Tafsir of Al-Mujadilah 58:2

Surah Al-Mujadilah (The Disputer): Verses 2-4

Verse 2: {Those who pronounce Zihar concerning their wives among you...}

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {Those who pronounce Zihar concerning their wives among you, [saying] they are to them as the backs of their mothers...}

We note that the phrase {Those who pronounce Zihar} involves two main discussions:

This section covers two main points:

1. What is Zihar?
2. Who is the one performing Zihar? The phrase {concerning their wives} also raises a question: Who is the woman being Zihar-ed against?

First Point: What is Zihar? (Linguistic Aspect)

There are two opinions regarding the word Zihar in the language:

1. It is the man saying to his wife: "You are to me like the back of my mother." Thus, it is derived from the word Zahr (back, the physical organ).
2. The view held by the author of the Nathm (systematic arrangement): It is not derived from the physical back, because the back is no more deserving of mention than other intimate parts involved in sexual pleasure. Rather, Zahr here is derived from elevation/superiority ('uluw). This is supported by the verse: {So they were unable to climb over it} (Al-Kahf: 97), meaning to ascend it. Anyone who rises above something has established their Zahr over it. A riding animal is called Zahr because the rider mounts it (rises above it). Similarly, a man's wife is his Zahr because he has dominion over her intimacy (bada') even if not physically from the back. Thus, the wife is like a mount or a Zahr for the man. Evidence for this meaning is that Arabs use the phrase "She descended from my authority" (nazalat 'an imra'ati) to mean divorce. In the phrase "You are to me like the back of my mother," there is omission; the meaning is: "Your back over me [i.e., your subjugation to me] is forbidden," just as ascending or having dominion over my mother is forbidden to me.

Second Point: What is Zihar? (Jurisprudential Usage)

This concerns the terms used in the Sharia for this meaning.

The standard form is: "You are to me like the back of my mother." This can occur in four categories based on the mention of the words Zahr (back) and Umm (mother):

Category 1: Both Zahr and Umm are mentioned. This is universally accepted as Zihar. If the connection (silah) is properly formed (e.g., "You are to me like the back of my mother," or "You are concerning me like the back of my mother"), it is valid. If only "You are like the back of my mother" is said without a connecting particle, some say it is explicit (sarih). Others argue it could imply she is like his mother's back concerning someone else, but this is weak, similar to saying "You are divorced" and then claiming you meant to report that someone else divorced her.

Category 2: Umm is mentioned, but Zahr is omitted. The view of Al-Shafi'i is detailed: Body parts are divided into two types:

1. Those whose comparison does not imply honor (e.g., "You are to me like the hand/belly of my mother"). The New opinion holds that Zihar is established; the Old opinion holds it is not established.
2. Those whose comparison implies honor (e.g., "You are to me like the eye/soul of my mother"). If the intent was Zihar, it is Zihar; if the intent was honor, it is not Zihar because the term is ambiguous. If stated without qualification, there is hesitation.

The view of Abu Hanifa: If the comparison is made to a body part the husband was permitted to look at (e.g., hand, head), it is not Zihar. If compared to a part whose viewing is forbidden (e.g., belly, thigh), it constitutes Zihar.

My preferred view is the Old opinion of Al-Shafi'i: None of these phrases establish Zihar. The reason is that the wife's permissibility was established, and the exemption from the expiation was established. The default state remains unless the specific wording used in Zihar ("like the back of my mother") is employed. That specific wording was common in the Jahiliyyah and carried the connotation of prohibition, which is absent in other comparisons. Therefore, we must adhere to the original ruling (permissibility).

Category 3: Zahr is mentioned, but Umm is omitted. This has three levels:

1. Comparison to those forbidden by lineage or suckling (e.g., "You are like the back of my sister"). Old opinion: Not Zihar. New opinion (Abu Hanifa): It is Zihar.
2. Comparison to a woman temporarily forbidden (e.g., "You are like the back of so-and-so [who has been divorced]"). My preferred view is that none of these constitute Zihar. The argument for Abu Hanifa is that the verse {And those who pronounce Zihar...} implies that Zihar occurs with any forbidden woman. The response is that the subsequent verse, {Their mothers are not but those who gave birth to them}, indicates that Zihar specifically refers to mentioning the mother, whose prohibition is the strongest. Thus, the presumption of continued permissibility stands, and analogy is invalid here.

Category 4: Neither Zahr nor Umm is mentioned. (e.g., "You are to me like the belly of my sister"). Based on the preceding analysis, this should not constitute Zihar.

