Verse:232 Commentary Rules of the remarriage of the divorced women

The second verse stops the unjust treatment meted out to divorced women, that is, they are discouraged to marry again. In some cases the first husband generally opposes the idea of his divorced wife marrying someone else and considers this to be a violation of his honour. In some families, even guardians of the divorced woman stop her from marrying a second time -- some of them often do that out of greed hoping to let her marry only when there is some financial gain for them. There are times when the divorced woman agrees to remarry her former husband but the guardians and relatives develop a sort of hostility towards him after the incident of divorce. As such, they oppose their remarriage even after both of them agree to it. Stopping free women, without any valid reason admitted by Islamic law, from marrying at their choice, is a grave injustice whether it comes from the former husband or from the guardians of the woman. This injustice has been prevented through this verse.

This verse was revealed in the background of an incident of this nature. It appears in Sahih al-Bukhari that Sayyidna Ma'qil ibn Yasar

رضی اللہ تعالیٰ عنہ had given his sister in marriage to someone. He divorced her and the period of ` iddah expired as well. Following that, this man was sorry for what he did and wished to remarry her. His wife, that is, the sister of Ma'qil ibn Yasar ؓ also agreed to it. When this man talked to Ma'qil about it, he said, of course, in anger against the man's act of divorce: 'I did you an honour. I gave you the hand of my sister and you did this to me. You divorced her. Now you have come again to me so that I can let you marry her once again. By Allah, she will not go back in your nikah now.'

There was another incident concerning a cousin of Sayyidna Jabir

ibn ` Abdullah ؓ similar to the one above. Thereupon, this verse was revealed in which the approach of Ma'qil and Jabir ؓ was declared to be undesirable and impermissible.

The noble Sahabah (Companions) were true lovers of Allah Almighty and His Messenger g . Such was the beneficence of the verse that Ma'qil ibn Yasar's anger cooled down as he heard it. He himself went to his former brother-in-law and gave his sister in his marriage once again and then gave kaffarah کَفَّارہ (expiation) for his oath. Similarly, Jabir also carried out the instruction.

Keeping in view the form of address used here, this verse includes husbands who have given a divorce as well as the guardians of the women. Both have been commanded: فَلَا تَعْضُلُوهُنَّ أَن يَنكِحْنَ أَزْوَاجَهُنَّ إِذَا تَرَ‌اضَوْا بَيْنَهُم بِالْمَعْرُ‌وفِ is, 'do not prevent them from marrying their husbands when they mutually agree with fairness.' They may even be their previous husbands who had divorced them or they may be others. But a condition has been imposed here which is: بِالْمَعْرُ‌وفِ تَرَ‌اضَوْا بَيْنَهُم ، that is, 'when they mutually agree with fairness.' It means: When a man and woman agree to marry in accordance with the rules set by the Shari'ah, then, do not stop them from getting married. Here it was hinted that the absence of an agreement between the two, or compulsion from any quarter, is a valid reason for people around to stop them. Or, it may be that there is mutual agreement of the couple but it is not in accordance with the method prescribed by the Shari'ah. For instance, the couple may agree to live together without marrying; or may, in be-tween them, enter into a new nikah illegitimately after three talaqs. Still more, should there be an intention to marry another husband during the period of ` iddah, every Muslim, especially those closely related to the man and woman concerned, have a right to stop them from doing so. In fact, it is wajib or obligatory to stop them within the limits of one's ability.

Similarly, if a girl wishes to marry outside her kaf (کفو : equal, like) without the permission of her guardians, or wishes to enter into nikah (marriage) on a dower which is less than her mahr al-mithl (a dower approximately similar to the one customary in her family) then this affects the family. Since she has no right to do this, her consent is also not in accordance with the method prescribed by the SharT'ah. In this situation, the guardians of the girl have a right to stop her from this marriage. However, the words :'When they mutually agree' do point out that a sane and pubert girl cannot be given in marriage without her consent or permission.

Towards the end of verse 232 there are three sentences appearing one after the other. The first one is. يُوعَظُ بِهِ مَن كَانَ مِنكُمْ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّـهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ‌: It means: 'These injunctions are for those who believe in Allah and the Last Day.' Here it was hinted that the necessary outcome of believing in Allah and the Last Day, (the Day of Judgment) is that man should observe, practice and be bound by these Divine injunctions in toto. Those who fall short in following these injunctions should realize that their ` Iman ایمان or belief is in disarray.

