The Ocean of the Quran

A verse by verse explanation of The Ultimate Scripture

Al-Mujādilah – Verse 2

الَّذينَ يُظاهِرونَ مِنكُم مِن نِسائِهِم ما هُنَّ أُمَّهاتِهِم ۖ إِن أُمَّهاتُهُم إِلَّا اللّائي وَلَدنَهُم ۚ وَإِنَّهُم لَيَقولونَ مُنكَرًا مِنَ القَولِ وَزورًا ۚ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَعَفُوٌّ غَفورٌ

As for those of you who repudiate their wives by ẓihār, they are not their mothers; their mothers are only those who bore them, and indeed they utter an outrageous utterance and a lie. Indeed Allah is all-excusing, all-forgiving.

EXEGESIS

The plural imperfect tense verb yuẓāhirūna has ẓihār as its verbal noun, which is said to derive from the noun ẓahr,‎[1] meaning back or back side.‎[2] The verb means, in the context of this surah, to perform ẓihār,‎[3] which is to compare the back of one’s wife with the back of one’s mother,‎[4] such as saying to the wife ‘you are to me like the back (ẓahr) of my mother’‎[5] the intent being that the wife’s back is as forbidden to him as the back of his mother, effectively forbidding her to himself and divorcing or repudiating her.‎[6] This was a pre-Islamic practice whereby the husband intended to forbid himself conjugal relations with his wife just as conjugal relations was forbidden to him with his mother,‎[7] thereby effectively divorcing her. Thus the verb yuẓāhirūna here means the men who divorce or repudiate their wives (according to a pre-Islamic custom) by likening the backs of their wives to the backs of their mothers. A more common and well-known term for this practice is ẓihār.

But the question is: how does comparing the wife’s back to that of the mother render the wife forbidden and divorced to the husband? What is the logic in the use of the term ẓahr in the statement of repudiation and divorce? Two closely related explanations have been given. The first is that the back (ẓahr) in this context is figuratively used to mean a mount, a riding animal (whose back is mounted or ascended when it is ridden), for the man mounts or ascends his spouse, so to speak, during conjugal relations.‎[8] Indeed, one of the meanings of the triliteral root letters ẓ-h-r is to carry (or to let mount) on one’s back,‎[9] and in 18:97 the verb yaẓharū is used in the meaning of to scale, and to climb on the back of, while in 43:33 the verb yaẓharūna is used in the meaning of ascension.

The second explanation is that the back in this context is figuratively used to mean to prevail over, to get the upper hand, to dominate.‎[10]18:97 also suggests the meaning of prevailing and getting the upper hand, for when a person successfully scales something it means he has prevailed over it.‎[11] The same is thought to be true in conjugal relations since it is held that the man effectively prevails over his wife, dominating her.‎[12] The triliteral root letters ẓ-h-r do carry this meaning too,‎[13] and in 9:8 the verb yaẓharū is used in the meaning of to prevail, to get the upper hand.‎[14]

The noun zūr has z-w-r as its root letters.‎[15] These have a range of meanings but those most relevant to this verse are the curvature or inflection on the upper part of the chest,‎[16] cleavage, twist, leaning or inclining towards.‎[17] The noun means deviation, lies, and falsehood, because deviation, lies, and falsehood means an inclination, an inflection, a leaning or a curving towards falsity and deviance and away from (or a deflection from) truth and rightness.‎[18]

God is described in this verse by two attributes that inspire hope in God’s mercy. The first attribute that describes God is ʿafuww. This is an intensive active participle‎[19] and means one who is disposed to forgiving others,‎[20] and one who does not punish or censure for a blameworthy act,‎[21] where the primary significance of this word is to efface, to wipe out, to obliterate,‎[22] and therefore in this context means to wipe out sins. This is while the second attribute describing God is ghafūr. This is also an intensive active participle‎[23] which means a being who excuses a deed whose nature is that it should be punished;‎[24] a being who is very forgiving; a being that is given to forgiving,‎[25] where its primary significance means to cover, to conceal, to veil,‎[26] and therefore in this context means to hide the sins. Thus if this verse has described the act of the man who invokes ẓihār by means of two negative words (outrageous and lie), it has paralleled them by evoking two positive descriptions of God relating to His mercy, which are: pardon and forgiveness;‎[27] two positive descriptions of God also found bringing other verses to a close such as in 4:43, 4:99, and 22:60.

