Al-Baqarah: (228) And divorced women shall keep themselves in waiting...

Know that the Almighty has mentioned many rulings concerning divorce in this passage.

The first ruling of divorce is the obligation of the Iddah (waiting period). Know that the divorced woman (al-mutallaqah) is the woman upon whom divorce has been pronounced. She is either a non-consummated wife (ajnabiyyah) or a consummated one (mankūḥah). If she is a non-consummated wife, pronouncing divorce upon her makes her divorced linguistically, but not according to the legal convention (‘urf al-shar‘), and the Iddah is not obligatory upon her by consensus.

As for the consummated wife, she is either one with whom consummation has taken place (madkhūl bihā) or not. If consummation has not taken place, no Iddah is obligatory upon her, as Allah the Exalted says: {O you who have believed, when you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, then there is not for you concerning their waiting period to count.} (Al-Ahzab: 49).

If consummation has taken place, she is either non-pregnant (ḥā’il) or pregnant (ḥāmil). If she is pregnant, her Iddah is until she delivers her load, not by Quru’, as Allah the Exalted says: {And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they lay down their burden.} (At-Talaq: 4).

As for the non-pregnant woman, we consider whether menstruation is possible for her or not. If menstruation is absent due to extreme youth or extreme old age, her Iddah is by months, not by Quru’, as Allah the Exalted says: {And those who have despaired of menstruation...}

If menstruation is possible for her, she is either a slave woman (raqīqah) or a free woman (ḥurrah). If she is a slave woman, her Iddah is two Quru’, not three.

However, if the woman is a consummated wife, divorced after consummation, non-pregnant, menstruating, and free, then upon the convergence of these characteristics, her Iddah is by three Quru’, as Allah has clarified her ruling in this verse.

There are several questions regarding this verse:

Answer: The non-consummated wife is excluded by the wording itself, as the term mutallaqah (divorced) is not typically applied to her. The non-consummated wife is excluded by context because the purpose of the Iddah is the purification of the womb, which is only necessary when there has been prior engagement (consummation). The pregnant woman and the woman who has despaired of menstruation are excluded by the wording, as imposing Iddah by Quru’ is only applicable where Quru’ actually occurs, which is not the case for these two categories. As for the slave woman, her marriage is rare, so it is established that the most common cases remain under this general ruling.

Answer (Two aspects):

1. If the Almighty had stated it in the imperative form, it might suggest that the purpose is only achieved through intentional action and choice. In that case, if the husband died and the woman did not know until the Iddah passed, it would not suffice, as she was commanded and only fulfilled the obligation by intending to perform the duty. However, by stating this obligation in the declarative form, that misconception is removed, and it is known that once this Iddah passes, the purpose is achieved, whether she knew it or not, and whether she began the Iddah willingly or unwillingly.
2. Al-Kashshāf’s author stated that expressing a command in the form of a statement implies an emphasis on the command, signaling that it requires prompt compliance. It is as if they have already complied with the command to wait, and the statement reports this existing compliance. This is analogous to the supplication, "May Allah have mercy on you" (raḥimaka Allāh), which is phrased as a statement of fact, expressing confidence in the acceptance of the prayer, as if mercy has already been granted.

Answer: Sheikh Abd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī stated in his book Dalā’il al-I‘jāz (Proofs of Inimitability) that when you present the noun first, saying, "Zayd acted," this conveys a level of emphasis and strength that "Zayd acted" does not convey. This is because saying "Zayd acted" is used in two contexts:

1. To specify that this particular actor performed this action, such as saying, "I am writing this specific matter to the Sultan," implying the speaker claims sole responsibility.
2. When specification is not the intent, but rather the goal is to establish the action concerning the subject mentioned, as in their saying, "He gives generously" (huwa yu‘ṭī al-jazīl), where the intent is not restriction, but to confirm to the listener that giving generously is his habit. Similar examples are Allah’s saying: {And those they invoke besides Allah create nothing, while they themselves are created} (An-Nahl: 20), where the intent is not to restrict creation only to them. And His saying: {And when they come to you, they say, "We believe," while they have entered with disbelief, and they have departed with it} (Al-Mā’idah: 61). And the poet’s verse:

They both wear glory, the finest garment, Two brave men, as much as they could manage.

