Surah At-Tahreem 66:2
ﱒ ﱓ ﱔ ﱕ ﱖ ﱗ ﱘ ﱙ ﱚ ﱛ ﱜ ﱝ ﱞ
Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.
Tafsir of At-Tahreem 66:2
Tafsir
Ruh al-Ma'ani
Verse range: 66:2
"Allah has prescribed for you the dissolution of your oaths" (Meaning: Allah has legislated for you the dissolving of them, and it is the releasing of that which oaths have bound through expiation. *Tahilla* (dissolution) is a verbal noun [masdar] like *takrima* (honor) from *karama* (to honor); it is not a standard analogical form. The analogical form is *tahlil* and *takrim*, because the paradigm of the sound-middle-radical verb that is not hamzated is *taf'il*. Its original form was *tahlula*, then it was assimilated. It is derived from *al-hall* (dissolving), which is the opposite of *al-'aqd* (binding). It is as if one who swears upon a thing—because of his commitment to it—has bound it, and through expiation, he dissolves that. It is also dissolved by the "oath's completion" (*siddiq al-yamin*), as in his saying, peace be upon him: "No man will have three children die and the fire touch him, except for the dissolution of the oath" [i.e., the *tahlilah* of the oath], meaning (And there is not one of you except he will come to it [the fire]...) and so on. Its dissolution by the least amount to which the name applies—like someone who swears to dismount—suffices with a slight leaning; thus, the speech is a metonymy for minimization, meaning the amount of a slight passing. Likewise, it is dissolved by the exception (*istithna'*), meaning by the swearer saying: "If Allah wills," with its well-known conditions in jurisprudence.
It is understood from the words of al-Kashshaf that tahlil (dissolution) means the exception, and its meaning, as in al-Kashf, is the following of an oath—upon its utterance—with an exception, so that it does not become binding. From this is "May you be free from cursing."
Regarding the view that there was an oath from him, peace be upon him, as mentioned in some narrations—which is apparent from the verse—it is debated whether he, peace be upon him, was granted [the ruling of] expiation or not. From al-Hasan, it is that he, peace be upon him, was not granted it because his past and future sins were forgiven for him, and it [the verse] is merely an instruction for the believers. The counter-argument to this is that the forgiveness of sin does not serve as proof, for the consequence of worldly rulings upon his actions, peace be upon him, is not punishment for a sin; furthermore, it is not conceded that it was a sin. From Muqatil, it is that he, peace be upon him, freed a slave concerning the prohibition of Mariyah. Malik reported in al-Mudawwanah from Zayd ibn Aslam that he, peace be upon him, was granted [the ruling of] expiation concerning the prohibition of his umm al-walad, when he swore not to approach her. A similar [report] is from al-Sha'bi.
Scholars differed regarding the ruling of a man saying to his wife, "You are forbidden to me," or "The lawful is forbidden," without excepting his wife. A group, including Masruq, Rabi'ah, Abu Salamah, al-Sha'bi, and Asbagh, said: It is like the prohibition of water and food; nothing is incumbent upon him. Abu Bakr, Umar, Zayd, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Aishah, Ibn al-Musayyib, Ata', Tawus, Sulayman ibn Yasar, Ibn Jubayr, Qatadah, al-Hasan, al-Awza'i, Abu Thawr, and a group said: It is an oath, for which he must offer expiation. Ibn Abbas also [held this] in one narration, and al-Shafi'i in one of his two views: there is expiation for an oath, yet it is not an oath. Abu Hanifah views the prohibition of the lawful as an oath in all things, and he considers the intended benefit in what is prohibited. If he prohibits food, he has sworn not to eat it; if an enslaved woman, not to have intercourse with her; if a wife, [it is considered] ila' (vow of abstinence) if he had no [other] intention. If he intended zihar (comparing wife to mother's back), it is zihar; if he intended divorce, it is a definitive divorce (ba'in). Likewise, if he intended two, and if he intended three, it is as he intended. If he says, "I intended a lie," it is a matter between him and Allah, but it is not accepted in the judge's ruling to annul the ila', because the utterance is constitutive (insha') by custom. A group said: If he did not intend anything, it is an oath. In al-Hawi, Abu Hanifah and his companions said: If he intended divorce, it is one definitive divorce; if two, then one; if three, then three. If he intended nothing, it is ila'; if zihar, then it is zihar. Ibn al-Qasim said: His intention of zihar does not avail him, and it is a divorce. Yahya ibn Umar said: It is as such; if he takes her back, it is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her until he performs the expiation of zihar, and what he intended from the counts takes place; if he intended one, it is revocable (raj'i), which is one of the views of al-Shafi'i. Al-Awza'i, Sufyan, and Abu Thawr said: Whatever kind of divorce he intended, it occurs; if he intended nothing, Sufyan said: Nothing is upon him, and al-Awza'i and Abu Thawr said: One [divorce] occurs. Ibn Jubayr said: Upon him is the freeing of a slave, even if it is not zihar. Abu Qilabah, Uthman, Ahmad, and Ishaq said: The prohibition is zihar, so it carries its expiation. From al-Shafi'i: If he intended that she is forbidden like the back of his mother, it is zihar; or the prohibition of her essence without divorce; or if he intended nothing, it is the expiation of an oath. Malik said: Three occur if she has been consummated with, and whatever he intended of one, two, or three if she has not been consummated with. Ibn Abi Layla and 'Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun said: Three occur in both cases. Ibn Khuwayz Mandad reported from Malik—and it was said by Zayd and Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman—that one definitive divorce occurs in both. Al-Zuhri and 'Abd al-Aziz ibn al-Majishun said: One revocable divorce. Abu Mus'ab and Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Hakam said: It occurs as one in the one who has not been consummated with, and three in the one who has been.
In al-Kashshaf: Al-Shafi'i does not view it as an oath, but as a cause for expiation in women alone; as for divorce, it is revocable according to him. From Ali—may Allah ennoble his face—it is three. From Zayd, one definitive. From Uthman, zihar. Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, and al-Nasa'i reported from Ibn Abbas that he said: "Whoever forbids his wife, it is nothing." And he recited: (There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern). For al-Nasa'i: A man came to him and said, "I made my wife forbidden to me." He said, "You lied; she is not forbidden to you." Then he recited this verse: (O Prophet, why do you prohibit [the food] Allah has made lawful for you?). The most stringent expiation is freeing a slave, and there are other sayings besides these, and they are very numerous regarding this issue; there is also much difference in reporting the sayings from their [respective] authors. Those who viewed prohibition generally—or the prohibition of a woman—as an oath, argued by what is in this verse regarding the prescription of dissolving it through expiation; for if it were not an oath, Allah the Exalted would not have required the expiation of an oath here. The reply is that it does not necessarily follow from the obligation of expiation that it is an oath, because two different things may share a single ruling; it is possible that expiation was established for another reason. Even if it were conceded that this expiation does not occur except with an oath, it is possible that he, peace be upon him, swore alongside the prohibition, saying regarding Mariyah, "By Allah, I will not approach her," or regarding the honey, "By Allah, I will not drink it," and some have narrated this. Thus, the expiation is for that oath, not for the prohibition alone. And Allah the Exalted knows best.
(And Allah is your Protector) your Master and the One who manages your affairs, (And He is the All-Knowing) so He knows what is beneficial for you, and thus He legislates it for you, (the Wise) (The One who makes His actions and rulings perfect; He does not command you nor forbid you except according to what wisdom necessitates.)