In the second sentence, it was said: ذَٰلِكُمْ أَزْكَىٰ لَكُمْ وَأَطْهَرُ‌, that is, 'adherence to these injunctions is for you a modality of purity and cleanliness.' It has been suggested here that the result of acting contrary to these injunctions is defilement with the pollution of sin, and involvement in discord and strife; for instance, if sane, pubert and young girls were categorically prevented from marriage, it would, on one hand, be an act of cruelty to them and a denial of their rights and on the other, this would put their modesty and chastity in danger. Thirdly, if God forbid, they get involved in sin, the resulting curse will also fall on those who prevented them from marrying. And it is quite possible that, much before the curse of the life to come (the akhirah), the misfortune of these helpless women may drive men to the outside limits of wars and murders, as is not uncommon even now. If that happens, much before the curse of the akhirah, their deeds will become a curse for them right here in this world. And if they were not, categorically at least, prevented from marriage, but were forced to enter into marriage with a person not of their choice and liking, that too will result in perpetual hostility, discord and strife, or talaq (divorce) and khul' خلع Divorce at the instance of wife against compensation). Its unpleasant effects are obvious. It was, therefore, said that in not preventing them from marrying the husbands of their choice there is for you easy access to purity and cleanliness.

In the third sentence it was said: وَاللَّـهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ , that is, 'and Allah knows (that which is good for you) and you do not know'. The purpose of this statement is that people who prevent divorced women from marrying see some benefits coming to them according to their conjecture, for instance, the notion of retaining honour and prestige or the hope of extracting some money on the pretext of their marriage. In order to remove this Satanic deception and unjust expediency, it was said: Allah Almighty knows very well what is suitable or beneficial for you -- so, when injunctions are given, these considerations are already taken care of. Since you do not know the reality of things and the end of affairs, you go ahead with your imperfect thoughts and faulty opinions, taking such things to be suitable or beneficial at times, while in them there is nothing but ruin and destruction for you. The assumed honour and prestige that you uphold will be rolling in dust if divorced women were to go out of control. And when you think of illegitimate monetary gains, it is likely that these may get you involved in intrigues and conflicts which may become dangerous not only for your money but also for your life.

The Qur'aniic strategy about the enforcement of a law

At this point here, the Holy Qur'an presents a law to the effect that preventing divorced women from marrying as they choose is prohibited. Now, in order that acting in accordance with this law becomes easy, and that a climate of acceptance is generated in the public mind, these three sentences have followed after the initial declaration of the law. In the first sentence man is induced to be ready for action in accordance with this law by warning him against the accountability of the Day of Judgment and the subsequent punishment of crimes. In the second sentence, man is persuaded to abide by the law by telling him about evils caused by acting against it and many a harm that such contravention may bring to humanity. In the third sentence it was said that your own betterment lies in abiding by the law given by Allah Almighty. If, in acting against it, you have some expedient gain in mind, that then, is an outcome of your short-sightedness and insensitivity to consequences.

This manner and style of the Holy Qur'an does not end here; in fact, it runs throughout all injunctions. When a law is identified, along with it comes the warning that Allah is Almighty and that there is accountability and punishment in the Hereafter. With the beginning and the end of each law there are affixes and suffixes like اتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ (Fearllah) and إِنَّ اللَّـهَ خَبِيرٌ‌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ (Allah is All-Aware of what you do) and بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِي (Allah is watchful of what you do). The Qur'an is. For the whole world, and for the generations to come till the Day of Doom (Qiyamah), a complete code of life, and a law covering all aspects of living. Of course, it does describe restrictive ordinances and legal punishments, but the manner in which these are handled is unique, not to be found in the law books of the whole world. The diction it has is more sympathetic than authoritarian. In the description of each law, there is an objective approach that no man should, by disobeying it, become deserving of punishment. This is not something like the governments of the contemporary world which make a law, publish it and then anyone who acts against it is left out to go through his punishment.

Moreover, a rather long-term benefit that comes out of this method of Qur'an and its special style, is that man, once he has sensed it, does not start abiding by the law simply because he knows that acting against it would bring some sort of punishment in the mortal world; much contrary to this, he starts worrying about the displeasure of Allah Almighty and the punishment that would come in the Hereafter (akhirah) and this very concern of his renders his outside and inside, his open and his secret, all even -- one and indivisible. He cannot act against the law even at a place where there are no chances at all of his being policed, openly or secretly, because he believes that Allah Almighty, great is His Majesty, is present everywhere, watching and knowing everything down to the minutest particle. This is the reason why every Muslim abided by the law considering it to be an ideal of his life as a result of the principles of clean social living taught by the Qur'an.

