Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:233

Al-Baqarah (The Cow): Verse 233

{And the mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years, for him who wishes to complete the suckling. And upon him who is the father, their sustenance and clothing shall be incumbent according to what is right. No soul shall be charged beyond its capacity.}

There are three opinions concerning the intended meaning of {And the mothers}:

1. The apparent meaning: It refers to all mothers, whether married or divorced. The evidence is that the wording is general, and since no specific evidence restricts it, it must remain general.

2. Divorced mothers: This view holds that the verse specifically addresses divorced mothers.
   • Reason 1: This verse follows the verses concerning divorce, suggesting it is a continuation of those rulings. Separation often leads to animosity, which might cause the woman to harm the child in two ways: by harming the child, she harms the divorced husband; or, she might desire to remarry, leading her to neglect the child. Therefore, God commanded divorced mothers to care for their children.
   • Reason 2 (from Al-Suddi): The subsequent verse states, {And upon him who is the father, their sustenance and clothing...}. If the marriage were still ongoing, the husband would be obligated to provide sustenance due to the marriage contract itself, not specifically because of the suckling.

• Rebuttal to Reason 1: This verse contains an independent ruling, so it is not necessarily tied to the preceding verses.
  • Rebuttal to Reason 2: It is possible for the woman to be entitled to maintenance due to the marriage and an additional payment for suckling; there is no contradiction between the two.

3. Married mothers (while the marriage subsists): Al-Wahidi in Al-Basit holds this view, arguing that a divorced woman is entitled to wages (ujrah) for suckling, not maintenance (kiswah).
   • Objection: If the marriage is ongoing, the wife is entitled to maintenance and clothing due to the marriage, regardless of whether she suckles the child. Why then link this entitlement to suckling?
   • Answer (Al-Wahidi's view): Maintenance and clothing are due in exchange for the wife's availability (tamkeen). If she is occupied with childcare and suckling, she is not fully available for the husband's service. This verse cuts off any potential misconception that her maintenance should cease due to her preoccupation with suckling.

This phrase has two issues:

Issue 1: The nature of the statement. Although phrased as a factual statement (خبر), it carries the meaning of a command (أمر). This is permissible for two reasons:

1. The implied meaning is: "Mothers shall give suck to their children according to the ruling of God which He has obligated," with the obligation being understood from the context.
2. The meaning of {يرضعن} (they shall suckle) is equivalent to {ليرضعن} (let them suckle), with the particle li- (for/let) omitted for stylistic variation, as the context removes ambiguity.

Issue 2: The obligation of suckling. This command is not one of obligation (ijab). Evidence:

1. God says elsewhere: {Settle them [the divorced women] where you dwell, according to your means...} (Al-Talaq: 6). If suckling were obligatory for the mother, she would not be entitled to wages for it.
2. God further states: {And if they mutually agree upon weaning, after consultation, there is no blame upon them} (Al-Baqarah: 233, later in the verse). This explicitly shows that the duration is not strictly obligatory.
3. The obligation is negated by the verse: {And upon him who is the father, their sustenance and clothing...}. If the mother is divorced, the father's obligation for her sustenance is only due to the suckling. If suckling were obligatory for her, this obligation on the father would not be conditional upon it (as discussed earlier).

Since suckling is not obligatory for the mother, the command is understood as recommendation (nadb) because:

• A child's upbringing on the mother's milk is generally best for him compared to other milks.
• The mother's compassion (shafaqah) for her child is more complete than that of others.

However, if the child reaches a state of necessity (e.g., no other wet nurse is available, or the child only accepts her milk), then suckling becomes obligatory for the mother, just as it is obligatory for anyone to provide food to someone in dire need.

This phrase involves several issues:

Issue 1: The meaning of "whole" (kamilayn). The root hawl (year) means a full cycle. The word "whole" is mentioned to remove ambiguity, such as when someone says they stayed somewhere for "two years" when they only stayed for one year and a fraction of another.

Issue 2: The ruling associated with the two-year limit. This limit is not a limit of obligation. Evidence:

1. The verse continues: {for him who wishes to complete the suckling}. Since completion is linked to will/desire (iradah), it proves this completion is not obligatory.
2. The verse states: {And if they mutually agree upon weaning, after consultation, there is no blame upon them}. This confirms that the two-year limit is not intended to mandate that specific duration.

