Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:228

(And the divorced women): That is, those who possess menstrual cycles, from among the free women with whom the marriage has been consummated. This is because it has been clarified in the verses and reports that there is no waiting period ('iddah) for one with whom marriage has not been consummated; and that the 'iddah of one who does not menstruate due to youth, old age, or pregnancy, is by months or the delivery of the child; and that the 'iddah of a slave woman is one menstrual cycle or two months. The [definite article] al- (in al-mutallaqat) is not for exhaustive coverage (istighraq), for that is impossible here due to what has been explained; rather, it is assigned to the genus, as in [the statement] "I do not marry women." It is intended to refer to those mentioned, by the evidence of the ruling. This is the school of our masters, the Hanafis, because an independent statement that is not connected [by a relative pronoun or particle] is, according to them, an abrogator of the general ('amm); and abrogation is only valid if the generality of the previous ruling is established, yet there is no such generality here.

The Shafi'is said: "(The divorced women)" is general, and some have been specified by an independent statement that is not connected. The Imam [Razi] objected to this by stating that specification is only appropriate if the remainder under the general category is more numerous, and here it is not. This is of no consequence, for it is something for which there is no evidence; indeed, what is mentioned in the books of Usul is that it is permissible to specify the general until there remains under it that which merits the meaning of a plural, so that the formula is not rendered null. So let this be understood.

(Shall wait): That is, they shall tarry, and it is an informative sentence intended as a command by way of implication. Therefore, according to the opinion of those who do not permit an imperative construction to serve as an informative statement without reinterpretation, it does not require a reinterpretation to function as a predicate for a subject. It is also said that the nominal sentence is informative in the sense of a command—meaning "Let the divorced women wait." It is not hidden that this is unnecessary; the variation in phrasing is for the sake of emphasis, through its indication of the reality of the matter—for the original meaning of an informative statement is truth or falsehood, which is a rational possibility—and to intimate that it is something one must hasten to fulfill, as the word indicating occurrence has been placed in the stead of the one indicating a request. Placing it after the subject provides an additional layer of emphasis, due to the benefit of "piety" (taqwa)—according to one of the two methods reported from Sheikh Abd al-Qahir and al-Sakkaki.

The waiting here is qualified by His, Exalted is He, saying: (by themselves), while He omitted it in His saying, "they shall wait for four months," to incite the women to wait. For the ba is for transitivity; thus, what is commanded is that they restrain their own selves and compel them to wait. In this is an intimation that they are inclined toward men, and that is something they would be ashamed of; so when they hear this—"they shall wait"—it is different from the previous verse, for the one commanded to wait therein is the husbands. Though they may be ambitious for women, they have no shame regarding it, so mentioning "themselves" there would not benefit in inciting them to wait.

(Three menstrual cycles): [It is in the] accusative [case] as an adverb of time, because it is an expression of duration. The direct object is omitted because "waiting" is transitive—as the Almighty said: "And we are waiting for you for God to afflict you"—meaning they shall wait [out] the prohibition of marriage. In its omission is an intimation that they should abstain from marriage during this period to such an extent that they do not even utter it. It is permitted that it be in the position of a direct object with an implied possessor, meaning they shall wait [for] its completion.

Quru' is the plural of qur', with fath or damm [of the qaf], and the former is more eloquent. It is used for menstruation, according to what al-Nasa'i, Abu Dawud, and al-Daraqutni related, that Fatima bint Abi Hubaysh said: "O Messenger of God, I am a woman who suffers from istihada (dysfunctional uterine bleeding), so I am not purified; shall I abandon prayer?" He, peace be upon him, said: "No, abandon prayer for the days of your aqra'." It is also used for the period of purity separating two menstruations, as in the manifest words of al-A'sha: "...bringing wealth, and in the clan is elevation for what was lost in it of your women’s quru'." That is, their periods of purity, for it is the time of enjoyment, and there is no intercourse during menstruation, even in the Pre-Islamic era. Its root is the transition from purity to menstruation, for it necessitates [the occurrence of] each of them. The evidence for this, as al-Raghib said, is that a pure woman who has not seen blood is not called "one with a qur'", and a menstruating woman who continues to bleed is not called that either.

