(And the mothers shall suckle their children) is an imperative phrased as a statement to emphasize the obligation. Its meaning is recommendation, or it is an obligation if it is restricted to cases where the infant can only be suckled by its mother, or no wet nurse is available, or the father is unable to hire one. Expressing them by the aforementioned title is to evoke their maternal affection toward their children. The ruling is general for divorced and non-divorced women, as is required by the apparent meaning, though some have restricted it to divorced mothers. This is narrated from Mujahid, Ibn Jubayr, and Zayd ibn Aslam, who argued for this on two grounds:
First, that Allah Almighty mentioned this verse following the verses of divorce, making it a continuation of them. He completed them with this because when a separation occurs, enmity and hatred may arise, which often drives the woman to harm the child as a spiteful act against the husband and to cause him pain. Furthermore, she may desire to remarry, which often leads to the neglect of the child and a lack of care for his needs. Therefore, they were commanded in the most emphatic way to look after his welfare and attend to his affairs.
Second, that the mandatory provision of sustenance and clothing for nursing mothers thereafter implies a restriction, for if the marriage remained valid, that would be incumbent upon the husband by virtue of the marriage, not the breastfeeding. Al-Wahidi said: It is more appropriate to restrict it to mothers while the marriage is ongoing, because a divorced woman is not entitled to clothing but rather to wages. It is not hidden that interpreting it as general is more appropriate, and the purpose of the sequence is not missed. The obligation of sustenance and clothing for nursing mothers does not imply restriction, because it is with respect to some; furthermore, it is said that there is nothing in the verse indicating it is for the breastfeeding. Whoever says it is for that, considers it wages for them, but since the term was not used, he expressed it by its common expenditure to encourage giving her for that purpose, or giving what is spent for that reason; so reflect on this.
(For two full years) that is, two years. The etymology revolves around returning (turning back), and it is in the accusative case as an adverbial of time. (Complete) is its adjective, and it is described as such to emphasize that the estimation is literal, not approximate or based on the customary leniency.
(For whoever desires to complete) the nursing—a clarification of the one to whom the ruling is directed. The prepositional phrase in such instances is the predicate of an omitted subject; i.e., "that is for whoever desires to complete the nursing." It is also permissible for it to be connected to "shall suckle," for the father is obliged to provide the nursing just as he provides maintenance for the mother, and the mother suckles for him. That nursing is an obligation upon the father does not negate the command for them, because it is for recommendation, or because it is also obligatory upon them in the aforementioned scenarios. The verse is used as evidence that the maximum duration of breastfeeding is two years, and it is not considered as such after that; therefore, its ruling is not applied. It is also evidenced that it is permissible to shorten that duration.
(That he may complete) was read in the nominative case. There is a disagreement regarding its explanation: it is said that the particle an (that) was treated like its sister inna regarding being redundant, just as its sister was treated like it regarding acting as a verb, as in the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "As you are, so will you be governed," according to one opinion. It is also said that it is an plus yutimmu (complete) with the plural pronoun in consideration of the meaning of "whoever," and the waw was dropped in the pronunciation to avoid the meeting of two vowelless letters, and the script followed that.
(And upon the father of the child) i.e., the biological father, for the child is "born for" him and attributed to him. He did not express it as "the father," despite that being more concise and obvious, to indicate the cause of the obligation through what it contains of the meaning of attribution, which is signaled by the lam (the preposition "for"). This type of signaling is called idmaj (incorporation) by the scholars of rhetoric, and an indication of the text (isharat al-nass) by us. It is also said that it was expressed this way because the father is not necessarily liable for maintenance; rather, it is incumbent upon the "father of the child" (the one for whom the child is born). As in the case where one has a female slave and she gives birth to a child, the maintenance is upon the owner of the mother because he is the one for whom the child is born, not the biological father. This is far-fetched, as "the one for whom the child is born" and "the father" do not cover the same meaning, and the ruling on slaves is an outlier here.
(Their sustenance and their clothing) i.e., delivering that to them—meaning the mothers—as wages for them. Hiring the mother is permissible according to Shafi’i, while according to us, it is not permissible as long as she is in the marriage or the waiting period (’iddah).
(According to what is fair) i.e., without extravagance or stinginess, or according to what the judge deems and what is within his capacity.
(No soul is charged except within its capacity) is a justification for the requirement of providing what is fair, or an interpretation of what is fair. That is why it is separated. It is an explicit text that Allah Almighty does not charge the servant with what he cannot bear, and it does not negate the possibility of existence in principle; therefore, it does not serve as an argument for the Mu’tazila. The accusative case for "capacity" is because it is the second object of "charge." It was also read "la tukallaf" (passive) with a fatha on the ta, and "la nukallifu" (active) with an nun.
