The Ocean of the Quran

A verse by verse explanation of The Ultimate Scripture

Al-Mujādilah – Verse 3

وَالَّذينَ يُظاهِرونَ مِن نِسائِهِم ثُمَّ يَعودونَ لِما قالوا فَتَحريرُ رَقَبَةٍ مِن قَبلِ أَن يَتَماسّا ۚ ذٰلِكُم توعَظونَ بِهِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ بِما تَعمَلونَ خَبيرٌ

Those who repudiate their wives by ẓihār and then retract what they have said, shall set free a slave before they may touch each other. This you are advised [to carry out], and Allah is well aware of what you do.

EXEGESIS

The term raqabah is a noun which means neck (47:4),‎[1] or the base of the back part of the neck,‎[2] or the upper part of the neck.‎[3] By a synecdoche,‎[4] raqabah is applied to the whole person of a human being,‎[5] and it is suggested that is because the neck is the most sensitive body part of the human being.‎[6] Similarly, it is applied to a slave, both male and female, and to a captive,‎[7] as for example in this very verse and in 21:77. The plural of raqabah is riqāb.‎[8]

The dual imperfect tense verb yatamāssā, translated here as they may touch each other, implies sexual intercourse in this context.‎[9] In 2:237 a related verb, tamassū, and which occurs in a marital context, also means the same.‎[10]

The term khabīr in this verse is an intensive active participle and means one who knows well,‎[11] and one who possesses much knowledge of internal things‎[12] or the real state and nature of things, while as an attribute of God it means the all-knowing, the all-aware,‎[13] He who knows well the internal qualities of things,‎[14] He who knows what was and what will be,‎[15] and He who knows everything perfectly well.

EXPOSITION

Having categorically rejected and prohibited the practice of ẓihār and nullified its effect, insisting that the wife had not been divorced at all and that the marital status remained in place since the mere verbal comparison of a wife to the mother does not render a wife a mother, the Quranic revelation brought about a novel twist to the matter. It ruled that in such instances if the men wished to retract what they have said, which is to say if they wished to return to the state of enjoying conjugal relations with their wives (as they were before invoking ẓihār), then nullifying it by engaging in conjugal relations with their wives would not be valid; their wives would not be available to them save after they had discharged the requisite penalty, even though the marriage bond remained intact.‎[16]

The requisite penalty was that the husband would need to set free a slave and this would need to take place before they may touch each other, meaning before conjugal relations took place between them.‎[17] Thus Imam al-Bāqir (a) transmits from Imam Ali (a) with respect to before they may touch each other: ‘It means before having conjugal relations with her,’‎[18] an understanding corroborated by 2:237 and one that is also attributed to Ibn Abbas.‎[19] Thus the Quranic revelation, while maintaining the validity of the marital bond, temporarily disallowed one of the primary benefits of such a bond – conjugal relations – as an exemplary punishment for the men who engaged in this deplorable practice.

Thus what was intended by Aws did not materialise, while what did take place was not envisaged by him! This temporary forfeiture of conjugal relations, to be removed by the discharging of expiation, was in the spirit of a disciplinary step to castigate the men who invoked this practice so that they would think twice before ever invoking it again.‎[20] Thus regret alone for what they had uttered and the mere desire to return their marital affairs to the previous state of normalcy would not suffice. A practical step and effort would need to be made, which was to free a slave before they may touch each other, so that when the husband frees a slave, it would become a symbol of spiritual and moral release for him from the sin committed.‎[21]

Of course, if the husband no longer wished to remain married to his wife then he needed to properly divorce her according to the relevant dictates of the Muslim faith‎[22] and the expiation would then not apply to him but the ẓihār proclamation, in any case, would not result in a valid divorce.

Thereafter the verse says, This you are advised [to carry out], a reference to the harsh verdict of expiation which was an admonishment aimed to serve as a deterrent. This is because the harsh verdict in favour of expiation is proof that a sin and a crime has been committed which necessitated a penalty in the form of expiation, hence it was necessary that all take heed, and are admonished to conform to this verdict and not return to the evil practice of ẓihār but rather refrain from it, and so that the expiation would remove the adverse effect of their deed which had befallen them, as well as serving to confirm their regret.‎[23]

Finally, the verse terminates with and Allah is well aware of what you do, meaning nothing is hidden from Him while He is very well aware of all good and evil deeds, and He will recompense accordingly,‎[24] so do not ignore God’s admonishment regarding the expiation before resuming conjugal relations, for then God would punish you.‎[25] This part of the verse once again invokes the notion of God’s omniscience and omnipresence. He knows well the psychological and spiritual effects of deeds and how to provoke regret and repentance in human consciences so that humans may refrain from evil.‎[26]

