to them so that they may have belief in God and His Messenger. It clearly means that one who clings to the old customs of pre-Islamic paganism, even after listening to this Divine Command, is acting in a way which is contradictory to one's profession of faith. It does not befit a believer to disregard the law that God and His Messenger have prescribed for him with regard to some aspects of life and opt for another man-made law, thus following his own whims and desires.

13. Here, the "unbelievers" does not mean the deniers of God and His Prophet. Rather, it refers to those people who, notwithstanding their affirmation and declaration of belief in God and His Messenger, adopt the attitude and conduct of the disbelievers. In other words, it means that, even after listening to the command of God and His Messenger, they go on following their own whims and the pre-Islamic ways; for had they adhered to sincere behaviour, they would never adopt such an attitude. The same point has been made after the declaration of Hajj in Sūrah Āl Imrān: "As for those who disbelieve in His command (i.e. refuse to obey His command), surely God stands in need of no one in the whole universe” (Äl 'Imrān 3:97). In both these instances, the word "kufr" in the sense of denial does not refer to the one who continues marital relations with his wife even after doing the zihār and without expiating for it nor does it refer to the one who thinks that the zihār constitutes a divorce. Likewise, it does not apply to the one who does not perform the Hajj even though he has the means to do so. Each one of them will not be declared an unbeliever or an apostate by a judge or religious court or regarded by the Muslims as an excommunicated person. What it means is that, in the sight of God, they are not counted among the believers those who reject His commandments by word or deed or care the least about knowing the boundaries set by their Lord for them, or what He has forbidden and made compulsory (fard), what He has made lawful and unlawful.

14. The meaning of "opposing" is not accepting the boundaries set by God and, instead of this, setting some other boundaries (for themselves). Commenting on this verse, Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī states: "That is the people who oppose God's boundaries and the obligations enjoined by Him and instead set for themselves some other boundaries." Al-Bayḍāwī has given this explanation for it: "That they show hostility towards God and His Messenger and dispute with them or set other boundaries for themselves or adopt the boundaries set by others." In his Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, al-Alūsi endorses the above explanation of al-Bayḍāwī and cites Shaykh al-Islām Sa'dullah al-Jalabi's following statement: "In this verse a grim warning is given against those kings and sinful rulers who frame many such rules as are opposed to the boundaries set by the Shari'ah and yet consider these part of the law." At this juncture, al-Ālūsī compares the constitutional position of such enacted laws with Shari'ah laws and, after discussing this issue at length, he points out:

There is no doubt at all in the disbelief of the person who regards his law as commendable and superior to the Shari'ah or that it is more pragmatic and better suited to the genius of the people. And when the Shari'ah injunction in a particular matter is pointed out to him, he acts very angrily as we have seen from some of those who are under the curse of God.

15. The expression kabt features in the Qur'anic text and means humiliation, destruction, being cursed, falling from grace, being expelled ignobly and being put to shame. What God means here is that the communities of former messengers who resisted God and His messengers and rebelled against His commandments have already met their doom. Now those among the Muslims who adopt the same attitude in life will also meet with the same evil end. When people enact their own laws in opposition to God's Shari'ah or adopt laws legislated by others, they deprive themselves of God's grace and mercy. Consequently, their lives are vitiated by deviations, iniquities and moral and socio-cultural evils which culminate in their fall and humiliation even in this world. If the same error is now committed by the community of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), there is no reason why it will continue to enjoy God's favour or remain protected from a disgraceful destruction forever. God did not have any enmity towards the communities of His earlier messengers, nor has He any special relationship with the community of this messenger.

16. A little consideration of the context shows that two punishments for this attitude have been mentioned here: (1) Kabt, i.e. humiliation and disgrace, which already overtook them in this world and will overtake them again; (2) adhab muhin, the humiliating punishment which will happen in the life to come.

17. Their forgetfulness does not mean that it is the end of the matter altogether. For them, the disobedience of God or the violation of His commands may seem an ordinary occurrence which will be easily forgotten after committing it. They may not even regard it as something objectionable, which needs to be avoided and, thus, may disregard it completely. However, this is not a minor issue at all in the sight of God, as each and every misdeed of theirs has been noted down with Him. His Register contains a full record of every person's deeds: when and where they were done; his own reaction to them after they were done; their consequences and how far and in what form they appeared and spread in the world.

18. From here up to verse 10, the hypocrites are condemned for their continuous misconduct in Muslim society. Although they were part of the Muslim community in appearance, they had secretly formed their own separate group within the community apart from the believers. The Muslims never saw them except that they were secretly whispering together and that is how they conspired and made all sorts of plans to create rifts in the ranks of the Muslims, cause them harm and spread all kinds of mischief.

