أَسكِنوهُنَّ مِن حَيثُ سَكَنتُم مِن وُجدِكُم وَلا تُضارّوهُنَّ لِتُضَيِّقوا عَلَيهِنَّ ۚ وَإِن كُنَّ أُولاتِ حَملٍ فَأَنفِقوا عَلَيهِنَّ حَتّىٰ يَضَعنَ حَملَهُنَّ ۚ فَإِن أَرضَعنَ لَكُم فَآتوهُنَّ أُجورَهُنَّ ۖ وَأتَمِروا بَينَكُم بِمَعروفٍ ۖ وَإِن تَعاسَرتُم فَسَتُرضِعُ لَهُ أُخرىٰ
House them where you live, in accordance with your means, and do not harass them to put them in straits, and should they be pregnant, maintain them until they deliver. Then, if they suckle [the baby] for you, give them their wages and consult together honourably; but if you make things difficult for each other, then another woman will suckle [the baby] for him.
EXEGESIS
Askinū (house) and sakantum (you live) both come from the word sakan, literally meaning something coming to a halt after being in motion. Hence, when the activity of the day stops for resting in the night, it is called sakan: It is He who made the night for you, that you may rest (taskunū) in it (10:67). Because of this it is used for a place that someone settles down in and builds their home. When the palpitations of the heart and mind slow down and halt, and a person calms down, it is called sakīnah, or tranquillity: It is He who sent down composure (sakīnah) into the hearts of the faithful (48:4).
From this meaning it is understood that a person’s house and home is a place of tranquillity and peace, or at least it should be. As the verse speaks about not creating problems in the shared home with one’s spouse and that the husbands should not make the situation difficult for the wife, the word askinū is highly appropriate, especially when used in conjunction with sakantum. The connotation is clear: the husband should afford the ex-wife the same tranquillity and peace in their shared home for the duration of the waiting period that he himself wishes to enjoy. In other words, the verse is saying: give them peace and tranquillity in the same place where you yourselves get peace and tranquillity. The intentionality of the choice of sakan becomes obvious when compared to verse 1 which describes the same issue but utilises the word buyūt (houses).
Wujd (means) refers to whatever an owner may find of his existing property, because a person may be the owner of things that are not currently in his presence. Alternatively, it could mean to come upon some wealth, as in to come into ownership of something. In this verse, then, it means the property and house which one owns.
Also of note is the word wujd in this verse is contrasted with saʿah (affluence) in the next verse. Wujd is probably used here because he needs not procure new property to house his divorced wife, but that he should allow her to remain in whatever property was already present and existing, hence no one should make excuses with regards to performing this duty, as it is well in accordance with your means for everyone.
As al-Farrāʾ mentions, wujd means what he finds at his disposal: if he is a man of means, then he can afford to provide more for her, and if his wealth is less, then according to his means.
Tuḍārrū (harass) comes from the root ḍurr, meaning a bad state of either mind and soul, body, or wealth. From that comes ḍarar, which has the meaning of reduction and damage, resulting in harm. Muḍārrah means to inflict harm on others in one’s dealings with them. Here it means not to inflict harm upon the divorced women in any way, especially by denying them their rights or not performing one’s duty of upkeep, housing, and good and respectful behaviour, or by purposefully giving them less than what they deserve when one is capable of giving.
Tuḍayyiqū (put them in straits) comes from ḍīq, meaning tightness. This can also be ‘tightness in the chest’ in an emotional sense of dread or anxiety. As in the supplication of Prophet Moses (a) in 26:13, and I will become upset (yaḍīqu ṣadrī: lit. ‘my chest will become tight’). Ḍayqah is also used for poverty and stinginess. In this verse it is used both in the material and immaterial sense, by making the situation for the ex-wife difficult by placing her in a vice so to speak, and tightening the situation for her, either emotionally, financially, or environmentally.
In the corporeal sense, the word also has a double meaning, referring to both the financial upkeep, and in the sense that the husband should not bring hardship and harm to his ex-wife by giving her a less spacious and ‘tight’ accommodation.