The historical reports describe that when these four verses descended, the Messenger of God asked Khawlah to call her husband, Aws, as mentioned previously. When he arrived, the Messenger of God recited to him the first four verses of this surah and asked him if he could free a slave before renewing conjugal relations, to which he replied in the negative since he said he was very poor, or as in other accounts he said he could not since he was poor while slaves were expensive, and if he purchased one, he would become penniless.‎[27] Consequently, the next verse offered determined alternatives for expiation in sequence.‎[28]

Expiation is of two kinds. One type is where the person subject to expiation has the choice to choose between several options for expiation such as in 5:89 where the person subject to expiation has the choice to either feed ten poor people or clothe them or free a slave. This is while the second type is where no choice exists and the expiation is determined. In the second type, determined alternatives may exist but the alternatives only apply in sequential order in that when the person subject to expiation is unable to carry out the first determined expiation the subsequent ones apply in sequence. Verses 3-4 are prime examples of the second type of expiation where three expiations are determined but it is the first that applies foremost, while the subsequent ones only apply if the person subject to expiation is unable to fulfil the prior ones.‎[29] So, in the case of Aws and every man who invokes ẓihār and then retracts it, it is freeing a slave that applies to them first and foremost;‎[30] however, in Aws’s case, he was unable to discharge it.

Another relevant example of the second type of expiation is when the three options for expiation in 5:89 taken together are not possible for a person to discharge, whereupon the determined alternative of fasting for three days applies.

INSIGHTS FROM HADITH

  1. Imam Ali (a) relates: ‘A man from the tribe of Banī al-Najjār [probably Salāmah ibn Ṣakhrah/Ṣakhr al-Bayāḍī al-Anṣārī]‎[31] came to the Messenger of God and said: “I divorced my wife by means of ẓihār but then enjoyed conjugal relations with her before discharging expiation!” The Messenger of God asked: “And what led you to that?” He replied: “After divorcing her by means of ẓihār I subsequently caught sight of the shine of her ankle and the whiteness of her leg in the moonlight and [unable to control myself] indulged in conjugal relations with her and this was prior to discharging expiation.” So the Messenger of God said: “Withdraw from her till you have discharged the expiation.”’‎[32]
  2. Abū Baṣīr relates from Imam al-Ṣādiq (a): ‘I heard him narrate that a man came to the Messenger of God (s) and said: “Messenger of God, I pronounced the ẓihār formula, likening my wife to my mother’s back!” The Messenger of God (s) said: “Then go and free a slave.” He responded: “I do not have anything!” So the Messenger of God said: “Then go and fast two consecutive months.” He said: “I cannot!” So the Messenger of God said: “Then go and feed sixty needy people.” He said: “I do not have the means.” The Messenger of God said: “I shall help you by means of charity,” and granted him dates so that he could go and feed sixty needy people, and said: “Go and spend these in charity,” whereupon he said: “I swear by the One who sent you forth with the truth, I do not know of anyone between Medina’s two great craggy fields more needy of these dates than my family and I.” So the Messenger of God said: “Then go, feed your family and yourself.”’‎[33]
  3. Jamīl ibn Darrāj asked Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) as to when the expiation of ẓihār becomes liable on the one who had invoked it, and the Imam replied: ‘When he decides to have conjugal relations with his wife.’ Jamīl then asked: ‘What if the said man divorces his wife [according to Islamic law] before conjugal relations; is he liable for the expiation?’ The Imam replied: ‘No; the expiation is no longer liable on him.’‎[34]
  4. Al-Ḥalabī asked Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) about a man who invoked ẓihār and then decided to complete that by divorcing his wife – would he be liable to expiation? The Imam replied: ‘He is not liable to expiation.’ Al-Ḥalabī then asked the Imam: ‘What if this man intends to have conjugal relations with her [rather than divorcing her]?’ The Imam replied: ‘He cannot have conjugal relations with her till he discharges expiation!’ Al-Ḥalabī asked: ‘What if he had conjugal relations with her anyway. Is he liable to anything?’ The Imam replied: ‘Yes, by God! He would be deemed sinful and unjust.’ Al-Ḥalabī asked: ‘But is he liable to expiation in addition to the original one?’ The Imam replied: ‘Yes, he needs to set free a slave.’‎[35]

Note: These two reliable reports are explicit that conjugal relations are prohibited on invoking ẓihār, while conjugal relations become permissible once again after expiation is discharged.‎[36]

