250. This little verse aims at the reform of a serious evil that was rampant
in the social life in pre-Islamic Arabia. According to the customary law of
Arabia, a person was entitled to pronounce any number of divorces upon his wife.
As a result divorce was resorted to at the least provocation and annoyance.
In addition, the husband often exercised his right to revoke the divorce he
had pronounced with the result that the poor wife could neither live with him
in happiness nor free herself to contract a fresh marriage with someone else.
Here the Qur'an seeks to shut the door on this injustice. According to this
verse, a man may pronounce revocable divorce upon his wife not more than twice.
Should he pronounce divorce for the third time after revoking it twice, the
wife will be permanently alienated from him.
The appropriate procedure for divorce, according to the Qur'an and Hadith, is
that a person should pronounce one divorce outside the time of the wife's menstrual
period. After the first divorce he may pronounce a second in the next clear
period if he wants to, though it is preferable that he should confine himself
to pronouncing the first. In this case the husband retains the right to revoke
the divorce at any time before the lapse of the period of waiting ('iddah) even
if the period of waiting has lapsed, the couple have the right to recontract
the marriage by mutual consent. If the husband, however, pronounces divorce
in his wife's third clear period he has no right to revoke the divorce, and
the spouses are not entitled to recontract the marriage. The pronouncing of
triple divorce in one session is a highly sinful act according to the Law, and
the Prophet has strongly denounced it. (See Nasii, 'Talaq', 6 - Ed.) It has
even been established that 'Umar used to flog those who pronounced triple divorce
in one session. Although this procedure of divorce is considered sinful, the
founders of the four legal schools consider it to have legal effect, with the
result that such divorce, in their view, becomes absolutely irrevocable.
251. This refers to the mahr (bridal gift) and the jewellery, clothes and
so on which the husband offers as a gift to his wife, and to which he has no
right of reclaim. It is, indeed, normally inconsistent with Islamic ethics that
a person should reclaim anything he has made over to another by way of donation
or gift. In the Hadith this disgraceful act is likened to a dog licking its
own vomit. (See Bukhari, 'Hibah', 30; Nasiii, 'Hibah', 3, etc. - Ed.)
In the case of a husband, in particular, it is a matter of the utmost disgrace
that, at the time of saying farewell to his divorced wife he should try to dispossess
her of what he had once given her out of his own goodwill. On the contrary,
the morals that Islam seeks to cultivate require that at the time of parting
the husband ought to present her with a farewell gift. See
(verse 241 below.)
252. In the terminology of Islamic Law this is known as khul', i.e. a woman's
securing the annulment of her marriage through the payment of some compensation
to her husband. Whatever settlement is made between a husband and wife should
come into effect. If the matter is referred to the court, however, it will investigate
only whether the wife has really become too disgusted with the husband to put
up with him. (For the Traditions on the basis of which the author concludes
this see the commentaries on this verse in Ibn Kathir and Qurtubi, see especially
the latter, vol. 2, pp. 946-8 - Ed.) Once this is determined the court is entitled
to fix the amount of payment incumbent on the wife as compensation for the repudiation
of her marriage, and the husband will be bound to accept that amount and divorce
his wife. In general, the jurists believe that the payment, thus fixed, should
not be higher than the original mahr paid by the husband.
The divorce that comes into effect is irrevocable and brings separation into
effect immediately. Since the woman has paid compensation, she has in effect
purchased the right of repudiation and the husband, therefore, has ceased to
have the right to revoke the divorce. If, however, the spouses agree to recontract
marriage, they may do so.
According to the majority of jurists the period of waiting under khul' is the
same as under divorce. However, there are several Traditions in Abu Da'ud, Tirmidhi,
Ibn Majah, etc., which show that the Prophet fixed the period of waiting at
one menstrual period, and that 'Uthman applied this in a case which he decided.
(See Ibn Kathir's commentary on the verse.)
253. It is known from authentic Traditions that it is totally illegitimate for a person to arrange the marriage of his divorced wife with someone else on the understanding that the latter will divorce her to make it possible for the former husband to recontract marriage with that woman. Such trickery would in fact be an act of sheer sexual corruption and would not render the woman liable to remarriage with her former husband. According to a Tradition transmitted from 'Ali, Ibn Mas'ud, Abu Hurayrah and 'Uqbah ibn 'Amir, the Prophet pronounced his curse on those who arrange, as well as on those who agree to contract, such fictitious marriages. (See Muslim. 'Talaq', l5, 71; Nasa'i, 'Talaq', 8; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, P. 314 and vol. 5, p. 334; Al-Muwatta', 'Talaq', 27; Abu Da'ud. 'Talaq'. 10 - Ed.)
254. It is absolutely improper that a person should revoke the divorce he pronounced on his wife before the lapse of the period of waiting merely in order to use this revocation as a pretext to harass and torment her . God commands that if a person revokes the divorce this decision should be prompted by a sincere desire to live together amicably. Should that intention be lacking, it is better to part company in a graceful manner see further( n. 250 above).
255. Muslims should not forget that by teaching them the Book and Wisdom, God entrusted them with the glorious task of guiding the world. They should also not forget that they were appointed the 'community, of the middle way' and appointed as witnesses to good and righteousness see (verse 143 above). It does not become them, therefore, to indulge in sophistry and to play with the verses of the Book of God, to exploit the words of the Law to their advantage in achieving ends counter to its spirit, and to slump into injustice and other evil behaviour instead of directing the world to the Right Way.