19. This raises the question of why the usual order of two and three did not precede three and five. Why were the numbers two and four left out? The Qur'ānic commentators have offered many answers to this question but, in our opinion, this style has been followed in order to maintain the literary beauty of the Qur'an. In any case, whether those engaged in whispering are fewer than three or more than five, God is always with them.

20. That God is with them, in fact, asserts that the All-Glorious God is All-Knowing, All-Aware, All-Hearing, All-Seeing and absolute in His power. This does not imply, God forbid, that He is a person who is secretly and invisibly present among the five persons as a sixth associate. The above Qur'anic assertion here is to make people realise that, no matter in what secure and hidden place they may be holding their secret counsels, and no matter how well they can conceal their plans from the world, they cannot keep them concealed from God. Moreover, they can escape from all the powers in the world but they cannot escape the grasp of God.

21. This is clear from the above that, before the revelation of this verse, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had warned these people against such misconduct. However, as they did not mend their ways, God directly revealed this verse which includes His warning for such people and His anger towards them.

22. This practice was common among the Jews and hypocrites. According to several traditions, some Jews came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and said: "Al-sām 'alayka yā abā'l-Qāsim." They pronounced al-sām ‘alayka in such a way as to make people think that they were pronouncing the customary Islamic greeting al-salām 'alayka, but in fact they used the word sām which means death. To this the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: "Wa 'alaykum." 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) could not control herself and replied to them: "Death be upon you as well as God's curse and disgrace." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) reprimanded her, saying: "O 'A'ishah, God does not approve of offensive words." 'Ã'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) submitted but said: "O Messenger of Allah, did you not hear what they said?" He replied: "And did you not hear what reply I gave to them?" I told them: "And the same be upon you." (Bukhārī, Muslim, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn Abi Ḥātim). 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas stated that both the hypocrites and Jews had adopted this mode of greeting (Ibn Jarir).

23. They thought that their statements mean that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not a genuine messenger of God. For they believed that if he were a true messenger of God, they would have been instantly subjected to Divine Punishment on account of their mischievous greeting. But since they were not chastised when they greeted him like that day and night, they thought he could not possibly be a genuine messenger of God.

24. This means that najwa (secret conference) is not forbidden in and by itself. Its lawfulness or otherwise depends on the conduct of those who are holding it, the circumstances under which it is held and also its nature. A confidential conference cannot give rise to the misperception that mischief is being planned when it is held by people whose sincerity, truthfulness and purity of character and conduct are well- known in society. By contrast, the whispering, secret consultations and surreptitious activities of people of evil character may raise suspicion that they are engaged in a conspiracy. Likewise, it is not blameworthy for people to have occasional talks with each other in secret to discuss some matters. However, when such secret discussions are held by certain groups of people who have formed a gang, and are known for their habitual secret campaigns against the Muslim community, then this can indeed be taken as a prelude to some mischief. If nothing else, one of the greatest harms caused by such a conduct is serious division among Muslims. More importantly, what determines the lawfulness or otherwise of secret deliberations is their agenda. If two people confer with one another secretly in order to resolve a dispute, restore a person's right or promote a noble cause, then there is no harm in it. In fact, such a secret conferring is a noble deed and an act of virtue. But if secret deliberations are for sowing discord, depriving someone of his right or for committing a sin, then it is evidently an evil act.

In this connection, the Prophet's directives for social etiquette are: "When three people are sitting together, no two of them should whisper to each other for this would cause anguish to the third person" (Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Isti'dhān, 47; Muslim, Kitāb al-Salām, 37 and 38; Musnad Aḥmad, Tirmidhi, Kitāb al-Adab, 59; Abū Dāwūd, Kitāb al-Isti’dhan, 28. The other ḥadīth is as follows: "Two persons should not whisper to each other without taking the third person's permission. Otherwise, this would cause him anguish" (Muslim). Secret talk refers to whispering or using a coded language by two people in the presence of a third who does not understand what is going on. Even more objectionable is that they look towards the third person while whispering or gesticulating in a manner which suggests he is the topic of their discussion.

