مِمَّآ

See 2:228.

2:232; 4:130; 65:3.

Important Words:

امساك (retain) is derived from امسك which is again derived from مسك. They say امسك به i.e. he stuck to it. امسك is both transitive and intransitive. امسكه means, he got hold of it and stopped and retained it. امسك عن الکلام means, he abstained from talking. امساك means, (1) to hold or stop or prevent or retain; (2) to refrain or abstain (Aqrab).

تسریح (send away) is the noun-infinitive from سرح (sarraha) which is derived from سرح. They say سرح المواشی i.e. the cattle went forth for grazing. سرح السیل means, the flood moved on leisurely. سرحه means, he sent him away. سرح فلان زوجته means, he sent away or divorced his wife (Aqrab).

حدود (limits) is the plural of حد i.e. a limit. حده means, he put a limit to it. حد الشیء عن الشیء means, he distinguished one thing from the other. الحد means, (1) the limit or the line where two things meet; (2) last limit or extremity of a thing; (3) that by which a thing may be defined; (4) prescribed punishment for an offence. حدود الله means God’s religious commandments (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse contains the fifth check on divorce. A man who seeks permanent and irrevocable separation from his wife must pronounce divorce on three separate occasions, each in a separate طھر i.e. period of purity, when the woman is clean and the man has not gone in unto her during that period of purity. The pronouncement of divorce twice or thrice at one and the same time is not permissible as the verse hints in the word مرتان (twice) which signifies a thing happening on two separate occasions and not two things happening at one and the same time. The Holy Prophet treated such collective pronouncements, whatever their number, as only one divorce (Tirmidhi & Dawud). According to Nasa’i, the Holy Prophet was extremely angry when one day he was told that a person had made all the three pronouncements of divorce at one and the same time, and said: "Is the Book of God going to be made a plaything while I am yet among you?"

After the pronouncement of the first two divorces, the husband can take back the divorced wife within ‘iddah, i.e. the period of waiting, with or without her consent; but after the period of waiting is over, he can take her back only with her consent and that after remarrying her. After the pronouncement of the third divorce, however, the husband forfeits this right and the couple are finally separated. A Companion of the Holy Prophet once asked him saying, "The Quran has here spoken of two divorces only, whence comes in the third!" The Prophet referred him to the Quranic words اوتسریح باحسان i.e. or send them away with kindness meaning thereby that after the pronouncement of the first two divorces the husband was free to retain his wife if he so desired but if he wanted irrevocable separation, he should "send her away", i.e. divorce her a third time (Jarir & Musnad). The point is further made clear in the succeeding verse. Thus the word تسریح here signifies طلاق i.e. divorce.

The present verse also makes it clear that when a person divorces his wife, he forfeits مھر i.e. the dower-money he has given her; and if at the time of divorce he has not yet given her the dower-money agreed on by the parties, he must make the payment before the divorce becomes effective. Again, he is not allowed to take back anything he might have given her in the form of gifts and presents as the clause it is not lawful for you that you take anything of what you have given them indicates.

If, however, it is the wife who demands separation, technically known as خلع (Khul‘a lit. the putting off of clothes etc., or the shedding of old leaves), she must get it through a Qadi or judge as the word خفتم (you fear), which has been put in the plural number, hints. In this case she has to part with, in full or in part, her dowry as well as the gifts she might have received from her husband, as agreed on by the parties or decided by the judge. The case of Jamilah, wife of Qais bin Thabit, provides a good illustration of the exercise of the right of Khul‘a by women. She demanded separation from her husband, Qais, on the ground that she did not like him, i.e. their temperaments being different, she could not get on with him. She was granted Kkul‘a by the Holy Prophet, but she had to return to her husband the orchard he had given her (Bukhari). This right, however, is not to be exercised in a light-hearted manner. The Holy Prophet has condemned the action of a woman who demands separation from her husband without valid reason even as he has condemned the action of a man who divorces his wife without genuine cause. He is reported to have said, "A woman who seeks separation from her husband without a legitimate cause shall be deprived of the fragrance of heaven" (Dawud & Tirmidhi). This is what is hinted in the concluding words, these are the limits prescribed by Allah, so transgress them not, etc. The husband and the wife are both warned to fear God and refrain from transgressing the limits imposed by God for their own good.