He should not, for example, force her to live with someone who does not like her, or has taken up her place and position, thus making the situation unbearable for her and in this way forcing her to leave.
Iʾtamirū (consult) is from the same root as amr, which, as we mentioned, had the meaning of commanding. Iʿtimār means to command one’s partner to do something, or that some group commands another group. Here, specifically, the address is to both the man and the woman, advising them that they should request each other to act honourably. In this case, the verse could be translated as: and bid each other to act honourably.
It has been reported from Kisāʾī that it means mutual consultation (tashāwur), meaning the parents should discuss with each other regarding what course of action would be most beneficial for the child. It relates to amr, because in consultation both are telling the other to act in a certain way. This is the meaning adopted in our translation, and consult together honourably.
Maʿrūf (honourably) was discussed under verse 2. Here it means that the husbands should bid their wives to act according to the rules of God and what common sense dictates as good, especially with regards to their mutual child, and vice versa, as well as other people advising the divorced couple to act justly and equitably towards each other. This repetition of the command to act honourably is a reminder that in family matters, even after divorce, decency and common courtesy are essential parts of a Muslim’s conduct.
The word maʿrūf is from the root ʿurf, or common practice, and its usage here is extremely fitting, as the context is of the disagreements regarding suckling the child, Then, if they suckle [the baby] for you, give them their wages and consult together honourably. The wages described obviously cannot have a fixed amount in the shariah and as such are based on what is customary (ʿurf), in other words the market price for such a service.
Taʿāsartum (make things difficult for each other) comes from the word ʿusr meaning difficulty. The form tafāʿala has the meaning of doing something to each other, in this case cause hardship and difficulty for one another.
EXPOSITION
Continuing with the subject of God-wariness and the waiting periods of women from the previous verses, God commands the believers that the maintenance given to the ex-wife should be an equitable one. The believers are commanded to House them where you live. This solution has many wisdoms. First of all, it is at the core of the philosophy of the waiting period, which as we mentioned was to give a chance for the couple to reconsider getting divorced, and to achieve this they should keep living in the same house (see verse 1 which stated Do not turn them out from their houses, nor shall they go out). Secondly, it secures the rights of the wife so that the husband does not move her to cheaper housing that is of lower quality, either out of spite or miserliness. Thirdly, it does not place undue hardship on the husband who shall continue to give her the same accommodation in the manner that he used to, and is in accordance with your means, without excusing the woman to spitefully demand excessively luxurious accommodations.
It goes without saying that as the husband has the duty of housing the divorced wife during her waiting period, his duty of paying her upkeep is not lifted either, hence her maintenance is on his shoulders as well. An important lesson may also be noted here, namely that the maintenance owed to the wife is not something that is only necessary if one loves one’s wife, but even in times of disagreement and even after the waiting period.
This is followed by a very important reminder that once again touches upon the philosophy of the waiting period, and do not harass them to put them in straits. As mentioned earlier, the husband should not use the waiting period as an opportunity to vent out frustration and anger on his wife. The time spent together should be a time for reconsideration and possible reconciliation. In verse 1, the couple were commanded to remain in the same home, but an exception was made if the wife was misbehaving and causing problems. Here, a reminder is given to the husbands that they too should not cause difficulty and problems for their ex-partner, in effect forcing her to leave.
The generous conduct that a husband should show his ex-wife is especially important if she is with child. The duty of maintenance for these women may be longer than the usual approximately three months, so the believers are reminded: and should they be pregnant, maintain them until they deliver. This is because their waiting period is until the end of the pregnancy, therefore the maintenance should continue until that time. Even if this entails extra financial costs for the man, it is in effect an extension of his duty to provide for the child. As mentioned in verse 2:233, the father is responsible for the upkeep of his wife and children.