The meaning of qur' in the verse, according to al-Shafi'i—in one of his strong opinions—is the transition from purity to menstruation, or the period of purity being transitioned from, as is the well-known view. This is what is reported from A'isha, Ibn Umar, Zayd ibn Thabit, and a great multitude, not menstruation. They argued for this with rational and transmitted proofs. As for the first: the purpose of the 'iddah is the purification of the womb from the water of the previous husband, and that which is known for the purification of the womb is the transition to menstruation, because it indicates the opening of the mouth of the womb; thus, there can be no conception, for conception usually necessitates the closing of the mouth of the womb, unlike menstruation. For the transition from menstruation to purity indicates the closing of the mouth of the womb, which is the site of conception, so if menstruation comes after it, one knows it did not close.

As for the second: It is His, Exalted is He, saying: "So divorce them for their 'iddah." The lam is for time-setting, and restriction to a time; thus, it benefits that the object of the lam is the time for what precedes it, as in His saying: "And We set up the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection" and "Perform the prayer at the decline of the sun." Thus, it benefits that the 'iddah is the time of divorce, and divorce during menstruation is not legislated, according to what the two Sheikhs [Bukhari and Muslim] related: Ibn Umar, may God be pleased with them both, divorced his wife while she was menstruating. Umar mentioned this to the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, who became angry and said: "Command him to take her back, then keep her until she is purified, then she menstruates, then she is purified; then if he wishes, he may keep her, and if he wishes, he may divorce her before touching her. That is the 'iddah which God, Exalted is He, has commanded women to be divorced for." This is also one of the proofs that the 'iddah is by periods of purity.

Our masters, the Hanafis, held the view that the meaning of qur' is menstruation, which is reported from Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Qatada, al-Hasan, Ikrimah, Amr ibn Dinar, and a great multitude. The [notion] that the transition from purity to menstruation is the [sole] identifier of purification—if accepted—is countered by the fact that the flowing of blood is the cause of purification. We do not accept that considering the identifier is superior to considering the cause, and this is not a form of stubbornness at all. Moreover, the important thing in such discussions is the transmitted evidence, and in what they mentioned of it, there is a dispute. For the lam of time-setting does not dictate that its object must be an adverb of time for what precedes it. In al-Radi, it is stated that the lam in [a phrase] like "I came to you for the beginning of such-and-such" is that which benefits the specification that is its origin. Specification here is of three types: either the action is specified to the time by its occurrence within it (like "I wrote it for the beginning of such-and-such"), or it is specified to it by its occurrence after it (like "for a night that has passed"), or it is specified to it by its occurrence before it (like "for a night that remains"). With unconditional usage, the specification is for its occurrence within it; with a context like "passed," it is for its occurrence after it; and with a context like "remains," it is for its occurrence before it.

In our current context, there is a context indicating that it is before it, because the divorcing must be before the 'iddah, not concurrent with it. This is supported by the recitation of the Prophet, peace be upon him: "at the beginning of their 'iddah." In al-Sihah, the qabl and qibal are the opposite of the dubr and dubur. An arrow hits the qibal of the target and its dubr. He rent his shirt from the front and back—meaning from its front and rear. It is said: "He dismounted at the qibal of this mountain," meaning at its slope. Thus, the meaning of "in the qibal of their 'iddah" is at the forefront of their 'iddah and before it, as the manifest meaning of the examples suggests. What he mentioned regarding "before" something being its beginning returns to this as well. Even upon conceding the lack of return, the precedence of the former is preferred due to immediacy and frequency of usage, and the support is achieved by that amount.

The Hadith that the two Sheikhs [Bukhari and Muslim] related is authentic, but using it as proof that the 'iddah is [measured by] periods of purity is not accepted, because it is dependent on making the demonstrative pronoun refer to the state which is "purity," and there is no proof for that. For the lam in "divorce them for their 'iddah" is like the lam in "for their 'iddah"; it is possible for it to mean "in," and it is possible for it to mean "before." Thus, it is possible that what is being referred to is menstruation. The demonstrative pronoun is feminine to harmonize with the predicate, like a pronoun when it occurs between a masculine antecedent and a feminine predicate; for the preference, according to the majority, is to observe the predicate, since what is past is gone. The meaning is: "That menstruation is the 'iddah which God, Exalted is He, commanded that women be divorced before," not that they be divorced "in" it, as Ibn Umar understood, and [thus] he initiated the divorce in it.