The Purposes of the Two-Year Limit:

1. The most correct view: To resolve disputes between the spouses regarding the duration of suckling. God set the limit at two years so that they may refer to it when conflict arises. If the father wishes to wean before two years, he cannot do so if the mother objects, and vice versa. However, if both agree to wean before two years, they may do so.

2. The ruling of suckling: This duration specifies the time frame necessary for suckling to establish the legal consequence mentioned in the Prophet's saying: "What is forbidden by suckling is forbidden by lineage." According to Al-Shafi'i, 'Ali, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn 'Abbas, Ibn 'Umar, 'Alqamah, Al-Sha'bi, and Al-Zuhri, suckling outside this period does not establish this legal prohibition. (Abu Hanifa held the duration of suckling to be thirty months).

• Evidence for Al-Shafi'i's view: * The phrase {for him who wishes to complete the suckling} cannot mean completion based on the child's need, as children vary in their need for milk after two years. Therefore, it must refer to the specific legal ruling associated with suckling. * It is narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "No suckling [that establishes prohibition] after weaning." And God says: {and His weaning is in two years} (Luqman: 14). * Ibn 'Abbas narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "Nothing is forbidden by suckling except what occurs within the two years."

3. Relating suckling duration to pregnancy duration: Ibn 'Abbas narrated that if a woman gives birth after six months, she must suckle for two full years. If she gives birth after seven months, she suckles for twenty-three months. Others said the two years is the fixed limit for all infants. Ibn 'Abbas based this on the verse: {And His gestation and weaning are thirty months} (Al-Ahqaf: 15). This implies that if the time for one state (pregnancy) increases, the time for the other (weaning) decreases.

Issue 3: Minimum pregnancy duration. It is narrated that 'Ali (RA) ruled that if a woman marries a virgin and she gives birth after six months, the child is his, based on combining the verses: {And His gestation and weaning are thirty months} and {And the mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years}. (Six months pregnancy + 24 months suckling = 30 months). 'Umar (RA) similarly ruled when a woman gave birth after six months, and Ibn 'Abbas used these verses to establish that the minimum pregnancy is six months.

Issue 1: Recitation. Ibn 'Abbas recited it as **{أَنْ مِنَ الرَّضَاعَةِ}* (An min al-radā'ah), and it was also read as {الرَّضَاعَةِ} (Al-radā'ah) with a kasra on the ra.

Issue 2: Connection to the preceding text. Two views:

1. The meaning is: "This ruling is for him who intends to complete the suckling." Qatadah reported that God first revealed the two years, then revealed ease and mitigation, saying: {for him who wishes to complete the suckling}, meaning God permitted reduction.
2. The lam (for) is connected to {shall give suck}, as in, "They shall suckle for two years for those fathers who wish to complete the suckling," because the father is obligated to arrange the suckling more than the mother (as previously explained).

Issue 1: The term {The one for whom the child is born} (Al-Mawlūd Lahu). This refers to the father. Reasons for this specific term:

1. Al-Kashshaf's view: It signifies that mothers bear children for the fathers, which is why lineage is attributed to them, not the mothers. (Poetry cited supporting this idea).
2. It is a reminder that the child is attributed to the father because he was born on his bed (as per the Prophet's saying: "The child belongs to the bed"), thus obligating the father to look after the child's interests.
3. Just as the mother is mentioned to remind of compassion (as in the phrase Ibn Ummi - son of my mother), mentioning the father as Al-Mawlūd Lahu reminds that the child was born for the father's sake, making his needs his responsibility.

Issue 2: The obligation of sustenance and clothing. Just as God commanded the mother to care for the child, He commanded the father to care for the mother so she can care for the child. This provision must be {according to what is right} (bil-ma'rūf). This "right" might be fixed by a contract or left undefined, relying on custom, as long as it suffices for her food and clothing. If it is insufficient, her resulting hunger and nakedness would negatively affect the child.

Issue 3: Priority of obligation. God commanded the mother's care first, then the father's. This indicates that the child's need for the mother's care is more immediate than the father's, as the mother's care is direct, whereas the father's care reaches the child indirectly (by hiring the wet nurse). Thus, the mother's right is greater.