(No mother shall be harmed on account of her child, and no father shall be harmed on account of his child) is a detail of what is understood from the previous part and a clarification for the sake of understanding; this is what invited the separation. Mudara (harming) is a reciprocal action from darar (harm). The reciprocal action either implies intent—in which case the object is omitted—meaning: "a mother shall not be harmed by her husband on account of her child," which occurs when he treats her harshly, demands unfair sustenance and clothing, occupies her heart by neglecting the child's affairs, or says, "After the child has become accustomed to her, I will seek a wet nurse for him, for example." And "no father shall be harmed by his wife on account of his child," by her preventing him from something that is his right regarding sustenance or clothing, or by her taking the child from him while she desires to nurse, or forcing her to nurse.
Or, the harm is unintended, and the meaning is: "Neither of them shall harm the other on account of the child." Ibn Kathir, Abu ‘Amr, and Ya’qub read la tudarru (passive/active) in the nominative, making the sentence a substitute for what preceded it. Al-Hasan read tudarru with a kasra, which is originally tudarru with the ra broken, constructed for the active voice; it is also permissible to open it as a passive voice construction. This is clarified by the fact that it was read la tudar with a vowelless ra and with the first ra opened and broken. Based on the passive construction, the intended meaning is a prohibition against the husband causing harm to her, and against her causing harm to the husband, on account of the child. The ba (in "on account of") in all cases signifies causality. You may also make the subject the actor of the verb, and the ba as a causal particle, so the meaning is: "A mother shall not harm her child by providing poor nutrition or care, or by neglecting what is required for him, or by handing him over to the father after he has grown accustomed to her. And the father shall not harm his child by taking him from her hands or by falling short in her rights, causing her to fall short in his rights."
Abu Ja’far read la tudar with a vowelless ra and emphasis (shaddah) intending a pause. From al-A’raj is la tudar with a vowelless ra and without emphasis, and it is from darra-yadirru (to harm), also intending a pause as the first did, otherwise the rule would have been the dropping of the alif. From the scribe of ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is la tudarraru.
The expression of "child" in both places, and its attribution to her once and to him another, is to evoke affection and to point to what is effectively the cause of the prohibition. This is why the manifest noun was used in place of the pronoun. Among the strange interpretations is what is narrated by the Imami sect from the two Sayyids, al-Sadiq and al-Baqir (may Allah be pleased with them), that the meaning is: "A mother shall not be harmed by the cessation of intercourse (with her) for fear of pregnancy on account of her nursing child," and "a father shall not be harmed by her refusing intercourse likewise on account of his child." In that case, the ba is definitively causal, the two verbs must be passive, no subtle reason appears for using the word "child" in both places, the verse is removed from the context, and it is far from al-Baqir and al-Sadiq to commit to what this lying narrator has claimed.
(And upon the heir is the like of that) is connected to His saying: (And upon the father of the child) etc., and what is between them is an interruption for justification or explanation. By "the heir" is meant the heir of the child, for he is obligated with the same as what was obligated upon the father—sustenance and clothing according to fairness—if the child has no wealth. This is the interpretation narrated from ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbas, Qatadah, Mujahid, ‘Ata, Ibrahim, al-Sha’bi, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Utbah, and a multitude. It is supported by the fact that al- (the definitive article) acts as a replacement for the possessive pronoun, and the return of the pronoun to the nearest mentioned noun is more common in usage. Imam Abu Hanifa restricted this heir to those who are of forbidden kinship (mahram) to the child, and Hammad said the same. It is supported by the reading of Ibn Mas’ud: "And upon the heir who is of forbidden kinship is the like of that." It is said that it means the paternal relatives (’asabat), and Abu Zayd said this; something from ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is narrated that supports this. Shafi’i said: "The intended meaning is the heir of the father, which is the child—i.e., the child’s maintenance from his own wealth if the father dies." It is objected that this interpretation is rejected because it does not restrict the maintenance to being from his wealth only when the father dies; rather, if he has wealth, the father is not obligated to pay for nursing, but rather the child's maintenance is from the child's own wealth by virtue of guardianship, and this requires scrutiny. It is also said that it means the remaining parent, and "heir" has come in the sense of the survivor, as in his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): "O Allah, make me enjoy my hearing and sight, and make them the inheritor from me." It is said: This agrees with the Shafi’i school, since he has no maintenance (obligation) in the rest of the lineage. It is not hidden that there is a difficulty in this, for if al- is for clarification, it requires repetition or weakness or committing to something contrary to the apparent meaning; and if it is for beginning, the meaning is "the survivor, other than the parents." It is possible for this to be the paternal relatives or relatives of forbidden kinship whose relationship is not via the direct line of birth. That this agrees with the Shafi’i school only holds if it is definitively "the survivor of those with a lineage of birth," and there is nothing in the wording to provide that, as is not hidden.
