Tafsir of At-Talaq 65:6

"Lodge them from where you dwell." This is an initiation [of speech] that serves as an answer to a question arising from the preceding exhortation to piety. It is as if it were said: "How do we practice piety regarding those observing the waiting period ('iddah)?" The response was: "Lodge them," and so on.

The preposition min (from) signifies partition; that is, lodge them in a portion of your dwellings. If there is only one house, let them dwell in some of its corners, as is related from Qatadah. Al-Hufi and Abu al-Baqa' said: It indicates the starting point of the limit.

His saying, "from your means (min wujdikum)," meaning from your capacity—from that which you can afford—is an appositive ('atf bayan) to His saying, "from where you dwell," according to what Al-Zamakhshari stated. Abu Hayyan rejected this, arguing that there is no known appositive that includes the preposition within it; rather, this is the method of badal (substitution) with a preposition. For this reason, Abu al-Baqa' parsed it as a badal. This was contested by the claim that what is meant is that the preposition and the noun governed by it are an appositive to the other preposition and noun, and that there is no real difference between 'atf bayan and badal except in a minor aspect. The strength of Abu Hayyan’s argument is not hidden.

Al-Hasan, al-A'raj, Ibn Abi 'Ablah, and Abu Haywah read it as min wajdikum with a fatha on the waw. Al-Fayyad ibn Ghazwan, 'Amr ibn Maymun, and Ya'qub read it with a kasra. Al-Mahdawi attributed the kasra to al-A'raj. In all these, the meaning is capacity.

"And do not harm them" means: do not use harm against them in the matter of housing, "to straiten them," causing them to feel compelled to leave by occupying the space or by lodging people with them who they do not wish to dwell with, and the like.

"And if they are pregnant, then spend on them until they deliver their burden," and thus emerge from the waiting period. As for those whose husbands have died, there is no maintenance for them according to the majority of scholars. It is narrated from Ali—may God ennoble his countenance—and Ibn Mas'ud that their maintenance is obligatory from the estate. There is no disagreement regarding the obligation of housing and maintenance for pregnant divorcees, regardless of whether the divorce is irrevocable (bat) or not.

There is disagreement regarding divorcees who are not pregnant, after the consensus on the obligation of housing for them if they are not irrevocably divorced. Ibn al-Musayyib, Sulayman ibn Yasar, 'Ata', al-Sha'bi, al-Hasan, Malik, al-Awza'i, Ibn Abi Layla, al-Shafi'i, and Abu 'Ubayd said: For the ha'il (non-pregnant) woman who is irrevocably divorced, there is housing but no maintenance. Al-Hasan, Hammad, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the Imamiyyah said: There is neither housing nor maintenance for her, due to the hadith of Fatimah bint Qays, who said: "My husband, 'Amr ibn Hafs ibn al-Mughirah al-Makhzumi, divorced me irrevocably. I disputed with him before the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) regarding housing and maintenance, and he did not grant me housing or maintenance. He commanded me to observe my waiting period in the house of Umm Maktum, then he married me to Usamah ibn Zayd." Abu Hanifah and al-Thawri said: She has housing and maintenance; according to him, they are for every divorcee who is not pregnant. His evidence is that 'Umar—may God be pleased with him—said: "I heard the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) say regarding the irrevocably divorced woman: 'She has maintenance and housing.'" Moreover, that is the compensation for [the duty of] confinement, and it is common to both the non-pregnant and the pregnant. If it were compensation for the pregnancy, it would be obligatory from his wealth if he had wealth, and they do not claim this.

This is supported by the reading of Ibn Mas'ud: "Lodge them from where you dwell and spend on them from your means." Those who restrict the spending to pregnant women during the waiting period use this verse as evidence because of the condition therein. However, this does not hold against the opponents due to the concept of mafhum al-mukhalafah (the implication of the opposite). Furthermore, the benefit of the condition here is that it might be imagined that the pregnant woman has no maintenance due to the length of the pregnancy, so maintenance was established for her so that others may be known [to be entitled] by way of priority (tariq al-awla), as [stated] in Al-Kashshaf; thus it is from the mafhum al-muwafaqah (the implication of agreement). The hadith of Fatimah bint Qays was challenged by 'Umar, 'A'ishah, Sulayman ibn Yasar, al-Aswad ibn Yazid, Abu Salamah ibn 'Abd al-Rahman, and others.

"Then if they suckle for you," that is, after they deliver their burden, "give them their wages" for the suckling, "and consult among yourselves with kindness." This is an address to fathers and mothers. The form ifti'al carries the meaning of tafa'ul; it is said "they consulted (i'tamaru) and conferred (ta'amaru)." Al-Kisa'i said: The meaning is to consult. Its reality is that each should command the other with kindness, meaning beauty in the wages and the suckling. There should be no bargaining from the father and no difficulty from the mother. It is said that "kindness" refers to clothing and covering.

"But if you encounter difficulty" means: if you are constrained, meaning if one of you straitens the other through contention regarding the wages, or seeking an increase, or the like, "then another shall suckle for him." That is, another wet-nurse will be found and will not be lacking. In this, according to what has been said, is a reproach to the mother, because it is like saying to someone whom you ask to fulfill a need and they refuse: "Someone else will fulfill it," meaning it will be fulfilled and you are the one to blame.

The mother is singled out for reproach, as Ibn al-Munir said, because what is offered from her side is her milk for her child, which is not usually hoarded or considered a liability in custom, especially from a mother toward a child. That is not the case for what is offered from the side of the father, for it is wealth that is usually hoarded. The mother, therefore, is more deserving of blame and more entitled to rebuke. The speech implies that the father will seek another wet-nurse for him, and the connection between the condition and the response becomes clear. Some eminent scholars said: The speech is not free from a reproach to the father as well, as he was dropped from the level of honorable address in the response, while indicating that if the mother is pressured regarding the wages and refuses to suckle because of that, another woman must suckle him, and she too will usually demand wages; the mother is more affectionate and thus more suitable. By this, the perfection of the connection is revealed. The first [interpretation] is more apparent, so reflect on it. It is said that "she shall suckle" is a statement meant as a command, but that is not strong. This ruling applies if the infant accepts the breast of another; as for if he does not accept anything but his mother's breast, then they have said: She is compelled to suckle for the wages of a peer.