ءَاتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ

See 2:228.

2:232; 4:130; 65:3.

Important Words:

امساك (retain) is derived from امسك which is again derived from مسك. They say امسك به i.e. he stuck to it. امسك is both transitive and intransitive. امسكه means, he got hold of it and stopped and retained it. امسك عن الکلام means, he abstained from talking. امساك means, (1) to hold or stop or prevent or retain; (2) to refrain or abstain (Aqrab).

تسریح (send away) is the noun-infinitive from سرح (sarraha) which is derived from سرح. They say سرح المواشی i.e. the cattle went forth for grazing. سرح السیل means, the flood moved on leisurely. سرحه means, he sent him away. سرح فلان زوجته means, he sent away or divorced his wife (Aqrab).

حدود (limits) is the plural of حد i.e. a limit. حده means, he put a limit to it. حد الشیء عن الشیء means, he distinguished one thing from the other. الحد means, (1) the limit or the line where two things meet; (2) last limit or extremity of a thing; (3) that by which a thing may be defined; (4) prescribed punishment for an offence. حدود الله means God’s religious commandments (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse contains the fifth check on divorce. A man who seeks permanent and irrevocable separation from his wife must pronounce divorce on three separate occasions, each in a separate طھر i.e. period of purity, when the woman is clean and the man has not gone in unto her during that period of purity. The pronouncement of divorce twice or thrice at one and the same time is not permissible as the verse hints in the word مرتان (twice) which signifies a thing happening on two separate occasions and not two things happening at one and the same time. The Holy Prophet treated such collective pronouncements, whatever their number, as only one divorce (Tirmidhi & Dawud). According to Nasa’i, the Holy Prophet was extremely angry when one day he was told that a person had made all the three pronouncements of divorce at one and the same time, and said: "Is the Book of God going to be made a plaything while I am yet among you?"

After the pronouncement of the first two divorces, the husband can take back the divorced wife within ‘iddah, i.e. the period of waiting, with or without her consent; but after the period of waiting is over, he can take her back only with her consent and that after remarrying her. After the pronouncement of the third divorce, however, the husband forfeits this right and the couple are finally separated. A Companion of the Holy Prophet once asked him saying, "The Quran has here spoken of two divorces only, whence comes in the third!" The Prophet referred him to the Quranic words اوتسریح باحسان i.e. or send them away with kindness meaning thereby that after the pronouncement of the first two divorces the husband was free to retain his wife if he so desired but if he wanted irrevocable separation, he should "send her away", i.e. divorce her a third time (Jarir & Musnad). The point is further made clear in the succeeding verse. Thus the word تسریح here signifies طلاق i.e. divorce.

The present verse also makes it clear that when a person divorces his wife, he forfeits مھر i.e. the dower-money he has given her; and if at the time of divorce he has not yet given her the dower-money agreed on by the parties, he must make the payment before the divorce becomes effective. Again, he is not allowed to take back anything he might have given her in the form of gifts and presents as the clause it is not lawful for you that you take anything of what you have given them indicates.

If, however, it is the wife who demands separation, technically known as خلع (Khul‘a lit. the putting off of clothes etc., or the shedding of old leaves), she must get it through a Qadi or judge as the word خفتم (you fear), which has been put in the plural number, hints. In this case she has to part with, in full or in part, her dowry as well as the gifts she might have received from her husband, as agreed on by the parties or decided by the judge. The case of Jamilah, wife of Qais bin Thabit, provides a good illustration of the exercise of the right of Khul‘a by women. She demanded separation from her husband, Qais, on the ground that she did not like him, i.e. their temperaments being different, she could not get on with him. She was granted Kkul‘a by the Holy Prophet, but she had to return to her husband the orchard he had given her (Bukhari). This right, however, is not to be exercised in a light-hearted manner. The Holy Prophet has condemned the action of a woman who demands separation from her husband without valid reason even as he has condemned the action of a man who divorces his wife without genuine cause. He is reported to have said, "A woman who seeks separation from her husband without a legitimate cause shall be deprived of the fragrance of heaven" (Dawud & Tirmidhi). This is what is hinted in the concluding words, these are the limits prescribed by Allah, so transgress them not, etc. The husband and the wife are both warned to fear God and refrain from transgressing the limits imposed by God for their own good.

See 4:16.

2:217.