25. This has been said so that if any Muslim sees people whispering and this makes him doubt that their whispering is against him, he should not feel so offended as to start planning a counter attack on the basis of mere suspicion or begin harbouring any grief, vengeance or undue concern in his heart. He should have the conviction that no one can harm him without God's leave. This conviction will strengthen his heart so much so that he will be able to overcome all baseless apprehensions and imagined threats. It will also enable him to focus on his mission with peace and tranquillity, leaving aside evil people. The believer who places his trust in God is neither a faint-hearted person, whose peace of mind is disturbed by every doubt and suspicion, nor a shallow and mean-minded individual who loses his coolness when confronted by evildoers such that he starts behaving in an unjust manner himself.

26. This has been explained above in the introduction to this Surah. Some Qur'anic commentators restrict this command to the Prophet's assemblies but, as pointed out by Imam Malik, the correct view is that this is a general instruction for the assemblies held by Muslims. Thus, the truth is that it is a general directive applicable to all the gatherings of Muslims. One of the norms of decent behaviour, which God and His Messenger have taught the Muslims, is that when any newcomer arrives, those sitting in an assembly should show deference to him and squeeze in together as far as possible to make room for him. On the other hand, the newcomer is also required to act with restraint and not forcibly press his way into their assembly nor should he try to occupy other people's place and thus make them leave the assembly. 'Abdullāh ibn 'Umar and Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) advised: "No one should make anyone leave an assembly by occupying his seat. Rather, you should make room for one another" (Musnad of Imam Ahmad, 5, 48 and 2, 17 and 102; al-Darimī, Kitab al-Isti'dhan, 24; Bukhārī and Muslim). According to 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "It is not permissible for anyone to sit forcibly between two people without their permission" (Musnad of Imam Ahmad, 2, 213 and 5, 177; Abū Dawūd, Kitāb al-Adab, 21; and al-Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Adab, 11).

27. 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam relates: "People used to sit for long in the Prophet's assembly. It was their desire to sit there until the end. This often caused the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) inconvenience and discomfort and he was not able to properly rest and his other assignments were also affected. Against this background, the above command was revealed so that they would get up and leave when they are asked to do so" (Ibn Jarir and Ibn Kathir).

28. They should not think that their rank would be diminished if they make room for others in the Prophet's assembly or sit at some distance from him. Likewise, there is nothing humiliating for them about the directive to leave once the assembly is over. High rank is attained by dint of one's faith and knowledge and has nothing to do with sitting next to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in an assembly or the extent of keeping his company. The person of excellent rank is the one who is blessed with more knowledge and stronger faith. Likewise, it is a display of bad manners to keep the company of the Prophet for a long time and subsequently cause him inconvenience and discomfort. One will not attain any rank solely on the ground of having an opportunity to sit for a long time with him. In the sight of God, he has a much higher rank him who gains faith and knowledge from the Prophet's company and then adorns himself with the conduct which befits the Muslim.

29. 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbās mentions the reason which occasioned this injunction. It was occasioned when people had begun requesting the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to grant them private audiences too frequently without genuine reasons which caused him great inconvenience. Eventually, God decided to relieve His Prophet of this burden (Ibn Jarir). Zayd ibn Aslam informs that when one of them sought a private audience with the Prophet, he did not turn down his request and, thus, everyone felt free to approach him and make this request and he readily granted them the opportunity. In many instances, though, they put him through this trouble when there was no need for a private audience. This was the time when the whole of Arabia was in war with Madinah. At times, someone would whisper something and then Satan spread the rumour that he had brought news about a military attack by such and such tribe which led to the circulation of rumours in Madinah. Moreover, such acts on their part gave the hypocrites an opportunity to brand the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as a credulous person who listened to everyone and believed whatever anyone told him. In view of these considerations, God imposed a restriction according to which anyone seeking a private audience with him first had to give something in charity (Ibn al-'Arabi, Aḥkām al-Qur'an). According to Qatadah, some people sought a private audience with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in order to make a show of their superiority to others.

'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) reports: "When this command was imposed, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked me about the amount that should be fixed for giving in charity: Should it be one dinār? I replied: "This is beyond the means of people.' Then he asked: "Should it be half a dinār?" Again, I gave the same reply that it was too much. He then asked me to specify an amount to which I replied: 'A grain weight of gold,' upon which the Prophet remarked: 'Your suggestion amounts to a very small sum' (Ibn Jarir, Tirmidhi, Musnad of Abū Ya'la). In another tradition 'Ali states: "This is the Qur'anic verse upon which no one has acted except me. As soon as it was enjoined, I gave something to charity and sought the Prophet's ruling on this issue" (Ibn Jarir, al-Hakim, Ibn al-Mundhir and 'Abd ibn Humayd).