This involves two sub-issues:

Sub-Issue 1: Validity of Zihar by a Non-Muslim (Dhimmi)

Al-Shafi'i holds that anyone whose divorce is valid, their Zihar is valid; thus, a Dhimmi's Zihar is valid. Abu Hanifa holds it is invalid.

Shafi'i's Proofs:

1. Generality of the Verse: The verse {And those who pronounce Zihar concerning their wives among you...} is general.
2. Analogy (Qiyas): The effect of Zihar (prohibition) is applicable to the Dhimmi, proven by the validity of his divorce. Therefore, this act should be valid for him, analogous to his other legal transactions.
3. Expiation Rationale: The expiation was legislated to deter Muslims from this reprehensible act. This deterrent purpose applies equally to the Dhimmi.

Abu Hanifa's Proofs:

1. The Word {Among You} (Minakum): This addresses the believers, implying Zihar is specific to Muslims.
2. Consequence of Zihar: A necessary consequence of valid Zihar is the obligation of fasting for the one unable to free a slave, based on {...then they return to what they have said, then [must be] the freeing of a slave...} (Al-Mujadilah: 3-4). Imposing fasting upon a Dhimmi is impossible, as it would either be required while he is a disbeliever (which is invalid by consensus) or after he converts (which is invalid because "Islam wipes out what preceded it").

Rebuttal to Abu Hanifa:

1. Regarding {Among you}: This is direct address to all present, so why restrict it only to Muslims? Even if restricted to Muslims, why assume the ruling is different for others, especially since this jurist [Abu Hanifa] generally holds that specification in wording does not imply exclusion of others? Even if it implies exclusion, the implication of the negative (mafhum) is weaker than the explicit statement (mantuq), so the generality of {And those who pronounce Zihar...} takes precedence. Furthermore, Abu Hanifa holds that a general ruling following a specific one abrogates the specific. The verse mentioning the ruling ({And those who pronounce Zihar concerning their wives...}) is chronologically later in mention, and likely in revelation, than the introductory phrase ({Those who pronounce Zihar among you...}), as the former explains the ruling while the latter introduces the topic.
2. Regarding the fasting consequence: If the Dhimmi is unable to fast, he is required to feed the poor. If he is unable to fast, the question is resolved. If he is able, the question is moot. Furthermore, fasting is a substitute for freeing a slave. A substitute is weaker than the original obligation. A slave is incapable of freeing a slave, yet his Zihar is valid. If the failure of the stronger consequence (freeing a slave) does not invalidate Zihar, how can the failure of the weaker consequence (fasting) invalidate it?
3. Some scholars state: If he wishes to resolve the prohibition, he must convert and fast. As for "Islam wipes out what preceded it," this is a general rule, while the requirement of expiation is specific, and the specific overrides the general. Moreover, we do not compel him to fast; we state that if he wishes to remove the prohibition, he must fast, otherwise he need not fast.

Sub-Issue 2: Validity of Zihar by a Wife Against Her Husband

Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, and Malik hold that a wife saying to her husband, "You are to me like the back of my mother," is not valid Zihar. Al-Awza'i says it is an oath requiring expiation. This is incorrect because the husband is not obligated to an oath expiation, which should be the default. Furthermore, Zihar establishes prohibition through speech, which the wife does not possess the authority to do, as evidenced by her lack of authority to divorce.

Sub-Issue 3: Temporal Limitation of Zihar

Al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa hold that if he says, "You are to me like the back of my mother today," the Zihar is nullified when the day ends. Malik and Ibn Abi Layla hold he remains in Zihar permanently.

Our Proof: The prohibition established by Zihar is capable of being temporally limited, otherwise it could not be resolved by expiation. If it can be limited, then when he limits it, the ruling must be restricted according to that limit, analogous to an oath.

Regarding the phrase {concerning their wives}: This relates to the rulings concerning the person Zihar-ed against.

There is a difference of opinion on whether Zihar is valid concerning a female slave (amah). Abu Hanifa and Al-Shafi'i say no; Malik and Al-Awza'i say yes.

Shafi'i's Proof: Permissibility was established, and expiation was not obligatory. The default remains. The verse does not cover slaves because {And those who pronounce Zihar concerning their wives...} (Al-Mujadilah: 3) addresses free women. Evidence is found in {or those whom their right hands possess} (An-Nur: 31), where the implication is free women, otherwise the subsequent conjunction {or those whom their right hands possess} would be redundant (a thing is not conjoined to itself). Similarly, {and the mothers of your wives} (An-Nisa: 23) refers to wives (free women), not those possessed.