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

The part of this verse which says then retract what they have said has generated debate among the scholars across the sectarian divide and along the centuries as to its meaning. The reason for that is the part of this verse which reads thumma yaʿūdūna limā qālū, which literally means: then they return to what they had said. Consequently, it has elicited several interpretations but three interpretations appear to be more significant than others:

  1. To retract and invalidate what had been proclaimed of ẓihār‎[37] by resolving to engage in conjugal relations,‎[38] an opinion held by the Imams from the Prophet’s progeny‎[39] and attributed to Qatādah,‎[40] and the jurists Mālik ibn Anas and Abū Ḥanīfah.‎[41] Within this interpretation may be included opinions that flow more or less in the same vein such as regret on the part of the husband for what he had proclaimed and a desire to return to marital harmony and intimacy, an opinion attributed to Ibn Abbas;‎[42] not to follow up the ẓihār proclamation with divorce but rather to stay married despite having the choice to divorce,‎[43] an opinion attributed to the jurist al-Shāfiʿī.‎[44] The latter is reported to have supported his opinion by citing the opinion attributed to Ibn Abbas.‎[45] This stance indicates regret on the husband’s part and a desire to return to the previous state of marital harmony, which in turn would require discharging expiation.‎[46] It appears that some, who held to this opinion, did not require the husband’s resolve to resume conjugal relations with the wife.‎[47] This interpretation therefore means to rectify the wrong done by nullifying the consequence of the pronouncement,‎[48] and the one who rectifies a matter returns to it in order to reform it.‎[49] This requires the person rectifying what he had said, to discharge expiation so that his state returns to what it was before ẓihār.‎[50]
  2. To repeat the proclamation a second time as if the first proclamation had no efficacy and only a repeat of the statement would result in the prohibition of conjugal relations and the opportunity to retract it by means of expiation;‎[51] this opinion is attributed to the Ẓāhirī school of thought.‎[52] This (now defunct) school of Muslim thought insisted that this interpretation is what comes across from the apparent reading of the verse.‎[53]
  3. The phrase refers to those men who used to practice ẓihār in pre-Islamic times, then abandoned it by converting to Islam, and then returned to it again;‎[54] this view is said to have been held by Sufyān al-Thawrī.‎[55] They needed to discharge the expiation before they engaged in conjugal relations.

The best interpretation is the first, which says that the relevant phrase means to retract and invalidate what had been proclaimed of ẓihār by determining to engage in conjugal relations and being regretful. It is an interpretation that is preferred by the majority of commentators across the sectarian divide and across the centuries, it accords with the practice of the Messenger of God, it is one that was taught by the Imams from the Prophet’s progeny,‎[56] and it makes contextual sense.

It is clear that the several explanations mentioned in interpretation number 1 are not mutually exclusive and can be considered part of the preferred interpretation in that retracting and invalidating what had been proclaimed of ẓihār by determining to engage in conjugal relations implies regret on the husband’s part,‎[57] as it implies his desire and intent not to follow up his proclamation with divorce, as well as implying his desire and decision to rectify the wrong he had committed. The reason this particular interpretation is preferred is because, as stated earlier, it accords with the practice and teaching of the Messenger of God and the Imams (see Insights from Hadith). It also makes contextual sense (see the next paragraph), and is preferred by the majority of Quran commentators.

The reason the first and preferred interpretation makes contextual sense is due to the specification of expiation before conjugal relations mentioned in it. This proves that the husband desires to engage in conjugal relations but is not allowed to do so prior to discharging expiation.‎[58] Thus although the phrase thumma yaʿūdūna limā qālū does literally translate as: then they return to what they had said, which would appear to favour interpretation 2, however such a translation-cum-interpretation contradicts the literary context of this very verse (and verse 4), especially the part that says shall set free a slave before they may touch each other, which follows right on the heels of the phrase subject to discussion here. This implies that this returning is to retract and go back on what they said resulting in the need to free a slave before engaging in conjugal relations. Hence the part of this verse that says shall set free a slave before they may touch each other is the crucial contextual evidence for understanding this verse and the relevant phrase.‎[59]

Had this literary context not been there, it would have been problematic to translate the phrase thumma yaʿūdūna limā qālū as has been done here, which is and then retract what they have said for it literally does mean: then they return to what they had said. Consequently, when this phrase occurs almost verbatim a few verses later in verse 8 as thumma yaʿūdūna limā nuhū ʿanhu, it is rendered as, but again resumed [or returned to] what they had been forbidden from, in accordance with its literal meaning, and that is because no contextual evidence exists to render it otherwise.