The statement of al-Khattabi—that "the aqra' by which the divorced woman counts her 'iddah are periods of purity, because he mentioned 'that 'iddah' after purity"—is answered by saying that his mention of it after purity does not necessitate that it be what is being referred to, as it is possible that the mention of purity was to indicate that the menstruation surrounded by purity is what constitutes the 'iddah. In that case, the mention of the second purity does not require a point—which is that if he took her back in the first period of purity through intercourse, her divorce in it would not be according to the Sunnah, so a second period of purity is required so that the Sunnah-compliant divorce can be initiated within it, and that the reconciliation is not for the sole purpose of divorce, and that it is like a repentance from a sin by replacing his state, and that his stay with her is prolonged so that perhaps he may have intercourse with her, and what is in her soul regarding the cause of divorce vanishes, so he retains her. This is what returns to the rebuttal.

As for the proof that qur' is menstruation, it is what Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and al-Daraqutni related from A'isha, that he, peace be upon him, said: "The divorce of a slave woman is two pronouncements, and her 'iddah is two menstruations." He explicitly stated that the 'iddah of the slave woman is two menstruations, and it is known that the difference between the free woman and the slave woman is with regard to the length of the 'iddah, not its genus. Therefore, His, Exalted is He, saying: "Three menstrual cycles," is assigned [the role of] clarification for the ambiguity arising from the shared meaning. The [claim] that it does not withstand what the two Sheikhs related in the story of Ibn Umar, due to its weakness—because there is "Muzahir" in it, and he is not known for anything else—is not free from debate. Firstly, because you know that that Hadith is not an explicit text (nass) regarding the claim. Secondly, because the justification for weakening Muzahir is not apparent; Ibn 'Adi related another hadith for him, Ibn Hibban authenticated him, and al-Hakim said: "Muzahir is an elder from among the people of Basra, and none of our early sheikhs mentioned any disparagement regarding him." So, if the hadith is not authentic, it is hasan (good). Among what authenticates the hadith is the practice of the scholars in accordance with it. Al-Tirmidhi said after narrating it: "A gharib hadith, and the practice of the scholars among the companions of the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, and others is in accordance with it." In al-Daraqutni, al-Qasim and Salim said: "The Muslims acted upon it." Malik said: "The fame of the hadith suffices for its chain of transmission." Thus it is in al-Fath.

Some of our companions argued that if the intended meaning of qur' were purity, it would necessitate nullifying the requirement of the specific term, namely the word "three," for then the 'iddah would be two periods of purity and part of the third in the well-known divorce [scenario]. It is not hidden that this—like its peers in this location—stems from a lack of reflection upon what Imam al-Shafi'i, may God be pleased with him, said. For this reason, they objected to it against him; for he only made the qur' the transition from purity to menstruation, or the purity being transitioned from, not the purity separating two [menstrual] bloods. And the aforementioned transition, or the purity transitioned from, is complete. Moreover, that "three" is a name for a complete number is not conceded. The truth of the matter is that when one begins the third, the usage is permissible. Do you not see them say "He is three years old," even if the third has not been completed? This is because the excess is treated as a single unit metaphorically, then the name of the complete number is applied to the whole.

Some Shafi'is made qur' a name for the menstruation which is surrounded by two [periods of] blood, and made its application to part of the purity and the whole of it like the application of "water" and "honey." They said: "The derivation points to the meaning of gathering and aggregation, and in this purity, there occurs an aggregation of blood in the womb, and some of it or all of it is equal in indicating that." They extended the discussion on this. The Imamiyyah agreed with them on it and argued for it with their reports from the Imams. The report from Ali, may God be honored, in this chapter is contradictory. In sum, the argument of the Shafi'is in this location is strong, as is not hidden to those who have surrounded the aspects of their argument, reviewed what they said, and contemplated how they pushed back the evidence of their opponents. In al-Kashf, there is some discovery, but what is in al-Kashshaf is not sufficient for our goal, and this amount suffices as a sample.