Abu 'Ali mentioned: Ibn Kathir, Nafi', and Abu 'Amr recited {Yuzahhirun} without the Alif (i.e., Yuzahhirun). 'Asim recited it with a dammah on the Ya' and a light Zha' (i.e., Yuzahhirun). Ibn 'Amir, Hamzah, and Al-Kisai recited it with a Fathah on the Ya' and an Alif with a heavy Zha' (i.e., Yuzahirun).

Abu 'Ali explained: Zahara min imra'atihi (He pronounced Zihar concerning his wife) is like Dha'afa (he doubled). If the Ta' is added, it becomes Tazhahara or Tazhara. Adding the imperfect prefix yields Yatazaharu or Yatazhara. The Ta' is then assimilated into the Zha' due to proximity, resulting in Yuzahir or Yazhar. The Ya' prefix is opened (fath) because it denotes reciprocity (mutaawa'ah), like Yatadahraj (he rolls down), which is the reciprocal of Dahrajtuhu fa-tadahraja (I rolled it, so it rolled down). The Ya' is opened in Yuzahir and Yazhar because it is reciprocal, similar to Yatadahraj, or because it follows their pattern, even if not strictly derived through the mechanism of Ilhaq (attachment).

The recitation of 'Asim, {Yuzahirun}, is derived from Zahara Yuzahiru (to do this action).

This phrase serves as a reprimand to the Arabs and a condemnation of their custom of Zihar, as it was a specific oath among the people of Jahiliyyah and not common among other nations.

Regarding the Almighty's saying: {They are not their mothers...} This involves two sub-issues:

Sub-Issue 1: Grammatical Reading of {Mothers} (Ummahatuhum)

'Asim, in the narration of Mufaddal, recited {Ummahatuhum} with the nominative case (raising). The rest recited it with the accusative case (lowering/genitive).

• Argument for Nominative: It is the dialect of Tamim. Sibawayh considered it the more analogous of the two possibilities. Negation (Nafi) should not change the structure of the sentence from what it was, just as interrogation does not.
• Argument for Accusative: It is the dialect of the Hijaz, and preference should be given to the dialect used in the Revelation. This reading aligns with {What is this? A human being!} (Yusuf: 31). Analogy supports this because Ma (negation) resembles Laysa (negation) in two aspects: 1) Both operate on the subject and predicate; 2) Both negate the present state. Since they share these two aspects, they should share other rulings unless specifically exempted by evidence, analogous to the rule concerning diptotes (mamnu' min al-sarf).

Sub-Issue 2: Apparent Contradiction in the Verse

There is a difficulty: Whoever says to his wife, "You are to me like the back of my mother," compares the wife to the mother but does not claim she is the mother. How is it appropriate for the verse to refute this by saying: {They are not their mothers}? And how is it appropriate to say: {And indeed, they utter a reprehensible saying and a lie}?

The Answer: The term lie (kadhib) is applicable because the statement "You are to me like the back of my mother" is either interpreted as a statement of fact (ikhbar) or as a legal declaration (insha').

1. If interpreted as a statement of fact, it is a lie because the wife is permissible (hall) while the mother is forbidden (haram). Comparing the permissible to the forbidden regarding the status of permissibility/prohibition is a lie.
2. If interpreted as a legal declaration, it is also a lie because its function as a declaration implies that the Lawgiver has made this phrase a cause for establishing prohibition. Since the Lawgiver did not intend this comparison to establish that specific prohibition, declaring it as such is a lie and falsehood (zūr).

Some scholars suggest the statement is called reprehensible and a lie because the mother is permanently forbidden, whereas this statement does not render the wife permanently forbidden. This view is weak because comparing one thing to another does not necessitate similarity in all aspects. Therefore, comparing the wife to the mother in prohibition does not necessitate similarity in the permanence of that prohibition, as the term "prohibition" is broader than permanent or temporary prohibition.

Verse 3: {Indeed, Allah is Pardoning and Forgiving.}

This means He may forgive without repentance for whomever He wills, as stated in {And He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills}, or He forgives after repentance.

Verse 4: {And those who pronounce Zihar concerning their wives, then return to what they have said, then [must be] the freeing of a slave before they touch each other. That is what you are admonished with, and Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.}

(The text ends here, transitioning to the next verse.)