[1] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 377; Lane, 2/1133.
[2] Lane, 2/1133.
[3] Lane, 2/1133.
[4] This is a figure of speech where a part is made to represent the whole and vice versa.
[5] Lane, 2/1133; Amthal, 18/106.
[6] Amthal, 18/106.
[7] Lane, 2/1133.
[8] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 377.
[9] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 883; Munyah, 28/47; Kashif, 7/266.
[10] Kashif, 7/264.
[11] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 253.
[12] Lane, 2/699.
[13] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 253.
[14] Lane, 2/699.
[15] Lane, 2/699.
[16] Tibyan, 9/543, 545; Mizan, 19/178-179; Munyah, 28/50-51.
[17] Tabrisi, 9/372; Mizan, 19/179; Kashif, 7/266.
[18] Wasail, 15/510.
[19] Tibyan, 9/543; Suyuti, 6/182.
[20] Furqan, 28/193.
[21] Fadlallah, 22/62.
[22] Al-Nihāyah fī Mujarrad al-Fiqh wa al-Fatāwā, pp. 371-372.
[23] Zamakhshari, 4/487; Mizan, 19/179.
[24] Tibyan, 9/543.
[25] Tabrisi, 9/373.
[26] Fadlallah, 22/62.
[27] Tabari, 28/2-6; Suyuti, 6/179-183; Tabrisi, 9/371; Tibyan, 9/541; Razi, 29/477.
[28] Kashif, 7/266.
[29] Munyah, 28/49-50; Kashif, 7/266.
[30] Al-Nihāyah fī Mujarrad al-Fiqh wa al-Fatāwā, p. 371.
[31] Razi, 29/484; Suyuti, 6/183.
[32] Kafi, 6/159; Razi, 29/484; Suyuti, 6/183.
[33] KafI, 6/155; Suyuti, 6/182.
[34] KafI, 6/155, h. 10, cited in Qalāʾid al-Durar, 3/336-337.
[35] Tahdhib, 8/18, h. 56, cited in Qalāʾid al-Durar, 3/337.
[36] Qalāʾid al-Durar, 3/337.
[37] Tibyan, 9/542; Tabrisi, 9/372; Razi, 29/483.
[38] Tibyan, 9/543; Tabrisi, 9/372; Kanz al-ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al-Qurʾān, 2/291; Zamakhshari, 4/486-487.
[39] Tibyan, 9/543; Tabrisi, 9/372. See also the Insights from Hadith section for this verse.
[40] Tibyan, 9/542; Suyuti, 6/182.
[41] Tabrisi, 9/372; Kanz al-ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al-Qurʾān, 2/291.
[42] Tabrisi, 9/372; Munyah, 28/51.
[43] Tibyan, 9/542; Tabrisi, 9/372.
[44] Tibyan, 9/542; Tabrisi, 9/372; Kanz al-ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al-Qurʾān, 2/291.
[45] Tabrisi, 9/372.
[46] Tibyan, 9/542; Tabrisi, 9/372.
[47] Tibyan, 9/542.
[48] Tibyan, 9/542-543; Tabrisi.J, 4/256; Zamakhshari, 4/486; Safi, 5/142.
[49] Zamakhshari, 4/486.
[50] Tabrisi.J, 4/256.
[51] Mizan, 19/179; Tibyan, 9/543.
[52] Tabrisi, 9/372; Razi, 29/483-484; Kanz al-ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al-Qurʾān, 2/291.
[53] Tabrisi, 9/372; Razi, 29/483-484; Munyah, 28/50.
[54] Tabrisi.J, 4/256; Zamakhshari, 4/486; Kanz al-ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al-Qurʾān, 2/290.
[55] The Ẓāhirīs: Their Doctrine and their History, p. 51.
[56] Tibyan, 9/543; Tabrisi, 9/372. For a sample of reports from the Messenger of God and the Imams from his progeny, see Insights from Hadith.
[57] Mizan, 19/179, specifically points out that it is also suggested that the relevant phrase in verse 3 refers to the men’s regret for having invoked ẓihār. Tabatabai writes that in such a case such an interpretation is valid if it is considered to be what is understood from the meaning of the phrase, but not that it is the meaning of the relevant phrase in verse 3, for the meaning of the relevant phrase is to go back on what they had said of the formula of ẓihār, nullifying it by engaging in sexual relations, which would in turn signify the men’s regret for what they had done.
[58] Munyah, 28/50-51.
[59] Mizan, 19/179; Munyah, 28/50-51.