Aside from identifying limits and restrictions of law, the distinction of a Qur'anic system of government is that by using the tools of persuasion and warning, it raises the standards of human morals and character to heights where legal limits and restrictions become second nature to him, before which he makes his personal desires and preferences take the back seat. A hard look into the history and governments of nations and the roster of crimes and punishments they offer would show that law alone has never reformed any nation or individual. The police and the army alone have never succeeded in rooting crimes out unless the fear of Allah Almighty and the realization of His supreme greatness is impinged on human hearts. That which helps prevent crimes is, in reality, the fear of Allah and the fear of accountability on the Day of Judgment. If this is not there, nobody can keep anybody away from crimes. Verse:233 Commentary The injunctions of suckling the children by the mothers

This verse contains injunctions relating to rada` ah (رضاعۃ) or the suckling of children. It will be recalled that in verses appearing earlier and later than this, the injunctions of talaq (divorce) have been taken up. In between, there appear injunctions relating to the suckling of children, because it generally happens that issues concerning the feeding and upbringing of children are disputed following a divorce. Since these disputations lead to violence, this verse offers moderate injunctions which can be carried out easily and appropriately by man and woman both. For the two situations of suckling and weaning, whether these show up during the period of marriage, or after divorce, a system was suggested which helps stop mutual bickering, or injustice to any of the parties.

For instance, it was said in the first sentence of the verse:

وَالْوَالِدَاتُ يُرْ‌ضِعْنَ أَوْلَادَهُنَّ حَوْلَيْنِ كَامِلَيْنِ ۖ لِمَنْ أَرَ‌ادَ أَن يُتِمَّ الرَّ‌ضَاعَةَ

that is, 'And mothers suckle their children for full two years' -- unless there be some strong compelling reason which leads to weaning before that time.

Some rules concerning rada` ah or suckling of children come out from this verse; these are:

Suckling of children is an obligation of the mother

Naturally suckling is an obligation of the mother. If she does not feed without a valid reason or because of some hostility or displeasure, she will be a sinner. And she cannot accept any payment for suckling from her husband, as long as she is married to him because that is her own duty.

The total period of suckling

The second rule is about the total period of suckling which is two years. Unless there be some special reason, it is the right of the child that this period be completed.

From this we also know that the total time given for suckling is full two years after which suckling should not be done. However, on the basis of some verses of the Qur'an and reports from ahadith, Imam Abu Hanifah (رح) ruled that if it was carried on over a period of 30 months or two and a half years, all the legal effects of suckling shall be applicable and if this was done because of the weakness of the child, a legitimate excuse, it would then be no sin either. But breast-feeding a child after completing two and a half years is unanimously haram (forbidden).

In the second sentence of this verse, it was said:

وَعَلَى الْمَوْلُودِ لَهُ رِ‌زْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُ‌وفِ ۚ لَا تُكَلَّفُ نَفْسٌ إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا

And on him, to whom the child is born, falls the provision of food and clothing for them (the mothers) with fairness. No-body is obligated beyond his capacity.

The first point that must be noted here is that the Qur'an uses the word وَالْوَالِدَاتُ , for mothers but while referring to the father, it opts for الْمَوْلُودِ لَهُ : to whom the child is born' leaving out the smaller word although the said word, 'walid' والد (father) does appear elsewhere in the Qur'an, for instance: لَّا يَجْزِي وَالِدٌ عَن وَلَدِهِ ' (Fear the Day) when no father shall be of avail to his child' (31:33). But the use of al-mawludi lahu الْمَوْلُودِ لَهُ in place of walid والد in this setting.has a secret behind it. The whole of Qur'an has a unique method and style so it does not describe any law in the way governments of the mortal world do. It rather presents it in a sympathetic and affectionate manner, a manner in which it could become easy for human beings to accept it and act accordingly.

Since the father has been obligated to pay for the expenses of the child, even though the child belongs to the father and the mother both, it was possible that the father could take this injunction to be somewhat burdensome, therefore, the expression al-mawludi lahu (°tc to whom the child is born' ) was preferred over walid ('father' ). The meaning of this expression -- 'to whom the child is born' -- suggests that, no doubt both father and mother share in the birth of the child, but the child is, however, ascribed to the father. The lineage comes from the father. Now that the child is his, the responsibility of the child's expenses should not be heavy on him.