The reason this meaning is achieved by presenting the subject first is that when you say, "Abdullāh," you signal that you intend to convey news about him. This creates in the mind an eagerness to know that news. When the predicate is mentioned, the mind accepts it like a lover accepts his beloved, making it more emphatic in confirmation and removal of doubt.

Answer: Mentioning anfus is to incite them toward waiting and to increase the impetus for compliance, as it involves something they might be shy about, compelling them to wait. This is because women's souls are inclined toward men, so the command is to restrain their souls, overcome their inclination, and compel them toward waiting.

Answer: They are expansive in their usage, employing either plural form in place of the other due to their shared meaning of plurality, or perhaps Quru’ was more commonly used for the plural of Qur’ than Iqrā’.

Answer: Because the word used follows the gender of the noun, and the word Quru’ is masculine.

This concludes the questions regarding this verse. One remaining issue in this verse concerns the true meaning of Quru’.

We say: Quru’ is the plural of Qur’ or Qur’. There is no dispute that the term Qur’ applies to both menstruation (Ḥayḍ) and the period of purity (Ṭuhr). Abū ‘Ubaydah said that Iqrā’ is one of the contradictory terms in Arabic. The famous view is that it is truly applicable to both, just as Shafaq (redness) applies to both redness and whiteness. Others said it is truly applicable to menstruation and metaphorically to purity, and some reversed this. A group said it is designated for a single meaning common to both menstruation and purity, and those who hold this view differ into three opinions:

1. The first: Qur’ means accumulation (ijtimā‘). During menstruation, blood accumulates in the womb; during purity, blood accumulates in the body. This is the view of al-Aṣma‘ī, al-Akhfaṣh, al-Farrā’, and al-Kisā’ī.
2. The second: This is the view of Abū ‘Ubayd: it is an expression for transition from one state to another.
3. The third: This is the view of Abū ‘Amr ibn al-‘Alā’: Qur’ means time (waqt). They say: Aqra’at al-nujūm (the stars appeared/rose), and Aqra’at when they set. They also say: This is the Qārī’ (time) of the winds for when they blow, citing the Hudhali poet:

When the winds blow for their appointed time,

If it is established that Qur’ is time, then both menstruation and purity are included, as each has a specific time.

Know that Allah the Exalted commanded the divorced woman to observe an Iddah of three Quru’. The apparent meaning suggests that if she observes three things called Quru’, she fulfills the obligation. However, the scholars are unanimous that this is insufficient; rather, she must observe three Quru’ of one type (either purity or menstruation). They differed on which type:

The view of Shāfi‘ī (may Allah be pleased with him): It refers to the periods of purity (aṭ-Ṭuhūr). This is narrated from Ibn ‘Umar, Zayd, ‘Ā’ishah, the Seven Jurists, Mālik, Rabī‘ah, and Aḥmad (in one narration).

The view of ‘Alī, ‘Umar, Ibn Mas‘ūd: It refers to menstruation (al-Ḥayḍ). This is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Thawrī, al-Awzā‘ī, Ibn Abī Laylā, Ibn Shubrumah, and Isḥāq (may Allah be pleased with them).

The benefit of this disagreement is that the Iddah period is shorter according to Shāfi‘ī, and longer according to the others. For instance, if he divorces her during a period of purity, the remainder of that purity counts as one Qur’. If she menstruates immediately afterward, and then enters the third menstruation, her Iddah ends. According to Abū Ḥanīfah (may Allah be pleased with him), unless she becomes pure from the third menstruation (if divorced during purity), or from the fourth menstruation (if divorced during menstruation), her Iddah is not considered complete. Furthermore, if she becomes pure after the longest possible duration of menstruation, her Iddah ends even before the ritual bath (ghusl), but if she becomes pure after the shortest duration, her Iddah does not end until she bathes or performs tayammum if water is unavailable, or a prayer time passes.

First Argument: Allah’s saying: {and divorce them for their prescribed period} (At-Talaq: 1). This means during their prescribed period. Since divorce during menstruation is forbidden, the period of Iddah must be other than the time of menstruation. Al-Kashshāf answered this by saying it means approaching their period, like saying "three days remaining in the month," meaning the time immediately following. I say this strengthens Shāfi‘ī’s argument, because saying "three days remaining" means the time when the count of three begins immediately after. Similarly, {divorce them for their prescribed period} means divorce them such that the Iddah begins immediately after. Since the obligation is fulfilled by divorcing during any part of the purity period, the purity period immediately following the divorce must be part of the Iddah, which is what is sought.