Issue 1: Definition of terms. Taklīf (charging/obligating) means imposing a duty. Wus'a (capacity) is what a person can manage; it is taken from sā'ah (breadth/expanse). Capacity is equivalent to ability; thus, capacity is considered slightly above mere ability.

Issue 2: Application. The father is only obligated to spend on the child and mother to the extent of his capacity (wus'a). This is similar to the ruling in Surah Al-Talaq regarding maintenance for divorced women, which is also based on the husband's means.

Issue 3: Mu'tazilite Argument. The Mu'tazilites use this verse to argue that God only obligates people to what they are capable of, as capacity (wus'a) is above mere ability (tāqah). If God does not obligate what is beyond ability, then certainly He does not obligate what is impossible.

Issue 1: Recitation of {لا تُضَارَّ} (Lā tuḍārra).

• Reading with raf' (nominative): Ibn Kathir, Abu 'Amr, and Qutaybah (from Al-Kisā'ī) read it with a dammah on the ra (passive voice, tuḍārra). Al-Kisa'i and Al-Farra' considered it coordinated with {لا تُكَلِّفُ} (Lā tukallifu). However, 'Ali ibn 'Isā argued that coordination (nasq) requires the second clause to be an exception to the first (e.g., "He struck Zayd, not 'Amr"). A better explanation for the raf' is that it is an independent prohibitive sentence (isti'nāf).
• Reading with nasb (accusative): The majority read it with a fatḥah on the ra (active voice, tuḍārra), indicating prohibition (nahy). The original form was likely lā tuḍārr (with tashdīd on the rā'), which was simplified by merging the two *rā'*s.

Issue 2: Meanings. Both readings are grammatically possible:

1. Passive (tuḍārra - the mother is harmed): The mother should not harm the father by refusing to suckle the child when the father has fulfilled his obligations of sustenance and clothing, thereby forcing the burden onto the father.
2. Active (tuḍārra - the mother harms): The father should not harm the mother by taking the child away from her against her will, especially when she loves him dearly.

Both meanings converge on the idea that neither party should intentionally provoke the other through the child.

• Why use the dual form of harm (tuḍārra) when the action seems singular?
  1. It implies intensification (exaggeration); harming someone who is already harming you is more severe.
  2. Harm occurs mutually: the mother harms by withholding milk, or the father harms by taking the child away.
  3. Each party's intent in harming the child is ultimately to harm the other party.

Issue 3: Scope of the prohibition. Although phrased as a statement, {Let not a mother be harmed} is a prohibition. It covers the mother's neglect of the child by refusing suckling or failing to care for and guard him. {nor shall he to whom the child is born be harmed} covers all forms of harm by the father: preventing the mother from suckling when she is most compassionate, restricting her sustenance, or treating her poorly, which might lead her to neglect the child.

When the verse mentions the child, the father, and the mothers, the term {the heir} (al-wārith) could refer to the heir of any of them. Scholars have proposed several interpretations:

1. The heir of the father: Narrated from Ibn 'Abbas. Since {And upon the heir is the like of that} follows {And upon him who is the father, their sustenance and clothing...}, it means if the father dies, his heir must take his place in providing sustenance and clothing according to what is right and avoiding harm. (Abu Muslim Al-Isfahani considered this weak, arguing that if the child is also an heir, this would mean the child's maintenance falls upon someone else even if the child has wealth, which is illogical. A rebuttal is that if the child inherits wealth, the heir must manage that wealth for the child's maintenance and protection.)

2. The heir of the father (all heirs): This is the view of Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Abu Muslim, and the Judge. They differed on which heir:
   • Male agnates only (excluding maternal relatives): View of 'Umar, Al-Hasan, Mujahid, 'Ata', Sufyan, and Ibrahim.
   • All heirs (male and female) according to their inheritance share: View of Qatadah and Ibn Abi Layla.
   • Only close blood relatives (dhawu arham) excluding distant cousins or freedmen: View of Abu Hanifa and his companions.
   • General observation: The literal wording suggests no distinction between heirs; women and distant relatives should be included unless the mother is excluded (as she already has a specific right established).