6:119.

Important Words:

جوارح (animals of prey) is the plural of جارحة which is derived from جرح. They say جرحه i.e. he wounded him; or he cut him; or he clove or rent his body. It also means, he gained, acquired or earned. جوارح means, beasts and birds of prey that catch game. The word also means, the limbs of a human being with which things are gained or earned (Lane).

مکلبین (training them for hunting) is the plural of مکلب which is the active participle from کلب Kallaba which is the transitive form of کلب (Kaliba) meaning, he thirsted; he ate voraciously; he was seized with the disease of dogs; he barked. کلب(Kallaba) means, he trained (a dog) to hunt; he trained any beast or bird of prey to take game. مکلب means, one who trains dogs to hunt; or one who trains any beast or bird of prey to take game. مکلب also means, one who possesses dogs trained to hunt and hunts with them. کلب means, a dog or any animal of prey (Lane).

Commentary:

The forbidden things having been described in the preceding verse, the rest are here declared lawful, provided they are طیبات i.e. good and pure, it being left to each individual to decide what is good for him and what is not, in view of his particular circumstances and the condition of his health. The Holy Prophet has definitely excluded beasts of prey and birds having claws from the category of lawful food. See also 2:174.

The training of animals or birds of prey for catching game has been made lawful. As for the eating of the flesh of the game so hunted, the injunction varies according to circumstances. The more accepted view is as follows: (1) If the hunter finds the game alive, the eating of its flesh is lawful in all circumstances, provided the hunter slaughters the game in the prescribed manner. (2) If the hunter finds the game dead, the eating of its flesh is lawful only in case (a) the animal of prey is trained, and (b) it does not itself eat of the game, and (c) the hunter sends the animal of prey after reciting thereon the name of Allah. (3) If the game dies of sheer fear, before the animal of prey has actually caught and wounded it, the eating of its flesh is unlawful.

Commentary:

This verse should be read along with vv. 29 and 30 above. In those verses the wives of the Holy Prophet were offered a choice between the companionship of the Holy Prophet and the material benefits and comforts of life, but they preferred the Prophet’s company. The present verse by implication refers to that reply of the Prophet’s consorts which is recorded in the books of history but expressly nowhere in the Quran. Till they gave their reply, the marital relations between them and the Holy Prophet remained, as it were, in a state of suspension. The verse shows that while the wives of the Holy Prophet preferred his company to material goods and amenities of life, he too had great consideration for their feelings, and though he was given the choice to retain such of them as he liked (v. 52) he did not exercise the choice and in deference to his wishes God permitted him in the present verse to retain all his wives.