The terminal part of this verse contains two particles of emphasis, which are inna and la. These are captured in the translation as Indeed, augmenting hope in God’s mercy.

EXPOSITION

This verse as a whole rebukingly negates the sentence of ẓihār‎[28] and nullifies its effect as a valid divorce, as well as nullifying the ensuing permanent prohibition of the wife to the husband that occurred due to it.‎[29] It does this by negating the notion of the motherhood of the wife due to the practice of ẓihār, As for those of you who repudiate their wives by ẓihār, they are not their mothers. This is because in invoking ẓihār the wife was adjoined to the mother, or to motherhood, and consequently would become permanently forbidden to her husband just as a mother is forbidden to her son.‎[30] The negation is most emphatic and categorical in the part of this verse which says, they are not their mothers, and that is because the two states – wifehood and motherhood – are very different, and so the comparison is invalid.‎[31] 33:4, which also touches on ẓihār, has the section related to ẓihār closely resemble the verse under discussion. It says: nor has He made your wives whom you repudiate by ẓihār your mothers … These are mere utterances of your mouths. Thereafter, the verse currently under discussion emphasises this negation by reiterating, their mothers are only those who bore them. Thereafter, it emphatically reaffirms this negation where it describes, by means of two negative terms, the statement of those men who invoke ẓihār: indeed they utter an outrageous utterance and a lie, meaning that those husbands who invoke the practice of ẓihār are certainly uttering what is rejected and hateful of speech;‎[32] that which is odious and shameful,‎[33] whence the religious law rejects it since it does not recognise it but rather proscribes it;‎[34] and similarly it is falsehood (zūr),‎[35] because if a man renders his wife’s back similar to his mother’s when in reality that is not the case then that is a lie in speech.‎[36]

Thus this practice disagrees with religious law as well as external reality,‎[37] and so the verse signifies that the practice of ẓihār does not signify divorce at all,‎[38] and the two negative descriptions by which it is described prove that it is forbidden.‎[39]

The terminal part of this verse, Indeed Allah is all-excusing, all-forgiving, further proves that this practice is a sin and absolutely forbidden but worthy of being forgiven, conditional to repentance,‎[40] demonstrated by following God’s dictates in this regard, which is for the husband to either discharge the expiation and retain his wife with dignity and affection, or properly divorce her according to Muslim teachings.

REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE

There is a debate among commentators regarding the meaning of Indeed Allah is all-excusing, all-forgiving. It is clear from this verse that ẓihār is a sin and absolutely forbidden, but what does this verse mean when it harshly condemns ẓihār and then says Indeed Allah is all-excusing, all-forgiving?

One interpretation, and it appears this is more widely held than the others, is that this part of the verse is general in intent and means to say that God is pardoning and forgiving to all those who repent after sinning, due to His grace, mercy, and goodness.‎[41] This is because the description of God’s pardon and forgiveness in this verse is absolute, general, and unrestricted;‎[42] this is pointed out, for example, by al-Shahīd al-Thānī, Zayn al-Dīn al-ʿĀmilī al-Jubaʿī (d. 1559).‎[43] Obviously, according to this understanding, the sin of ẓihār would also fall within the ambit of this verse and therefore ẓihār is a sin but worthy of being forgiven, conditional to repentance‎[44] and obeying God’s dictates in this regard, which is for the husband to either discharge the expiation and retain his wife with dignity and affection, or properly divorce her according to Muslim teachings. This understanding may be considered augmented by the mention of expiation in the succeeding verses, along with the terminal part of verse 4, which says These are Allah’s bounds, and there is a painful punishment for the faithless, which perhaps proves that the forgiveness is conditional to discharging the expiation and retaining the wife‎[45] (or properly divorcing her).