As pregnancy generally ends in delivery of a baby, the verse then turns its attention to this matter; Then, if they suckle [the baby] for you, give them their wages. After the mother has given birth to the child, she is not responsible for feeding it; rather, the father is. She may demand wages for suckling the baby, and the father should pay the standard cost of this (ujrat al-mithl). If another woman is willing to do it for a cheaper price then the mother has priority in that regard, meaning she can then offer to do it for that lower price and should be given the right to do so.
This is followed by an extremely important reminder: and consult together honourably, which is unfortunately something often forgotten by couples getting divorced. When two people divorce and they have children together, they are forever bound to each other through their mutual child. The need to co-parent, cooperate, and coordinate is critical for successfully providing the child with a happy home and a stable environment in which to grow and thrive. It is interesting to note that here the call is not to be God-wary, nor are we given an exhortation related to the hereafter, but rather the believers are called to act based on maʿrūf – that which is known to all as decent behaviour. The implication is that all decent people regardless of faith or culture understand that a divorced couple should set aside their differences for the interests of the child.
If the co-parents fail at this and make things difficult for each other, then the solution is not to get stuck in a cycle of stubbornness, but rather to seek alternatives. This relates to the ruling of suckling in the sense that if, for example, the mother makes the situation difficult for the father by demanding huge compensation for suckling, or the father refuses to pay her fair wages, or some other arguments and disagreements arise, then a third party should be sought for suckling.
There is something of a warning to the mother here as well, that even though financial maintenance is the right of the suckling mother, if she is too demanding and makes finding a mutually acceptable solution untenable, then another woman will suckle [the baby] for him. We may also note that the pronoun suffix in for him (lahu) is referring to the father. This is important, since it implies that the right and the responsibility of the child is with the father.
In this case (and in general), the interests of the child supersede the rights of the parents, and their disagreements and inability to co-parent should never be allowed to be the cause of harm coming to the child. It could also be noted that the obvious implication of this statement is that the mother has the primary right when it comes to suckling the child, and only in cases where she is causing undue hardship for the father or child can this right be denied to her.
For a modern reader, the verse also acts as a reminder of the difficulty of life in the past (and for many people even today) in which finding nutrition and food security was a daily struggle and that feeding children was a challenge. The discussion about who should pay for suckling a child prompts one to realise how difficult conditions were and are for some. It also emphasises the role and responsibility that fathers should have in raising and providing for their children.
INSIGHTS FROM HADITH
- From Zurārah, that Imam al-Bāqir (a) said: ‘The one who is divorced three times is owed no maintenance by her husband. It is only for the woman who can be taken back by her husband.’
- From Abū Baṣīr, that Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) was asked: ‘The woman that has been divorced thrice, is she owed accommodation and maintenance?’ The Imam asked: ‘Is she pregnant?’ I said: ‘No.’ He replied: ‘No.’
Note: These reports deal with a woman who has been irrevocably divorced. According to these reports, the husband does not owe her maintenance during that time, contrary to the revocable divorce. For more on this see the discussion in the next section.
- From ʿUbayd-Allāh ibn Ali al-Ḥalabī, that Imam al-Ṣādiq (a) said: ‘A man should not harass a woman he has divorced and put her under pressure so that she leaves [the house] before her waiting period has finished. Certainly God – mighty and glorious – has forbidden that, and said: and do not harass them to put them in straits.’
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
Shia scholars are unanimous that payments for housing and maintenance are a binding obligation for the one who has revocably divorced his wife. As for the irrevocable divorce, such financial support is not required. This is contrary to the opinion of Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfah, and other Sunni scholars, who saw that maintenance was owed to even the irrevocably divorced wife. Others, like al-Shāfiʿī, were of the opinion that providing accommodation for her is necessary but maintenance is not, whereas Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal reportedly shared the position of Shia scholars.
An exception is made to this by Shia scholars for pregnant women, for whom upkeep and housing is necessary even in an irrevocable divorce, as it is said that in this case it is part of the man’s responsibilities towards paying the upkeep of his child.