Commentary:

Men become heirs of women against their will in various ways: (1) A man does not like his wife and does not treat her well, yet he does not divorce her, hoping to possess her property after her death; (2) He treats his wife harshly and compels her by ill-treatment to obtain separation (khula‘) from him by giving him a part or whole of her property, or by surrendering her dowry; (3) The relations of the deceased husband of a widow prevent her from marrying another husband in order to get possession of her property after her death; (4) They force her to marry someone from among themselves against her will, treating her virtually as a part of the property left by her dead husband; (5) The husband takes by force the property of his wife, as if it were his by legal right; (6) The relatives of the deceased husband take away by force the property of his widow, depriving her of her right of inheritance.

The deceased person’s relatives cannot prevent his widow from contracting a new marriage so that they may get hold of her property; but they can prevent her from doing so, if she intends to marry a person of manifestly objectionable character.

If the address is to the husbands, the verse would mean that if the wives do not want to live with their husbands and seek separation from them, which they can do by means of khula‘, the husbands should not prevent them from doing so out of greed for their money. But they can do so, if the wives are going to be guilty of a manifestly foul act.

The words, consort with them in kindness, embody the pith of the Islamic teachings about the treatment of wives. They are not to be treated in a dry, businesslike way, but with love and kindness. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: خیر کم خیر کم لاھله i.e. "the best among you is he who is best in his treatment of his wife" (Tirmidhi). But as a one-sided affair can never be truly successful, the Quran uses the expression عاشروھن (consort with them), which, being of the measure مفاعلةdenotes reciprocity. So husbands and wives are both enjoined to live amicably with each other and reciprocate each other’s love and kindness.

A woman cannot adequately appreciate and acknowledge the great debt she owes to the Quran. No other Scripture has given to her the high status that the Quran gives her. It not only lays down her inalienable rights but also exhorts men to overlook the weaknesses and shortcomings of their wives, and treat them with kindness and benevolence even if they do not like them. The memorable words of the Holy Prophet quoted above, i.e. "The best of you is he who is best in his treatment of his wife" (Tirmidhi), are only an echo of the noble teachings of the Quran with regard to women.

Important Words:

For the meaning of the word محصنین (contracting valid marriage) and مسافحین (committing fornication) and اخدان (secret paramours). See 4:25, 26.

Commentary:

The verse declares that if a person from among the People of the Book invites a Muslim to dinner, it is lawful for the latter to accept the invitation and partake of the food of the former, provided, of course, the food does not include anything forbidden by Islam. Similarly, a Muslim is allowed to invite the People of the Book to dinner.

Some commentators have taken the word طعام (food) in the clause, the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you, in the sense of "flesh of animals used as food." In this sense, the verse would signify that Muslims are allowed to partake of the flesh of an animal slaughtered by one from among the People of the Book, provided, of course, the name of God has been pronounced on the slaughtered animal.

The words, And lawful for you are chaste believing women and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you, are intended to hint that whereas Islam permits marriage of Muslim men with non-Muslim women from among the People of the Book, it certainly prefers that Muslim men should ordinarily marry only Muslim women.

The words یکفر بالایمان rendered as "rejects the faith" may either mean "turns apostate" which is its primary significance; or it may mean "is ungrateful respecting faith". For the meaning of the particle با see 1:1.

4:5, 25.

2:222.

Commentary:

Here is a testimony to the irresistible appeal of the Message of Islam. At a time when Muslims were being bitterly persecuted and it was not safe to leave Mecca and join the Muslim Community at Medina, a continuous stream of believers was pouring into Medina, leaving behind in Mecca their dear and near ones. These Refugees contained a fair number of women among them. The verse under comment refers to such refugee Muslim women. The verse also constitutes an eloquent commentary on the Holy Prophet’s anxiety not to accept into the Muslim Community any woman who had fled from Mecca unless there was proof available, after subjecting her to searching examination, that she was sincere, and honest in her faith and that she was accepting Islam out of no ulterior or otherwise objectionable motives. The verse further states that the marriage-tie between a refugee believing woman and her dis-believing husband becomes dissolved when she joins the Muslim Community, and a believer is allowed to marry such a woman, provided he fulfils two conditions: (a) He should have paid back to the disbelieving husband of such woman what the latter had spent on her, and (b) he should also have fixed or paid her dowry. Similarly, the marriage-tie between a Muslim and his wife who gives up Islam could not continue and the same procedure would be adopted if such an apostate woman marries a disbeliever as in the case of marriage between a Muslim and a refugee believing woman. The reciprocal arrangement prescribed in this verse is not the private affair of the individuals concerned but is to be carried out by the State, as is the practice in time of war, to which the verses particularly apply; there could not and should not continue any social relations between individual believers and individual disbelievers.