A second understanding of Indeed Allah is all-excusing, all-forgiving is that it is specific to ẓihār. Thus ẓihār is a sin but its perpetrator is not liable to punishment since mention of its sinful nature is coupled with forgiveness and pardon,‎[46] while the expiations enunciated in verses 3-4 pertain to those husbands who wish to retract what they had uttered of ẓihār and maintain a normal married life as before. Thus it is to be categorised among the smaller sins which would be forgiven if the greater sins are eschewed.‎[47] Although it cannot be denied that the mention of pardon and forgiveness occurs in the context of ẓihār and so could be taken to refer to it specifically, yet this interpretation does raise the question: if the perpetrator of ẓihār was not liable to punishment then why would the succeeding verses specify burdensome expiations for the husband when and if he wished to retract what he had said and maintain a normal married life?

A third understanding of Indeed Allah is all-excusing, all-forgiving in this verse is that it is not only specific to ẓihār but pertains to those who engaged in it prior to the descent of the revelation denouncing it, such as Aws ibn al-Ṣāmit.‎[48] So it pertains to those who engaged in it while ignorant of the negative significance of their misdeed, and with respect to this verse, it specifically pertains to Aws ibn al-Ṣāmit,‎[49] just as it is also argued that responsibility and accountability for a matter only comes about after the judgement regarding it is made known and legislated, and so it does not apply to past practices when its judgement was unknown.‎[50] This means Aws ibn al-Ṣāmit did not need to discharge the expiation in order to get back to married life contrary to the more widely held opinion, reflected in the many narrations, and it is argued that the terminal part of this verse resembles the terminal part of 33:5‎[51] which denounces the practice of adoption and then says: There will be no sin upon you for any mistake that you may make therein, barring what your hearts may premeditate. And Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful.

This third understanding comes across clearly in a report of Imam al-Bāqir (a)‎[52] and may be understood to suggest the same in a report of Imam al-Ṣādiq (a).‎[53] The former has been cited under Insights from Hadith (in the context of the discussion of verse 4). Thus those who engaged in ẓihār subsequent to this revelation would need to repent to be forgiven, and would need to demonstrate their repentance by either discharging the expiation thereby returning to normal married life, or by divorcing their spouses properly, and this is because they could not be considered ignorant of the negative significance of their misdeed subsequent to the revelation denouncing it, since the latter had unequivocally condemned it.

These two reports, and in particular the report of Imam al-Bāqir (a), consequently insist that verses 1-2 descended first, and thereafter verses 3-4 were revealed. This is contrary to the more widely held opinion that verses 1-4 were revealed together. Tabatabai writes that the report of Imam al-Bāqir (a) is sound as far as its chain of transmission is concerned,‎[54] however he prefers to place the report aside since it contradicts the literary context of verses 1-4.‎[55] He writes that verse 2 and especially what it contains of the mention of pardon and forgiveness is closer in conformity to this literary context (verses 3-4) than what is given as a context in the anecdote in this report since the report fails to conform to the apparent sense of verse 3‎[56] (and verse 4, as well as one may add the many relevant narrations, which describe the historical context of these verses). Thus for him, all four verses descended together, the requirement to discharge expiation applied to all offenders, the pardon in verse 2 applies to all offenders provided they repented and discharged the expiation (or divorced their wives legally), which is the first interpretation. But perhaps it is not implausible that verses 1-2 descended first in order to censure Aws ibn al-Ṣāmit, subsequently pardoning him due to his ignorance of the significance of his misdeed, and due to his sincere, chagrined commitment not to repeat the misdeed again. Thereafter verses 3-4 descended for future offenders, and it is possible that verses 3-4 descended very soon after verses 1-2.

However, irrespective of whether verses 1-2 descended separately from verses 3-4, and whether Aws ibn al-Ṣāmit had to discharge the expiation or not, the reality of the law of ẓihār subsequent to the revelation of these four verses is that all four verses are understood to apply together as a coherent unity on all those who invoke ẓihār after the revelation of these verses. This effectively means the first of the three interpretations outlined above applies in law.