Second Argument: What is narrated from ‘Ā’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said: "Do you know what al-Aqrā’ are? Al-Aqrā’ are the periods of purity." Shāfi‘ī then said: Women know this best, as this is what they are tested with.

Third Argument: The word Qur’ refers to accumulation (al-jam‘). They say: Mā qara’at an-nāqah naslan qaṭ (The she-camel has never accumulated offspring in her womb), meaning she never conceived. Similarly, al-Akhfaṣh said: Mā qara’at ḥayḍah (She did not gather a menstruation in her womb). The basin (maqrāh) is named so because water gathers in it. Aqra’at an-nujūm means the stars gathered for setting. The Qur’an is named Qur’ān because its letters and words are gathered, and because of the many sciences gathered within it. A reader (qāri’) gathers letters one after another. If this is established, we say the time of blood accumulation is the period of purity, as the blood gathers in the body during that time.

If it is argued: Why not say the time of menstruation is more appropriate, as blood gathers in the womb then? We reply: Blood does not gather in the womb drop by drop; rather, it flows out. However, during purity, everything is gathered in the body, so the meaning of accumulation is more complete during the period of purity. The complete analysis is that since Qur’ denotes accumulation, the state of the womb involving the greatest accumulation and containment of blood is the end of the purity period, as if it were full, it would not flow out. From the beginning of purity, accumulation increases until the end, which is the state of complete accumulation. Thus, the end of purity is the Qur’ in reality. This is a clear point.

Fourth Argument (Misnumbered as Third in the original): The principle is that no one has the right to restrict or prevent a rational, accountable person from acting unless there is evidence for it. The minimum period established by the three Quru’ is the periods of purity, because counting by periods of purity is shorter in duration than counting by menstruations. Since this is the case, we establish the shorter period based on the necessity of acting upon this verse and discard the longer period, fulfilling the evidence that the principle is that no one has power to restrict another.

Fifth Argument (Misnumbered as Fourth in the original): The apparent meaning of **{And divorced women shall keep themselves in waiting for three Quru’}** implies that if she observes three things called Quru’, she fulfills the obligation. Both purity and menstruation are called Qur’. Therefore, the woman should be free to choose either, meaning she is free to observe the shorter period or the longer period. If she is free to abandon the excess duration without compensation, then that excess is not obligatory. This implies that observing the duration of menstruation is not obligatory, which is what is sought.

First Argument: Although Quru’ in language is shared between purity and menstruation, in religious law (Shar‘), it is predominantly used for menstruation, based on the Prophet’s saying: **(Leave prayer during the days of your Aqrā’.)** If this is established, then applying the Quru’ mentioned in the Qur’an to menstruation is more appropriate.

Second Argument: The view that Quru’ means menstruation allows for the completion of three full Quru’. This view holds that the divorced woman must wait for three menstruations, and her obligation ends only upon the cessation of the third one. However, the view that Quru’ means purity results in her exiting the Iddah after two full periods and part of the third, because if he divorces her at the end of a purity period, that counts as one Qur’. Thus, one view completes the three Quru’ while the other does not, making the first view closer to the apparent meaning.

Shāfi‘ī answered this by citing: {Hajj is in known months} (Al-Hajj: 197). The months are plural, the minimum being three. We interpret this verse to mean two full months and part of a third (Shawwāl, Dhū al-Qa‘dah, and part of Dhū al-Ḥijjah). Similarly, it is permissible here to interpret the three as two periods of purity and part of a third.

Al-Jubbā’ī, one of the Mu‘tazilite scholars, answered this in two ways:

1. We abandoned the apparent meaning in that verse due to evidence; we are not obliged to abandon the apparent meaning here without evidence.
2. In the Iddah, there is continuous waiting, so the three must be completed, which is not the case for the Hajj months, as there is no continuous act involved. It is as if it means: these months are the time for Hajj, not necessarily encompassing the entirety.

