Tafsir of Sad 38:44

(And take in your hand a ḍighth) is a conjunction linked to (Strike with your foot) or to (And We granted him), implying "We said: Take in your hand..." The former is closer in terms of the literal word order, while the latter is more appropriate in terms of meaning, for there is no pressing need for this instruction until health is restored and the time is right. His wife was Rahma bint Ephraim, or Misha bint Yusuf, or Walya bint Ya'qub, or Ma'khir bint Misha bint Yusuf—according to differing narrations.

It is not hidden that the kindness (of a mercy from Us) refers to the first narration: she had gone to attend to a need and was delayed, or it reached Ayyub that the Shaytan suggested he utter a word [of blasphemy] so he might be cured, and she indicated this to him, saying, "How long will this affliction last? Say but one word, and then seek forgiveness from your Lord, and He will forgive you." Or, she came to him with more food than she usually brought, and he suspected that she had committed something forbidden to obtain it, so he swore that if he were cured, he would strike her one hundred times. Allah the Exalted then commanded him to take a ḍighth, which is a small bundle of grass, sweet basil, or stalks. It is also said: it is a large handful of stalks; hence the expression, "A ḍighth upon an ibala," and an ibala is a bundle of firewood, and a ḍighth is likewise a handful of firewood. This is supported by the poet’s saying: "And beneath me is a lean mount I have tied, and cast a bunch of fragrant khala (grass)."

Ibn Abbas said here: The ḍighth is a palm-branch stalk. Mujahid said: It is ithl (a thorny plant). Al-Dahhak said: A bundle of various grasses. Al-Akhfash said: It is green wood. It is narrated from Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib that when he (Ayyub) was commanded, he took a bundle of thumam (a type of desert grass) containing one hundred stalks. Qatada said: It is a stalk containing ninety-nine twigs, and the essence is to complete the hundred. If this is intended in the concept of the ḍighth—though I do not think so—then it is as if it was said: "Take in your hand a bundle containing one hundred twigs."

(And strike with it) that is, with that bundle, (and do not break your oath). For piety is fulfilled through it. Allah the Exalted ordained this as a mercy to him and to her, due to her excellent service to him and his satisfaction with her. It is a concession that remains applicable to fixed penalties (ḥudūd) in our Sharia and in others, though in matters other than ḥudūd, it is understood by the rule of a fortiori (the stronger argument). Abd al-Razzaq, Sa’id ibn Mansur, Ibn Jarir, and Ibn al-Mundhir recorded from Abu Umama ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf that a bondwoman among the Banu Sa’ida became pregnant through adultery. It was said to her, "Who got you pregnant?" She said, "The bedridden man so-and-so." He was asked, and he replied, "She spoke the truth." The matter was raised to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and he said: "Take a palm stalk containing one hundred twigs and strike him with it once." They did so.

Abd al-Razzaq and ‘Abd ibn Humayd recorded from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman from Thawban that a man committed an indecency during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) while he was ill and on the verge of death. He informed his family of what he had done, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered a palm stalk containing one hundred twigs, and he was struck with it once. Al-Tabarani recorded from Sahl ibn Sa’d that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was brought an old man whose veins were visible, who had committed adultery with a woman, and he struck him with a bundle containing one hundred twigs, once. There is no evidence in these reports for the generality of the ruling for one who can withstand the conventional lashing. However, those who hold that the ruling of the verse remains valid argue for its generality, but they stipulated that the one being struck must be touched by every single one of the hundred—either by their tips while upright or by their sides laid flat in the manner of striking. Al-Khafaji said: They stipulated that it must cause pain; otherwise, if there is no pain at all, it is not a strike. A single whip with two strands used fifty times by one who swore to strike [a person] one hundred times is a fulfillment of the oath if it causes pain, but if it does not, he has not fulfilled it, even if he struck him a hundred times, because striking is defined as an act that causes pain to the body with a disciplinary instrument. It is also said: he breaks his oath in any case, as detailed in the commentaries on al-Hidaya and elsewhere.

Ibn ‘Asakir recorded from Ibn Abbas: "This is not permissible for anyone after Ayyub except for the Prophets (peace be upon them)." In Ahkam al-Qur’an al-‘Azim by Jalal al-Suyuti, it is narrated from Mujahid that he said: "This was specifically for Ayyub." Al-Kiya said: Al-Shafi’i, Abu Hanifa, and Zufar went to the view that whoever does this has fulfilled his oath. Malik disagreed and viewed it as specific to Ayyub (peace be upon him). Some said: The ruling was general and then abrogated. The correct view is that the ruling remains. The verse is used as evidence that a husband may strike his wife, that he may swear an oath, and that one need not make an exception (istithna); and that the exception must be connected, for if it were not a condition, the Exalted would have commanded him to make an exception and there would have been no need for the striking with the ḍighth.

‘Ata used this to argue for another issue. Sa’id ibn Mansur recorded with a sound chain from him that a man said to him: "I swore that I would not clothe my wife with a garment until she stands at ‘Arafat." He replied: "Carry her on a donkey, then go and stand with her at ‘Arafat." The man said: "I only meant the Day of ‘Arafat." ‘Ata said: "When Ayyub swore to lash his wife one hundred times, did he intend to strike her with a ḍighth? Allah the Exalted simply commanded him to take a ḍighth and strike her with it." Then he said: "The Qur’an provides an analogy." There is room for debate here. Many people have used this to argue for the permissibility of legal stratagems (ḥiyal) and have made it a basis for their validity. In my view, every stratagem that necessitates the nullification of a legal wisdom is unacceptable, such as the stratagem for avoiding Zakat or the stratagem for avoiding the waiting period (istibra’). This is like the middle ground in the issue, for among the scholars are those who permit stratagems absolutely, and those who do not permit them at all. The scholar Ibn Taymiyyah spoke at length on this.

(Indeed, We found him patient) regarding what afflicted him in his person, his family, and his wealth. He (peace be upon him) used to say whenever a calamity befell him: "O Allah, You took and You gave," and he would praise Allah the Exalted. He did not let his complaint to Allah regarding the Shaytan contradict this, for patience is the absence of despair, and there is no despair in what was mentioned, like wishing for wellness or seeking a cure, especially since he said that—as it is said—out of fear of temptation in his religion, as you heard previously. It is narrated that he said in his supplication: "My God, You know that my tongue has not contradicted my heart, my heart has not followed my sight, my right hand has not distracted me, I have never eaten but with an orphan, and I have never spent the night full, nor clothed, while there was a hungry or naked person with me." So Allah the Exalted removed his affliction. (An excellent servant) i.e., Ayyub. (Indeed, he was one who repeatedly turned [to Allah in repentance]).

(A justification for his praise; the meaning of awwab has preceded).