Ṭūsī has a curious interpretation for this section of the verse. He writes that the last part of the verse means God is merciful to the people; He bestows blessings on them and overlooks their sins. He then writes that this part of the verse contains evidence that God was merciful to Khawlah and other women like her due to her inclination to her husband. This was by means of expounding the expiations by which she would be rendered permissible to her husband.‎[57] 

[1] Razi, 29/479; Safi, 5/142; Munyah, 28/47.
[2] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 591; Munyah, 28/47.
[3] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 590.
[4] Munyah, 28/47.
[5] Munyah, 28/47; Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 590.
[6] Munyah, 28/47.
[7] Munyah, 28/47.
[8] Munyah, 28/47; Furqan, 28/193; al-Ḥadāʾiq al-Nāḍirah, 5/629; Razi, 29/479.
[9] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 589.
[10] Razi, 29/479; Furqan, 28/193.
[11] Razi, 29/479.
[12] Furqan, 28/193; Razi, 29/479.
[13] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 589.
[14] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 590.
[15] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 407.
[16] Amthal, 18/104; Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 407.
[17] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 407.
[18] Amthal, 18/104.
[19] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 631.
[20] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 631.
[21] Munyah, 28/49.
[22] Lane, 2/2144-2145.
[23] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 670.
[24] Munyah, 28/49.
[25] Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage, p. 670.
[26] Lane, 2/2328.
[27] Munyah, 28/49.
[28] Tabrisi, 9/372; Mizan, 19/178.
[29] Mizan, 19/178.
[30] Mizan, 19/178.
[31] Tabrisi.J, 4/255-256; Zamakhshari, 4/485.
[32] Tabrisi.J, 4/255-256; Mizan, 19/178.
[33] Tibyan, 9/542.
[34] Tabrisi.J, 4/255-256; Mizan, 19/178; Kashif, 7/264; Munyah, 28/49.
[35] Mizan, 19/178; Tabrisi.J, 4/255-256.
[36] Tibyan, 9/542; Tabrisi, 9/372; Munyah, 28/49.
[37] Mizan, 19/178; Kashif, 7/264; Tabrisi.J, 4/255-256.
[38] Mizan, 19/178.
[39] Munyah, 28/49.
[40] Tabrisi, 9/372; Zamakhshari, 4/486; Mizan, 19/178; Furqan, 28/193; Fadlallah, 22/62; Kashif, 7/265.
[41] Kashif, 7/265; Daqaiq, 13/121; Fadlallah, 22/62; Qalāʾid al-Durar, 3/336.
[42] Qalāʾid al-Durar, 3/336
[43] Cited in Fadlallah, 22/62; Kashif, 7/265.
[44] Tabrisi, 9/372; Mizan, 19/178; Furqan, 28/193; Zamakhshari, 4/486.
[45] Mizan, 19/178.
[46] Kashif, 7/265; Fadlallah, 22/62.
[47] Kanz al-ʿIrfān fī Fiqh al-Qurʾān, 2/290.
[48] Amthal, 18/104-105; al-Ḥadāʾiq al-Nāḍirah, 25/632; Qalāʾid al-Durar, 3/336.
[49] Al-Ḥadāʾiq al-Nāḍirah, 25/632; Qalāʾid al-Durar, 3/336.
[50] Amthal, 18/105.
[51] Amthal, 18/105.
[52] Qummi, 2/353-354.
[53] Faqih, 3/340;Wasail, 15/506, cited in al-Ḥadāʾiq al-Nāḍirah, 25/632.
[54] Mizan, 19/180; Qalāʾid al-Durar, 3/329.
[55] Mizan, 19/180. It may also be pointed out that this report explicitly states that verses 1-2 descended after Khawlah had left for home. This is while the argument has been made, in the discussion of verse 1, that the verses descended while she was still in the company of the Prophet, which is in agreement with the majority of reports in this regard.
[56] Mizan, 19/180.
[57] Tibyan, 9/542.