Our later scholars answered this argument in two ways:

1. Just as interpreting Quru’ as purity leads to a deficiency from three, interpreting it as menstruation leads to an excess. If he divorces her during a purity period, the remainder of that purity is not counted, resulting in an excess. Their justification is that this excess must be borne out of necessity. If divorce during menstruation were permitted, he would be commanded to divorce her at the end of the menstruation so she could complete full periods of purity. Since divorce is restricted to the pure state, that excess is necessitated. We also say: Since Quru’ is interpreted as purity, and Allah commanded us to divorce during purity, the meaning of the verse becomes: "They shall wait three periods of purity in which the divorce occurred."
2. We already established that Qur’ means accumulation, and complete accumulation occurs at the end of the purity period as a full Qur’. Under this interpretation, no deficiency enters any Qur’.

Third Argument (for Menstruation): Allah substituted months for Quru’ when menstruation is absent: {And those who have despaired of menstruation from among your women, if you have any doubt, then their waiting period is three months} (At-Talaq: 4). He substituted months for menstruation, not purity. Since the substitute (months) must be completed, the complete unit must also be considered for the original (Mubaddal), meaning the complete Quru’ must be menstruation. As for purity, two periods and a part are sufficient.

Fourth Argument: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: (The divorce of a slave woman is two pronouncements, and her Iddah is two menstruations.) They agreed that the Iddah of a slave woman is half that of a free woman, so the Iddah of a free woman must be menstruation.

Fifth Argument: They agreed that ensuring the womb is empty (Istibrā’) when purchasing a female slave is done by one menstruation, so the Iddah should also be by menstruation, as the purpose of both Istibrā’ and Iddah is the same.

Sixth Argument: The primary purpose of the Iddah is to ascertain the purity of the womb, and menstruation is what ascertains the womb, not purity. Therefore, menstruation must be the criterion, not purity.

Seventh Argument: Interpreting Quru’ as menstruation is a precaution, favoring the preservation of sanctity (ḥurmah). If a divorced woman passes the remainder of a purity period and enters the third menstruation, if we consider Qur’ to be menstruation, then it is forbidden for another man to marry her. If we consider Qur’ to be purity, then it becomes lawful for another man to marry her. The side of prohibition is more deserving of care, based on the Prophet’s saying: (Whenever the unlawful and the lawful meet, the unlawful prevails.) Also, the principle regarding sexual intercourse is prohibition, and this is closer to precaution, based on the saying: (Leave that which causes you doubt for that which does not cause you doubt.)

These are the arguments in this section. Know that when these arguments conflict, the weight of preference weakens, and the ruling of Allah is what each jurist’s effort leads to.

As for His saying: {And it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs}, know that the completion of the Iddah for those with Quru’ depends on the completion of the Quru’, and for the pregnant woman, it depends on delivery. Since men cannot access knowledge of this, the woman is made a trustee in the Iddah, and her word is accepted if she claims the completion of her Quru’ within a possible timeframe. According to Shāfi‘ī (may Allah be pleased with him), this timeframe is thirty-two days and an hour, based on the assumption that she was divorced during a period of purity, then menstruated for a sufficient time, then had a period of purity (minimum 15 days), then a second menstruation (minimum one day and night), then a second period of purity (minimum 15 days), and then saw blood—her Iddah is complete upon achieving three periods of purity. If she claims this or more before this time, her word is accepted. Similarly, if she is pregnant and claims she miscarried, her word is accepted, based on her status as a trustee.

The commentators have three opinions regarding His saying: {what Allah has created in their wombs}:

1. The first opinion: It refers to both pregnancy (ḥabl) and menstruation (ḥayḍ). A woman has many reasons for concealing both. Concealing pregnancy shortens her Iddah (which is based on Quru’), allowing her to remarry quickly. She might dislike returning to the first husband or prefer marrying another man, perhaps wishing the child to be attributed to the second husband. Concealing menstruation is also motivated by desire: if she wishes to prolong her Iddah so the first husband might take her back, she might conceal the first menstruation and then announce the second as the first. If she conceals the third, she cuts off the possibility of return. Thus, since she has reasons to conceal pregnancy, she also has reasons to conceal menstruation, so the prohibition must cover both.

2. The second opinion: It refers only to concealing pregnancy. Their evidence includes: (a) Allah’s saying: {It is He who forms you in the wombs as He wills} (Al-Imrān: 6); (b) Menstruation exits the womb, it is not created in it; (c) It is more appropriate to apply {what Allah has created in their wombs} to the fetus, which is a noble essence, rather than to menstruation, which is something base and impure. These arguments are weak because the purpose is to prevent her from hiding these conditions, which are unknown to others and affect the rulings of legality and prohibition in marriage; thus, the term must cover everything created in the womb.