30. This is the second injunction that was revealed sometime after the first one. The second injunction abrogated the first injunction which had made it mandatory to give something in charity before having a private audience with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). There is disagreement, however, about how long the first injunction remained in force. Qatādah says that it remained in force for less than a day after which it was abrogated. On the other hand, Muqātil ibn Ḥayyan says that it remained in force for ten days, which is the longest period mentioned in any tradition.

31. The reference is to the Madīnan Jews who were befriended by the hypocrites.

32. They do not have sincere ties with either the believers or the Jews. Their relations with both are based only on their selfish interests.

33. They assert that they have accepted the faith (īmān), recognise the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as their guide and leader and are faithful to Islam and the Muslims.

34. What is meant is that, on the one hand, they swear oaths to prove their faith and fidelity in order to make the Muslims believe that they belong to them and, on the other hand, they keep sowing doubts and suspicions in the hearts of people against Islam, the followers of Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to turn them away from Islam in disgust, taking their words to be a true inside picture of Islam and that something must be wrong and this is why some insiders are informing of what is happening within.

35. They do not feel it is enough to swear false oaths in this world before their fellow human beings because they will also swear false oaths before God (exalted and magnified is He) on the Day of Judgement. They are steeped in falsehood and deception so much that they will not give it up even after their death.

36. For details see: Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. 4, Sürah al-Ṣäffat 37: n.93.

37. Two points are pressed home in this verse: (1) one matter of principle and (2) one statement of fact. In the former (the matter of principle), it is stated that belief in the true faith and love for the enemies of true faith are two contradictions which cannot conceivably co-exist. It is absolutely impossible for love of the true faith and love of the enemies of God and His Messenger to co-exist in one and the same heart, just as a person's love for himself and his love for his enemies cannot coexist in his heart simultaneously. This is as if one says: If you see people who profess the faith and at the same time keep a relationship with the opponents of Islam, then they should look at themselves and consider their position well to see who they actually are. Are they believers or hypocrites? And what do they actually want to be? Do they want to live as believers or as hypocrites? If they have any righteousness left in them and any feeling that, from the moral viewpoint, hypocrisy is the meanest attitude for a human being to adopt, they should give up their attempt to ride in two boats simultaneously. Faith wants them to be decisive. If they want to remain believers, they should sever and sacrifice all those connections that clash with their relationship with Islam. If they prefer any other relation and deem it dearer to them than their relationship with Islam, then it would be better that they give up their false claim of faith.

The above point is made by way of setting a matter of principle, but it has also presented the actual fact as a model before those who profess the Islamic faith. However, God does not confine Himself with stating this principle and cites this truth as an eye opener for those who claim to be believers. God states that the true believers did publicly sever all those ties which obstructed their relationship with God's religion. The whole of Arabia had witnessed this spectacle at the battles of Badr and Uḥud. The Companions who had migrated from Makkah fought against their own tribe and their closest kith and kin only for the sake of God and His religion. Abū Ubaydah killed his own father, 'Abdullah ibn al-Jarrah; Muş'ab ibn 'Umayr killed his brother, 'Ubayd ibn Umayr; 'Umar killed his maternal uncle, al-'As ibn Hisham ibn al-Mughirah; and Abu Bakr was on the verge of fighting against his son, 'Abd al- Rahman. Likewise, 'Ali, Hamzah and 'Ubaydah ibn al-Ḥārith killed Utbah, Shaybah and al-Walid ibn 'Utbah who were their close relatives. Regarding the prisoners captured at the battle of Badr, Umar suggested to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that all of them should be put to death and all the Muslims should behead their own kith and kin. At the battle of Badr, Muş'ab ibn 'Umayr's real brother, Abū ‘Aziz ibn 'Umayr was captured and tied by a Companion from the Anṣār. On noticing this, he asked that he be tied securely, saying: "His mother is a very wealthy woman and she will pay you a very handsome ransom for his release." Upon hearing this, Abū ‘Azīz said: "You say this even though you are my brother," to which Mus 'ab replied: "At this time you are not my brother, rather this Anṣārī who is tying you is my brother."

At the same battle, the Prophet's son-in-law, Abu'l-'As, was imprisoned but he was not treated differently on account of his relationship with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). He received the same treatment which was meted out to other prisoners. Thus, the world was made a witness to this actual fact and shown the character of the sincere Muslims and their profound relationship with God and His religion.

On the authority of Mu'adh, al-Daylamï reported the following supplication of the Prophet: "O God, let not any wicked person (sinful person, in another narration) do me a favour which may invoke in my heart his love in any degree. For I have also noted this in Your revelation that You will not find those who believe in God and the Day of Judgement have any love for the enemies of God and His Messenger."