Furthermore, the analogical rule was to mention qur' in the form of the [plural of] paucity, which is aqra', but they broaden their usage in that, so they use each of the two structures in place of the other. Perhaps the point favoring its choice here is that the intended meaning of "the divorced women" here is all divorced women who possess menstrual cycles—the free women—and all of them exceed the [number] one, so it is used in the place of the plural of abundance. For each one of them there are three quru', so abundance occurs in the quru', thus it was good to use the plural of abundance in distinguishing the three, as a warning of that. This is as they used "their own selves" (anfusihinna) in place of nufusihinna to indicate that divorce ought to occur [only] upon the few.

(And it is not lawful for them to conceal what God has created in their wombs): Ibn Umar said: "Pregnancy and menstruation." That is, it is not lawful for her, if she is pregnant, to conceal her pregnancy; nor, if she is menstruating, to conceal her menstruation, saying while she is menstruating: "I have become pure." They used to do the former so that the man would not wait for her divorce in order for her to deliver, and so that the man would not feel pity for the child and thus refrain from releasing her; and the latter for the sake of hastening the passing of the 'iddah and nullifying the right of reconciliation (raj'ah). This opinion is what is reported from al-Sadiq, al-Hasan, Mujahid, and others. The argument that "menstruation is not created in the womb, rather it is external to it, so it is not correct to carry 'what' (ma) upon its generality, but it is necessary to carry it upon the child"—which is reported from Ibn Abbas and Qatada—is refuted by the fact that even if the blood itself is not created in the womb, the characterization of it being "menstruation" is what occurs to it therein. And what was said—that "the speech is about the divorced women who possess menstrual cycles, so it does not admit the creation of a child in their wombs, so 'what' must be carried upon menstruation," as is narrated from Ikrimah—is also refuted by the fact that the specification of the general and its qualification by external evidence does not necessitate considering that specification or qualification in the general referent. The verse was used as proof that their testimony is accepted regarding what God, Exalted is He, has created in their wombs, for if not for the acceptance of that, there would be no benefit in forbidding them from concealing it. Ibn al-Faras said: "In my view, the verse is general regarding everything that relates to the private parts, such as virginity, non-virginity, and defects, because all of that is from what God, Exalted is He, has created in their wombs, so they must be believed regarding it." And in this, there is contemplation.

(If they believe in God and the Last Day): [It is a] condition for His, Exalted is He, saying: "(It is) not lawful." However, the purpose is not restriction, such that if they did not believe, like the Women of the Book, concealment would be lawful for them; rather, it is a declaration of the contradiction between concealment and faith, and a terrorizing of its status in their hearts. This is a conventional method; it is said: "If you are a believer, do not harm your father." It is said that it is a condition whose response is omitted—meaning "then they shall not conceal." His, Exalted is He, saying "(It is) not lawful" is the cause for it, placed in its stead. The approximation of the speech is: "If they believe in God and the Last Day, they shall not conceal what God has created in their wombs, because it is not lawful for them." In this is that the implied "they shall not conceal," if it is a prohibition, requires the causation of a thing by itself; and if it is a negation, the meaning of the speech is to suspend the non-occurrence of concealment in the future upon their belief in the past, and it is as you see.

(And their husbands): That is, the husbands of the divorced women; bu'ul is plural of ba'l (like 'amm and 'umumut, and fahl and fuhulat). The ha is an extra, added for the feminization of the collective. The examples are auditory, not analogical. It is not said ka'b and ka'ubut, said al-Zajjaj. In al-Qamus: "The ba'l is the husband, and the female is ba'l and ba'lah, and the Lord, the Master, the Owner, and the palm tree that is not watered by rain." Al-Raghib said: "The ba'l is the palm tree drinking with its roots; it is used metaphorically for the husband because of his stability with the wife for the specific meaning." It is said: "He ba'ala her," meaning he had intercourse with her; and "the man ba'ila" if he was bewildered and stayed still, as if he were the palm tree that does not leave. In choosing the word bu'ulah is an intimation that the foundation of reconciliation is by intercourse. It is permitted that bu'ulah be an infinitive, used as an epithet from your saying "he ba'ala well-in-the-bu'ulah," i.e., the treatment of the wife; or it is placed in the stead of an omitted possessor, i.e., "the families of their husbands."