The verse refers to three kinds of women whom the Holy Prophet could marry in addition to his already wedded wives: (1) Women who were taken prisoner in wars against Islam; (2) women who had migrated to Medina with the Holy Prophet, and (3) a woman who should offer herself for marriage to him. This shows that the Holy Prophet’s marriages were motivated by considerations other than sensuous gratification as his ignorant and mischievous critics try to depict. Those who had left their hearths and homes for the sake of Islam and those whose husbands had been killed in wars fighting in defence of Islam had special claim on the Holy Prophet’s consideration. It is in view of these considerations that he married most of his wives. He married Hafsah whose husband was killed in the Battle of Badr; Zainab bint Khuzaimah whose husband was killed in the Battle of Uhud; Ummi Salmah whose husband died in 4 A.H., and Ummi Habibah, daughter of Abu Sufyan, who became a widow in 5 or 6 A.H. (in exile in Abyssinia). He married Juwairiyyah and Safiyyah, both widows, in 5 A.H. and 7 A.H. respectively, seeking a union with and pacification of their tribes. It is worthy of note that a hundred families of the Banu Mustaliq were liberated by Muslims when the Holy Prophet married Juwairiyyah. Maimunah, another widow, it is said, offered herself to be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet which offer he condescended to accept in the interest of the education and training of Muslim women. He married Zainab, the divorced wife of Zaid in 5 A.H. in order to put a stop to a foolish custom prevailing among the Arabs and in order also to assuage her wounded feelings as the respected lady had felt deeply humiliated at being divorced by Zaid. He married Mariah in 7 A.H., and thus by raising a freed slave girl to the highly eminent spiritual status of the "Mother of the Faithful", he gave a death blow to slavery. Such were the pious and righteous motives of our noble Master in marrying widows and divorced women, by no means noted for their youth or beauty, and yet his cruel and mean traducers vainly try to depict him as a person who was given to gratifying his carnal desires. They deliberately ignore the patent fact that up to the age of 25 he lived the spotless life of a celibate. Then in the prime of his youth he married a lady fifteen years his senior and lived with her a most happy life till he was an old man of fifty and she about sixty-five. After her death he married Saudah, another lady of a very advanced age. He married all his other wives, to which exception has been taken by evil-minded carpers, between 2 A.H. and 7 A.H., a period when he was constantly engaged in active fighting and his life was perpetually in danger and the fate of Islam itself hung in the balance. Could any sane person in such situation of danger and uncertainty conceive of contracting marriage after marriage from motives attributed to the Holy Prophet? After this he lived for about three years as virtual ruler of the whole of Arabia when all the comforts and amenities of life were at his disposal and yet he entered into no further marriage. Does not this fact alone establish the honesty and sincerity of the Holy Prophet’s motives in marrying his wives?

The words "if she entrusts herself to the Prophet" have been taken as specially referring to Maimunah who is reported to have offered herself to be taken into marriage by the Holy Prophet. The clause, "This provision is only for thee as against other believers," means that it was a special privilege of the Holy Prophet and was due to the special nature of his duties as a Divine Prophet. In fact, marriages of the Holy Prophet were dictated by much higher and nobler considerations than merely personal ones. The clause may also refer to the special permission granted to the Holy Prophet, to retain all his wives, after the commandment contained in 4:4 was revealed, limiting to four the number of wives allowed to Muslims at one time.

The words, "We have already made known what We have enjoined on them concerning their wives," refer to the commandment contained in 4:4.

2:140; 109:7.

Commentary:

This verse throws interesting light on the catholicity and broad-mindedness of Islam. Disbelievers are told here that if they prefer to reject the Holy Prophet, they are at perfect liberty to do so. In fact, whenever there exists a difference of views between two parties, each party has the right to show the other to be in error. But this difference should not be allowed to go further, and one party should not compel the other party to accept its views.

The verse declares that when it is well known that believers and disbelievers are two distinct and separate parties and there is no likelihood of the one being mistaken for the other, and when their ways of working are also different, then there is no reason why compulsion should be resorted to. Compulsion may only be exercised when the conduct of one party is likely to bring discredit to the other party. But, situated as they are, the works of a Prophet and of his followers bring no discredit to disbelievers, nor do the actions of disbelievers bring any discredit to believers. Therefore, there is no justification for either of the two classes to bring compulsion to bear on the other.

The verse is also capable of another interpretation. It may mean that the works of the Holy Prophet are quite distinct from those of the disbelievers and there is no similarity between the two. This being so, the result would show whose works are right and whose wrong. When there is similarity between the works of two parties, it is difficult to determine definitely the cause of the progress or degeneration, as the case may be, of one party or the other. But when there exists absolutely no similarity between the works of two parties, everybody is in a position to fix responsibility for the result.

17:23; 26:214; 28:89.

Commentary:

In 16:126 we were told that a number of commandments full of wisdom would be given soon. The present verse purports to say that a few of these wise Divine commandments have already been mentioned in the previous verses. In v. 23. great stress was laid on توحید (Oneness of God). In the following verses the practical implications of the Islamic conception of توحید and the great moral and spiritual benefits that mankind has derived from this concept were explained. In the verse under comment, however, توحید is considered from another standpoint, the injury that its antithesis—idolatry (شرک) does to human intellect. A polytheist naturally feels self-condemned and realizes the untenability of his position before a believer in the Oneness of God because he knows that he possesses no solid argument to support his belief. Thus he can never enjoy real peace of mind.

2:234.