3. The third opinion: It refers only to concealing menstruation, as this verse follows the mention of Quru’ (periods), and pregnancy was not mentioned previously. This is also weak because {And it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs} is a new, independent statement, not linked to what preceded it, so it must cover everything created in the womb.

As for His saying: {if they believe in Allah and the Last Day}, the intent is not that this prohibition is conditional upon her being a believer. Rather, it is like saying to an oppressor: "If you are a believer, do not oppress." The intent is: If you are a believer, your faith should prevent you from oppressing me. This is certainly a severe warning to women, similar to what is said regarding testimony: {And whoever conceals it, indeed his heart is sinful} (Al-Baqarah: 283), and {If some of you trust others, then let him who is trusted discharge his trust, and let him fear Allah, his Lord} (Al-Baqarah: 283). The verse indicates that anyone entrusted with something who betrays that trust faces a severe reckoning with Allah.

Know that this is the second ruling of divorce: the revocable divorce (al-raj‘iyyah).

Regarding {their husbands} (wa-bu‘ūlatuhunna), there are two opinions:

1. It is the plural of ba‘l, like fuḥūlah (masculinity) or jiddūh (grandfatherhood). The final hā’ is an emphatic suffix for the feminine plural, not used in every plural, but only in those attested by linguists. Ba‘l is a term shared by both spouses; the woman is called ba‘lah just as she is called zawjah in many languages, and zawj in the most eloquent languages. Thus, they are two ba‘lān, just as they are two zawjān. Ba‘l originally meant master or owner, as in asking, "Who is the ba‘l of this she-camel?" (i.e., her owner). Ba‘l was also the name of an idol they worshipped as a lord, and women used to call their husbands masters.
2. Ba‘ūlah is the verbal noun (maṣdar). A man bā‘ala his wife if he had intercourse with her. In the Hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said regarding the days of Tashrīq: **(They are days of eating, drinking, and sexual intercourse (bi‘āl).) ** A woman has good ba‘l if she treats her husband well. Hence the Hadith: (If you treat your husbands well in their ba‘l...) Under this interpretation, the meaning of the verse is: "And those who have the relationship of Ba‘ūlah (husbandhood) are more entitled..."

As for His saying: {more entitled to take them back during that}, the meaning is: more entitled to revoke the divorce during the waiting period. There are questions here:

Answer (Two aspects):

1. Allah the Exalted said just before this verse: {And it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs}. The implication is: If they conceal [pregnancy], it might be so that another man marries them. If they do that, the first husband is more entitled to take her back, because the second husband has an apparent right. Thus, it is clarified that the first husband has precedence. Similarly, if she claims her Quru’ have passed, and later the opposite is known, the first husband is more entitled than the second during the Iddah.
2. While she is observing Iddah, she has the right to terminate the marriage contract upon the passing of the Iddah. Since they have this right, which involves nullifying the husband's right [to revoke], it is permissible to say {And their husbands are more entitled} in the sense that they can nullify what the women are in (the Iddah) by revoking the divorce.

Answer: Raddahu means he returned him/it. Allah says in one place: {And if I am returned to my Lord} (Al-Kahf: 36), and in another place: {And if I return} (wa-la’in rujic’tu).

Answer: Radd and Raj‘ah (revocation) imply nullifying the waiting and scrutiny period. As long as she is in the Iddah, it is as if she was engaged in nullifying the husband's right. By revocation, this is nullified, so the term Raj‘ah (return) is used. Furthermore, according to Shāfi‘ī (may Allah be pleased with him), sexual enjoyment is forbidden unless revocation occurs. Thus, according to his school, Radd involves two things: (1) Returning her from the state of waiting/scrutiny to its opposite; (2) Returning her from the state of prohibition to legality.

Answer: The right of revocation is established only during the time of waiting (turbuṣ). Once that time passes, the right of revocation is nullified.

As for His saying: {if they desire reconciliation}, the meaning is that the husband is more entitled to this return if he desires reconciliation and not causing harm. This is similar to His saying: {And when you divorce women and they have fulfilled their term, then either retain them according to known usage or part with them according to known usage. And do not detain them for harm, overstepping limits. And whoever does that has certainly wronged himself} (Al-Baqarah: 231). The reason for this verse is that in the pre-Islamic era (Jāhiliyyah), they would take back divorced women intending to harm them by divorcing them again, forcing the woman to observe a new Iddah. They were forbidden from this, and the condition for the permissibility of return was the intention of reconciliation, which is His saying: {if they desire reconciliation}.