3. The surviving parent: The remaining parent (father or mother) is the heir. This is supported by the common supplication: "And make him our heir" (meaning the survivor). (View of Sufyan and a group).

4. The child himself: The child is the heir of his deceased father. If the child has wealth, the wages for suckling should be paid from it. If he has no wealth, the mother is compelled to suckle him, as only parents are obligated to provide maintenance for the child. (View of Malik and Al-Shafi'i).

Regarding {the like of that} (mithlu dhālik):

• It refers to sustenance and clothing (Ibrahim).
• It refers to avoiding harm (Al-Sha'bi, Al-Zuhri, Al-Dahhak).
• It refers to both (the majority of scholars).

Issue 1: Meaning of Weaning (Fiṣāl).

1. Weaning (stopping milk): Based on {and His weaning is in two years} (Al-Ahqaf: 15). Weaning is called fiṣāl because the child separates from milk nourishment to other foods. Fiṣāl is preferred over faṣl because separation is mutual (as in qitāl - fighting). Most commentators hold this meaning.
   • Since the preceding verse established two years as the completion, this verse must refer to something else to avoid repetition.
   • Difference of opinion: Some say this verse indicates weaning before two years is permissible. Others (like Ibn 'Abbas) say it indicates that weaning before two years is permissible, and weaning after two years is also permissible.
   • Argument for the first view: The previous verse implies weaning at two years is permissible; this verse must therefore address weaning before two years.
   • Argument for the second view: A child might be weak and need milk beyond two years, and weaning him early would cause harm, just as weaning before two years causes harm.

2. Separation/Severance: Abu Muslim suggested another meaning: establishing a separation between mother and child if there is mutual consent and consultation, provided no harm results to the child.

Issue 2: Meaning of Consultation (Tashāwur). It means gathering opinions, synonymous with mashūrah. (Linguistic derivations provided).

Issue 3: Implications of the conditions. The verse implies that weaning before two years is not permissible unless there is mutual consent and consultation with experienced people. The mother might tire of suckling, or the father might tire of paying wages. If they agree to wean early to avoid their own burdens, God required consultation. If all parties agree on weaning early, it indicates that this early weaning will cause no harm to the child. The fact that God used the phrase {there is no blame upon you} instead of explicitly permitting it shows that the weaker the subject (the child), the greater God's mercy and care for him.

God established the mother's primary right to suckle, but permitted deviation to others if necessary.

Issue 1: The term {to seek suckling} (tastard'iū).

• Istard'a is derived from ard'a (to suckle). It is used transitively with two objects: "The woman suckled the boy, and the boy sought suckling from her." Here, one object is omitted because it is understood (i.e., "seek suckling for your children").

Issue 2: Permissibility of using a substitute wet nurse. Deviation from the mother is permissible under certain circumstances:

• If the mother remarries, her duty to her new husband prevents her from suckling.
• If the first husband divorced her, she might dislike suckling so that she can remarry.
• If the mother uses suckling the child to spite or alienate the divorced father.
• If the mother falls ill or her milk dries up.

If a substitute wet nurse is found and the child accepts her milk, deviation is permitted. If no substitute is found, or the child rejects other milk, suckling becomes obligatory for the mother.

Issue 1: Recitation of {مَا آتَيْتُمْ} (Mā ātaytum).

• Ibn Kathir recited it with a short alif (mā ataytum), meaning: "What you give [as wages]."
• The majority recited it with a long alif (mā ātaytumūh), meaning: "What you intend to give the woman."
• Shayban narrated from 'Asim: {mā ūtītum} (What God has given you [as means]), similar to {and spend from what He has made you successors therein} (Al-Hadid: 7).

Issue 2: Payment as a condition. Paying the wages is not a condition for the validity of the suckling; rather, it is a recommendation for what is best (nadb). The purpose is that paying the wet nurse promptly ensures her contentment, which in turn leads to the child's well-being and protection.

The verse concludes with a warning: {And fear Allah and know that Allah, of what you do, is Seeing.}

{And those of you who die and leave behind wives, they [the wives] shall keep themselves waiting [in widowhood] for four months and ten [days]. And when they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame upon you for what they do concerning themselves in accordance with what is right. And Allah is Knower of what you do.}