(If they both desire) i.e., the parents, (weaning) i.e., separating the child before the two years. This is what is narrated from Mujahid, Qatadah, and the People of the House (Ahl al-Bayt). It is said: Before them or after them, which is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). According to the first, this is a detail of the benefit of (for whoever desires to complete) and a clarification of the ruling on desiring not to complete it. The indefinite noun (weaning) serves to indicate that this is an unusual weaning. According to the second, it is an expansion regarding the increase and decrease in the duration of breastfeeding after the determination, and the indefinite noun is for generalization. It is permissible, according to both opinions, that it is for indicating its greatness, considering the child, due to what it contains of parting with what is accustomed. (Through mutual consent) is connected to an omitted (verb/phrase) to which the mind drifts, even if it is a specific existence, i.e., "proceeding through mutual consent." It is permissible for it to be connected to "desire." (From them both) i.e., the parents, not just one of them, for fear of one of them acting in a way that harms the child—by the mother becoming bored or the father becoming stingy. They must consult regarding the child's affairs and examine his circumstances; this is taken from al-shawr, which is gathering honey. Likewise is al-mushawara (consultation), al-mashura, and al-mashurah. The intended meaning is drawing out an opinion, and it is in the indefinite to indicate magnification. (There is no blame upon them) in that. The woman's consent was considered, even though the child's guardian is the father and his well-being is dependent on his judgment, to ensure the child's well-being, because the mother, due to her overwhelming compassion for the child, may see what is in his best interest.
(And if you desire) is an address to the fathers, stirring them to compliance, assuming there is no agreement on not weaning, (to seek a wet nurse for your children) by omitting the first object as it is sufficient—i.e., seek wet nurses for your children. "She nursed the woman" and "I sought a wet nurse for her" is like saying "Allah succeeded my need" and "I sought the success of it for him." Imam al-Kirmani has declared that the istif’al form has come to signify the request for more, like istinja’ to seek success, and ista’taba to seek forgiveness. Others have declared this as well, so there is no need to say it is from rada’a in the sense of arda’a (to nurse); it is not the former, for it is not found in their speech, as it is far from research. It is said that istarda’a only takes the second object with a preposition: it is said "I sought a wet nurse for the woman" for the child, and the intended meaning is "you seek wet nurses for your children," so the preposition was omitted as in His saying: (And when they measured for them), i.e., measured for them. (There is no blame upon you) in that. The generality is used as evidence that the husband may seek a wet nurse for the child and prevent the wife from nursing, and this is the school of the Shafi’is. With us, the mother is more entitled to nurse her child, and the father may not seek a wet nurse other than her if she agrees to nurse him, because of His saying: (And the mothers shall suckle their children). By this, this generality is restricted, and to this, the speech of Ibn Shihab points.
(When you deliver) to the wet nurses (what you have promised) i.e., what you have guaranteed and committed to, or what you desired to deliver, so that there is no obligation of redundant action. Ibn Kathir read ataytum (you gave) from "giving kindness to someone," if he does it. Shaiban from ‘Asim read utitum (what you have been given), i.e., what Allah Almighty has given you and enabled you with regarding wages. (According to what is fair) is connected to "deliver," i.e., in the customary manner that is deemed good by the law. It is permissible for it to be connected to "given," and to be a state (hal) from its actor or the actor of the verb before it. The answer to the conditional is omitted, indicated by what preceded it. Delivery is not a condition for lifting the sin; rather, it is more appropriate and better for the child, so that which is of the conditions of appropriateness was likened to that which is of the conditions of correctness, due to the attention given to it. It is said there is no need for this, because the negation of sin for delivering the wages is absolute, not conditioned by performing it before. It means: "There is no blame upon you in seeking a wet nurse if you do not sin by exceeding in the wages and wronging the worker." There is contemplation in this, because if there is no sin when not delivering yet, it is by exceeding, and the act of seeking a wet nurse was previously free from what requires sin.
(And fear Allah) in the matter of observing the rulings, (and know that Allah is All-Seeing of what you do) (332). (Your actions are not hidden from Him, so He will reward you for them. In manifesting the Majestic Name is training for reverence.) In the verse is a threat that is not hidden.