If it is argued: The word In (if) implies conditionality, meaning if the intention of reconciliation is absent, the right of return is not established.

Answer: Intention (irādah) is an internal quality we cannot access. Therefore, the Lawgiver did not make the validity of the return dependent on this intention. Rather, its permissibility between Him and the individual is dependent on this intention, such that if he takes her back intending harm, he deserves sin.

As for His saying: {And they [the women] shall have the right similar to the right of the men over them}, know that since the Almighty clarified that the purpose of returning must be to reconcile her situation, not to cause her harm, He clarified that each spouse has a right over the other.

Know that the relationship between the spouses is only complete if each considers the right of the other. These shared rights are numerous; we point to some:

1. The husband is like a prince and guardian (amīr wa rā‘ī), and the wife is like the commanded and the protected (ma’mūr wa ra‘iyyah). The husband must fulfill her rights and interests due to his guardianship, and she must show obedience and compliance in return.
2. It is narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said: "I adorn myself for my wife just as she adorns herself for me," based on His saying: {And they shall have the right similar to the right of the men over them}.
3. They have a right over the husband—the intention of reconciliation upon return—similar to their obligation to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs. This aligns better with the beginning of the verse.

As for His saying: {But the men have a degree over them}, there are two issues:

1. The man has more virtue than women in several matters: (a) Intellect; (b) Blood money (Diyyah); (c) Inheritance shares; (d) Fitness for leadership (Imāmah), judging, and testimony; (e) He may marry more wives, and keep concubines, while she cannot do the same to her husband; (f) The husband’s share of inheritance from her is greater than her share from him; (g) The husband has the power to divorce her and take her back, whether she wills it or not, while the woman cannot divorce the husband, nor can she prevent his return after divorce; (h) The man’s share in spoils of war is greater than the woman’s. Since the man’s superiority is established in these matters, the woman is like a helpless captive in the man’s hands. This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: (Advise women well, for they are with you as captives (‘awān).) In another report: (Fear Allah concerning the two weak ones: the orphan and the woman.) The meaning of the verse is that because Allah granted men a degree over them in capability, they are encouraged to fulfill more of their rights. Mentioning this serves as a warning to men against harming or abusing them, because the one upon whom Allah’s blessings are greater deserves harsher reprimand when sin is committed.

2. The meaning is that the benefits and pleasure of marriage—companionship, affection, love, kinship ties, increasing helpers and friends, and pleasure—are shared by both sides. In fact, it can be argued that the woman’s share in these is greater. Furthermore, the husband is specialized by certain rights over the wife: commitment to the dowry, maintenance (Nafaqah), defense, managing her affairs, and protecting her from harm. Therefore, the wife’s service to the husband is more strongly obligatory, in consideration of these extra rights. This is like what Allah says: {Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because of the monies that they spend} (An-Nisā’: 34). The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: (If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would command the wife to prostrate to her husband.) Then the Almighty says: {And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise}, meaning He is dominant, His rulings and actions are precise, admitting no possibility of frivolity, foolishness, error, or falsehood.

His saying: {Divorce is twice. Then, either keep [her] in fairness or release [her] with good conduct.}

Know that this is the third ruling of divorce: the divorce where the right of revocation is established.

There are issues in the verse:

The first opinion regarding the interpretation of the verse is that it is not a new statement but is connected to what preceded it. The meaning is: Revocable divorce is twice, and there is no return after the third. This interpretation is held by those who permit combining the three pronouncements, which is the view of Shāfi‘ī (may Allah be exalted).

Argument for the First Opinion (Connection): The word al-ṭalāq (the divorce) implies totality, as the definite article (al-) implies totality when not referring to a specific known instance. The meaning becomes: All divorce is twice, plus a third time. If it were stated that way, it would imply that the prescribed divorce is separated, as repetitions (marrāt) must occur after separation by consensus.