(Have more right to take them back): To the marriage and reconciliation with them. This is if the divorce is revocable (raj'i), for the verse thereafter. The pronoun—after considering the constraint—is more specific than what is being referred back to, and there is no impossibility in that, just as when a noun is repeated. It is said: "The husbands of the divorced women have more right to take them back." It is restricted to the revocable [divorce]. "More right" (ahaqq) here is in the sense of "more deserving"; it is expressed in the superlative form for hyperbole, as if it were said: "The husbands have the right of reconciliation," meaning a right beloved to God, Exalted is He, unlike divorce, for it is hateful. Hence, it was revealed to warn against it: "The most hated of permissible things to God, Exalted is He, is divorce." It was not left in its meaning of participation and increase, for the wife has no right in the reconciliation, as is not hidden. Ubayy read it as bi-raddatihinna.

(In that): That is, the time of the 'iddah. It is connected to "more right" or "take them back."

(If they intend reconciliation): That is, if the husbands intend by the reconciliation "reconciliation" for what is between them and them, and do not intend harm by prolonging the 'iddah upon them, for example. The intent of the conditional clause is not to condition the validity of the reconciliation upon the intention of reconciliation, such that if his intention were not that, it would not be permitted—for there is consensus on its validity unconditionally—rather, the intent is to incite them to intend reconciliation, as if it were made dependent upon it, vanishing with its disappearance.

(And they have rights similar to what is upon them, in a fair manner): In this is the rhetorical device of ihtibak (mutual omission), and its subtlety is not hidden between the husband and the wife, as the [second half] was omitted in the first by the evidence of the second, and in the second by the evidence of the first. It is as if it were said: "They have [rights] upon them similar to what they have upon them." The intended meaning of similarity is similarity in obligation, not in the genus of the act. Therefore, it is not obligatory upon him, if she washed his clothes or baked for him, that he do the same for her; rather, he counters it with what is appropriate for men. Al-Tirmidhi related, and authenticated it, as did al-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah from Amr ibn al-Ahwas that the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, said: "Lo! You have a right upon your wives, and your wives have a right upon you. As for your right upon your wives, they should not tread upon your furnishings anyone you dislike, and they should not give permission in your houses to anyone you dislike. Lo! And their right upon you is that you treat them well in their clothing and their food." Waki' and a group related from Anas from Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with them both, that he said: "I truly love to adorn myself for my wife, just as I love that the wife adorns herself for me, because God, Exalted is He, says: 'And they have [rights]...'." They included among what is due to them not being hasty if he has intercourse with her until she has fulfilled her need. The last prepositional phrase is connected to what the predicate is connected to. It is said: [it is] an epithet for "similar," and it does not become definite by the possessive.

(And men have a degree above them): An increase in right, because their rights are over their very persons, for it has been reported that marriage is like servitude. Or [it is] a status of merit, because they are guardians over them and protectors of them; they participate with them in the purpose of marriage, [which is] enjoyment and the ordering of the interests of living, and they are privileged with a status attained for them by virtue of care and spending upon them. A darajah (degree) in its origin is a step; it is said regarding it: darajah (like hamzah). Al-Raghib said: "The degree is like a status, but it is said when one considers ascending, not spreading on a flat surface, like the step of a roof or a ladder." It is used for a lofty status, and from it is the verse. It is thus, upon the two interpretations, a metaphor. In al-Kashf: "The root of the structure is for the meaning of delay and approaching slowly—from the darj of the child when he crawls, and likewise the old man, and the mufid (the one who walks with a limp) due to the closeness of their steps. The degree upon which one ascends is because ascent is not in ease like descent and walking on a level surface, so a graduation is necessary. The daraj are the places that the flood passes over bit by bit, and from it is the graduation in affairs, and the istidraj (gradual leading to ruin) from God. The darakah is the degree itself, but in descent." Rijal (men) is the plural of rajul, and the root of the chapter is strength and dominance. He brought the noun instead of the pronoun to give prominence to the mention of masculinity, by which the distinction appeared.

(For men over women. And God is Almighty): Dominant; He is not frustrated by taking revenge upon those who oppose the rulings.

(Wise): Knowing the consequences of affairs and the interests for which He legislated what He legislated. The sentence is a suffix for intimidation and encouragement.