Responsibilities of mothers and fathers

The third rule of Islamic law given in this verse is: While suckling the child is certainly the responsibility of the mother but the sustenance of the mother, inclusive of all necessities of life, is the responsibility of the father and this responsibility continues as far as the marriage or the post-divorce waiting period of wife ('iddah) continues. When divorce and ` iddah have matured, the responsibility of the husband towards the expenses of his wife will end, but the father will con tinue to be obligated to pay for the suckling of the child. (Mazhari)

The standard of wife's liabilities

When the husband and wife are both affluent, matching expenses will be obligatory. When both are poor, correspondingly matching expenses will be obligatory. On this much there is total agreement. However, the Muslim jurists differ if both have a different financial status. Following al-Khassaf, the author of Hidayah has ruled that should the woman be poor and the man rich, her expenses will be medial, that is, higher than those of the poor and lower than those of the rich. According to al-Karkhi, the status of the husband will be the criterion. In Fath al-Qadir, fatwa has been reported on this position from many jurists. (Fath al-Qadir, pp 422, v.3)

In the verse under discussion, after stating injunctions, the Qur'an

r D

says: لَا تُضَارَّ‌ وَالِدَةٌ بِوَلَدِهَا وَلَا مَوْلُودٌ لَّهُ بِوَلَدِهِ that is, 'no mother shall be made to suffer on account of her child, nor a man to whom the child is born, on account of his child.' It means that the father and mother of the child should not stonewall each other. For instance, the mother may be unable to suckle the child due to some excuse but the father may start forcing her to do so, hoping that she being the mother of the child would finally melt down and suckle the child. Or, take the case of a mother who has no excuse, yet she refuses to suckle the child hoping that the poor husband, being the father of the child would, in one way or the other, find the means to have the child suckled elsewhere.

Forcing or not forcing a mother for suckling

The fifth rule deduced from (No mother shall be made to suffer on account of her child) appearing above is that it is not permissible for the father to compel the mother to suckle the child if she refuses to do so under some excuse, or need. And if the child refuses to be suckled by another woman, or also refuses to feed on any milk other than that of his or her mother, the mother will then be compelled to feed the child. This rule we know from لَا تُضَارَّ‌ وَالِدَةٌ بِوَلَدِهَا ; (nor a man to whom the child is born, on account of his child).

Wages of suckling for a divorced woman

The sixth rule that we learn about is: If the mother demands wages to suckle, she has no right to do that as long as she is married to her husband or is within the post-divorce waiting period. Here her maintenance, which is the responsibility of the child's father, is enough in itself. Asking for additional wages amounts to harming the father. The situation changes if the post-divorce waiting period has expired and the responsibility of maintenance is all over. Now, if this divorced woman demands from the father wages to suckle her child, the father will have to pay it -- since not doing so amounts to a loss to the mother. However, the condition is that she should ask for the same amount of wages as is taken by some other woman. If she asks for more, the father will have the right to engage a wet-nurse to suckle the child in her place.

The responsibilities of suckling an orphan

Later in the subject verse, it is said: وَعَلَى الْوَارِ‌ثِ مِثْلُ ذَٰلِكَ. It means: If the father is not alive, the responsibility for arranging to have the child suckled falls on the person who is the legal heir (warith) of the child and a mahram محرم (person with whom marriage is prohibited for ever); that is, those who are entitled to be inheritors of the child. if he dies, would be the ones responsible for his sustenance in the absence of the father. If, there be more than one heir like him, everyone will share that responsibility in proportion to their share in the inheritance. Imam Abu Hanifah (رح) explained that assigning the responsibility of having the orphaned child suckled to the heirs also tells us that the sustenance of a minor child will continue to be, even after weaning, a charge of the heirs since there is nothing special about milk, the purpose is to have the expenses of the child covered. For instance, if the mother of the orphaned child and his grandfather are both alive, these two then, are his mahram محرم ، and heirs as well. Therefore, the maintenance of the child shall be borne by both of them in proportion to their share in the inheritance, that is, the mother will bear one-third and the grandfather, two-thirds. Here from we also know that the right of the orphaned grandson on his grandfather is much stronger than the rights of his own adult sons, since he is not responsible for the sustenance of his adult child, while the sustenance of the orphaned grandson is obligatory on him. However, a grandson has not been given a share in inheritance in the presence of sons, because it is against the principle of inheritance and justice, as giving a share to the farther in presence of the nearer children is not rational in itself and is certainly, against the hadith لا ولی رجل ذکر (for the nearest male) in Sahih al-Bukhari. Nevertheless, the grandfather does have the right to make some provision in his will for the orphaned grandson, if he feels there is need to do that. This could even turn out to be higher than the share of sons. Thus the need of the orphaned grandson was taken care of, while at the same time, the principle of inheritance -- that in the presence of the nearer, the farther should not receive -- remained intact.