If it is argued: This verse explains the Sunnah divorce, and I believe combining them is permissible but not Sunnah. We reply: The verse does not specify the quality of Sunnah; rather, the original ruling was divorce, and then this statement followed. Although the wording is declarative, its meaning is imperative: "Divorce twice," meaning in two installments. The shift from imperative to declarative was done to emphasize the command, as mentioned previously. Thus, this verse indicates the command to separate the pronouncements and the severity of that command. Those who hold this view differ into two sub-opinions:

1. This is the preferred view of many religious scholars: If he pronounces two or three divorces, only one takes effect. This view is more consistent because prohibition indicates that the prohibited act contains a predominant corruption, and affirming the pronouncement would mean bringing that corruption into existence, which is impermissible. Therefore, it must be ruled that it does not take effect.
2. This is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah (may Allah be pleased with him): Although it is forbidden, it takes effect, based on his principle that prohibition does not imply invalidity.

The Third Opinion (Regarding Interpretation): We say this statement is not new but connected to what preceded it. In the previous verse, Allah established the right of return for the husband but did not specify if this right is perpetual or limited. This makes it like an ambiguous statement requiring clarification, or a general statement requiring specification. This verse clarifies that the divorce in which the right of return is established is only that which occurs twice. After two pronouncements, the right of return is absolutely not established. The definite article in {The divorce} refers to the previously mentioned divorce (the revocable one). Thus, the divorce in which the right of return is established is that which occurs twice. This is a sound interpretation consistent with the structure of the verse.

Evidence that this interpretation is superior:

1. His saying: {And their husbands are more entitled to take them back} (Al-Baqarah: 228). If this applied to all situations, it would require specification. If it is not general, it is ambiguous because it does not state the condition under which the right of return is established. It requires clarification. If we connect the second verse to the first, the specification is present for the general term, or the clarification is present for the ambiguous statement, which is preferable. Although delaying clarification after the initial address is permissible, it is more likely that it should not be delayed.
2. If we treat this statement as new, {Divorce is twice} implies that all divorce is limited to two pronouncements, which is false by consensus. One might argue that the third pronouncement is mentioned in {or release [her] with good conduct}, making the verse mean: Divorce is twice, and a third time. We reply that {or release [her] with good conduct} is connected to {then either keep [her] in fairness}, not to {Divorce is twice}. Furthermore, the term tasrīḥ (release) does not imply divorce. If we considered tasrīḥ to be the third divorce, then His saying, "If he divorces her a fourth time," would imply something impermissible.
3. The narration regarding the reason for revelation: it was revealed because a woman complained to ‘Ā’ishah about her husband divorcing and taking her back frequently to cause harm. They agreed that the reason for revelation cannot be outside the general scope of the verse, so applying the verse to this meaning is more appropriate than applying it to an unrelated ruling.

As for His saying: {Then, either keep [her] in fairness or release [her] with good conduct}, there are issues:

This second view is closer for several reasons:

1. The Fā’ in {But if he divorces her} (Al-Baqarah: 230) implies that the pronouncement of divorce occurs subsequent to that Tasrīḥ. If Tasrīḥ meant the third divorce, then saying, "If he divorces her a fourth time," would imply something impermissible.
2. If we interpret Tasrīḥ as refraining from return, the verse covers all situations: After the second divorce, he either takes her back (intended by {keep [her] in fairness}), or he does not take her back and lets the Iddah pass, resulting in final separation (intended by {or release [her] with good conduct}), or he divorces her (intended by {But if he divorces her}). Thus, the verse encompasses all categories. If we considered Tasrīḥ bi-iḥsān another divorce, one of the three possibilities would be omitted, and repetition of divorce would be involved, which is impermissible.
3. The apparent meaning of Tasrīḥ is sending away and neglect, so interpreting the word as refraining from return is more appropriate than interpreting it as divorce.
4. After mentioning Tasrīḥ, He says: {And it is not lawful for you to take [back] from what you have given them [as dower] anything}, which refers to Khul‘ (redemption). It is known that Khul‘ is not valid after the third divorce. These arguments are clear unless the Hadith we mentioned regarding the validity of that view is proven true; if so, there is nothing further to add.

Know that Iḥsān (good conduct) means that if he releases her, he fulfills her financial rights and does not speak ill of her after separation or alienate people against her.

As for His saying: {And it is not lawful for you to take [back] from what you have given them [as dower] anything, unless both fear that they will not uphold the limits of Allah. But if you fear that they will not uphold the limits of Allah...}