And should they be pregnant, maintain them until they deliver: some scholars have argued based on this that the apparent meaning is that if she is not pregnant then in an irrevocable divorce maintenance is not required. Ṭabrisī points out that the whole reason this statement is mentioned (even though maintenance for a divorced woman is already established) is to emphasise that a pregnant woman should be maintained, even if irrevocably divorced. Zamakhsharī replies to his own rhetorical question asking the same, that rather the wisdom in mentioning this, even though a divorced woman’s maintenance is already established, is to answer those who may think that maintenance for a pregnant woman is only for the term of the waiting period of an unpregnant woman. Ibn Arabi argues for the aforementioned position of al-Shāfiʿī by saying that the first statement commands housing and is general in its declaration, whereas the second statement commands upkeep but is specified to pregnant women. However, there is nothing in the context of the verses that suggests the discussion is about irrevocable divorce to warrant such an interpretation, and the reality is that all of these opinions are formed based on the narrations that the various scholars have either accepted or rejected.
[1] Raghib, p. 417.
[2] Qaraati, 10/110.
[3] Tibyan, 10/36.
[4] Lisan, 3/445.
[5] Zamakhshari, 4/558, clarifies that the min (from) in min ḥaythu sakantum (where you live) is for tabʿīḍ (being a portion of something), meaning that you should give them space in a part of the house where you live. It has also been pointed out that this means he should not downgrade her to a worse living quarter than where he himself resides (Mudarrisi, 16/74).
[6] Tabrisi, 10/463.
[7] Raghib, pp. 503-504.
[8] Tibyan, 10/36; Tabari, 28/94.
[9] Raghib, pp. 512-513.
[10] Zamakhshari, 4/558.
[11] Tibyan, 10/38.
[12] Zamakhshari, 4/559.
[13] Tabrisi, 10/464.
[14] Tantawi, 14/455.
[15] Zamakhshari, 4/559; see also Tabrisi, 10/464.
[16] Razi, 30/564. Qurtubi, 18/169, has suggested it refers to suckling, meaning that the mother should suckle her child for free, as that is the honourable thing to do. Similarly, the father should give some compensation to the mother for this, as that is the honourable thing to do.
[17] Qaraati, 10/111.
[18] Tantawi, 14/456.
[19] Nemuneh, 6/65.
[20] Tabrisi, 10/463.
[21] Tibyan, 10/37; Tantawi, 14/455.
[22] Zamakhshari, 4/559.
[23] Tantawi, 14/456.
[24] Qaraati, 10/111.
[25] Nemuneh, 24/249.
[26] Kafi, 6/104.
[27] Kafi, 6/104. A similar report is also attributed to the Holy Prophet with regards the case of Fatimah bint Qays; see Tabrisi, 10/463-464; Muslim, 4/195; Ahmad 6/373; Abū Muhammad ʿAbd-Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Dārimī, Sunan al-Dārimī, 2/135; Ibn Majah, 1/656; Abu Dawud; 1/510; Tirmidhi; 2/325; Nasai, 6/62-63; Ṭūsī, al-Mabsūṭ, 4/217. For more narrations on this see Muslim, 4/195-200.
[28] Kafi, 6/123; Wasail, 22/213.
[29] Tibyan, 10/36.
[30] Tibyan, 10/36; Al-Nawawī, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muslim, 10/95.
[31] Tabrisi, 10/463; Al-Nawawī, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muslim, 10/95. This is also the opinion of Tabari, 28/94, and Qurtubi, 18/166-167, who also attributes it to Mālik.
[32] Al-Nawawī, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muslim, 10/95. Al-Nawawī adds that this was also the opinion of Ibn Abbas. Suyuti, 6/237, on the other hand, attributes to Ibn Abbas the same opinion that al-Shāfiʿī was said to have held. Razi, 30/564, also shares the position of Shia scholars on this issue.
[33] Tibyan, 10/37.
[34] Al-Nawawī, Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muslim, 10/95-96.
[35] Tabrisi, 10/464. This same argument is attributed to Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī by Tabari, 28/95.
[36] Zamakhshari, 4/559.
[37] Qurtubi, 18/166.