The injunctions of weaning

After that, it is said in the subject verse:

فَإِنْ أَرَ‌ادَا فِصَالًا عَن تَرَ‌اضٍ مِّنْهُمَا وَتَشَاوُرٍ‌ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا

that is, if the mother and father of the child, after mutual consultation and agreement, decide that they have to wean the child earlier than two years, because of the inability of the mother or some sickness of the child, then there is no sin involved here as well. The condition of 'mutual consultation and agreement' was placed for the reason that in weaning the child, his or her welfare should be the paramount concern. Making the child a target-board of mutual differences and quarrels is undesirable.

Injunctions of suckling by a nurse

In the end, it is said:

وَإِنْ أَرَ‌دتُّمْ أَن تَسْتَرْ‌ضِعُوا أَوْلَادَكُمْ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذَا سَلَّمْتُم مَّا آتَيْتُم بِالْمَعْرُ‌وفِ

It means: If you wish, for some expedient reason, to have your children suckled by a wet-nurse in place of the mother, even then there is no sin in doing so. However, the condition is that the wages settled with the wet-nurse be paid in full. If the wages were not paid as settled, the sin thereof will rest with the parents.

From this we learn that should a father realize that the feed of the mother, who is willing to suckle, is not good for the child, he has the right to stop the mother from suckling and get a wet-nurse to do that.

From this we also learn that the wages or salary of the woman employed for suckling should be negotiated and settled clearly so that there is no dispute later on; and then let the settled wages be handed over to her at the appointed time and let there be no postponement or evasion.

After stating all these injunctions relating to rada` ah (suckling) رضاعہ ، the Qur'an once again returns to its special manner and style whereby it brings into focus the fear of Allah Almighty and the concept of His all-encompassing Knowledge so that acting in accordance with law becomes easy, and one remains bound by it under all conditions, seen or unseen. It is said: وَاتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّـهَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِي that is, 'keep fearing Allah and know for sure that Allah Almighty is fully watching over your open and secret, and your seen and unseen, and He is aware of all intents and purposes hidden in your hearts.' Any party that acts against these injunctions of suckling and weaning or takes a decision in this connection disregarding the welfare of the child, shall deserve punishment. Verse:234 Commentary Some injunctions relating to 'Iddah

1. For one whose husband dies, it is not correct to wear perfume or make-up or use kohl52 or hair oil, beauty-treat unnecessarily, apply henna and dress gaudily. It is also not correct to talk about the second marriage in clear and unambiguous words as appears in the succeeding verse. In addition to this it is also incorrect to stay overnight in homes other than one's own. The text's "yatarabbasna bi anfusihinna" يَتَرَ‌بَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ translated as "keep themselves waiting" hint towards these avoidances. And this is also the injunction for the woman who has received an irrevocable divorce, that is, in which revocation is not possible. However, it is not right for her to go out of the house even during the daytime unless there is an extreme compulsion.

2. Another rule most people are not aware of is: If the husband dies on the night of the new moon, these months will be completed in accordance with the lunar calendar. Their being of 29 or 30 days makes no difference. But, if he died after the night of the new moon, all these months will be completed as of 30 days each. In all, 130 days will be completed. And when this period expires, and the same time when the death occurred comes, ` iddah will be over.

And now a word concerning what was said about women -- "There is no sin on you in what they do for themselves as recognized."This teaches us that it becomes obligatory on others to stop one who acts against the Shari'ah, of course, if they have the ability or power to do so. Otherwise, these people too become sinners. And the expression, bi l'ma` ruf بِالْمَعْرُ‌وفِ ("with fairness' or 'as recognized' ) means that the marriage solemnized should be correct, and permissible according to the Shari'ah; all conditions of its being lawful should be observed.

52. Surma: collorium, claimed to be an inorganic lead compound -- 'Galena', which has been erroneously translated as 'Antimony' by Western writers. Since 'Antimony' is a known ingredient of modern sophisticated explosives, this age-old eye-cosmetic has gone out of fashion and favour. Verse:235 Commentary - - -