Quran's Tafhim ( explanation)

*4) It means: "Act according to the method AIIah has prescribed for absolution from oaths by cxpiation in AI-Ma'idah :89 and break your promise that you have trade to forbid yourself a lawful thing. " Here, an important legal question arises and it is this: Is this Command applicable to the case when a person has forbiddcn himsclf a lawful thing on oath, or is forbidding oncsclf a lawful thing by itsclf tantamount to swearing an oath, whether the words of the oath have been used or not'? The jurists in this regard have expressed different opinions:
One section of them says that mere forbidding oncsclf a lawful thing is not an oath. If a person without swearing an oath has forbiddcn himself a wife, or some other lawful thing, it is an absurd thing which does not entail any expiation, but he can resume without any expiation the use of the thing that he had forbidden himself. This is the opinion of Masruq, Sha'bi, Rabi'ah and Abu Salamah; and the same view is held by Ibn Jarir and all the Zahiris. According to them forbidding oneself something would be an oath only in case express words of oath are used when forbidding it for oneself. In this regard, their reasoning is that since the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) while forbidding himself a lawful thing had also sworn an oath, as has been reported in several traditions, AIIah told him to act according to the method that had been appointed for absolving oneself from oaths.
The second group says that to forbid oncsclf something without using the words of oath is not an oath by itself, but the case of the wife is an exception. If a person has . forbiddcn himself a garment, or an article of food, it is meaningless, and one can use it without expiation. But if concerning a wifc or a slave-girl he has said: "I forbid myself an intercourse with her," she would not become unlawfirl and forbiddcn, but one would have to expiate the oath before going in to her. This is the opinion of the Shafe'is. (Mugni al-Muhtaj). And a similar opinion on this question is held by the Malikis. (Ibn al-'Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur an).
The third group says that to forbid oneself something is by itsclf an oath even if the words of oath have not been used. This is the opinion of Hadrat Abu Bakr. Hadrat 'A'ishah, Hadrat 'Umar, Hadrat 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, Hadrat Zaid bin Thabit and Hadrat 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas (may Allah bless them aII). Although from Ibn 'Abbas another opinion has been reported in Bukhari to the effect: "If a tnan has forbidden himsclf his wifc, it is meaningless," yet it has been interpreted to mean that according to him this is not divorce but an oath which entails an expiation. For in Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Majah, another saying of Ibn 'Abbas has been reported that to forbid oneself one's wife entails an expiation, and in Nasa'i the tradition is to the effect that when Ibn 'Abbas was asked his opinion on this, he said: "She is not forbidden to you, but you must pay the expiation." and in Ibn Jarir's tradition the words of Ibn 'Abbas are to the effect: "If the people forbid themselves what Allah has made lawful for them, they must expiate their oath." This same is the opinion of Hasan Basri, 'Ata, Ta'us. Suleman bin Yasar. Ibn Jubair and Qatadah, and the same has been adopted by the Hanafis. Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas says: `The words of the verse lima tuharrimu do not indicate that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) along with forbidding himself the lawful thing had also sworn an oath, therefore, one will have to admit that tahrim (to forbid oneself something) itself is an oath; for after it Allah made obligatory the expiation of the oath in connection with the prohibition." Farther on he writes again: 'Our companions (i.e. the Hanafis) regard tahrim as an oath in case it is not accompanied by the intention of divorce. If a person forbade himself his wife, he in fact said: "By God, I will not come near you," thus, he committed ila' (act of temporary separation! . And if he forbade himself an article of food. etc, he in a wav said: "By God, I will not use that article." For Allah first said: "Why do you forbid that which AIIah has made lawful?" and then said. "AIIah has appointed a way to absolve you from your oaths." Thus, Allah has regarded tahrim as an oath, and the word tahrim in its meaning and legal effect becomes synonymous with an oath."
Here, for the benefit of the common man, it would be useful to tell what is the legal command according to the jurists in respect of forbidding oneself one's wife and forbidding oneself other things besides the wife.
The Hanafis say that if without the intention of divorce somebody forbade himself his wife, or swore an oath that he would not have conjugal relations with her, this would be ila (temporary separation), and in this cast he would have to expiate his oath before having the sexual relation . But if wit h the intention Of divorce he said: "You are unlawful to me," it will have to be ascertained what was his actual intention. If his intention was of three divorces, the three divorces will take place, and if the intention was of a lesser number, of one or two divorces, only one divorce will take place in either case. And if some body says: "I have forbidden myself whatever was lawful for me, this would not apply to the wife unless he said these words with the intention of forbidding himself the wife. Apart from the wife, one cannot use the thing O11e has forbidden oneself until one has expiated the oath. Badai as-Sana'i: Hedayah; Fath Al-Qadir,' al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur an.
The Shafe'is say that if one forbids oneself the wife with the intention of divorce or zihar, the intended thing would become effective, whether it is a revocable divorce or an irrevocable divorce, or zihar. And if a person used the words of tahrim with the intention of both divorce and zihar, he would be asked to choose one, or the other, for both divorce and zihar cannot be established at one and the same time. Divorce dissolves marriage but in case of zihar it continues and if without any intention the wife is forbidden, she would not become forbidden, but expiation of the oath would become necessary. And if another thing, apart from the wife, is forbidden, it would be meaningless; there is no expiation for it. (Mughni al-Muhtaj).
The Malikis say that if a person forbids himself anything other than the wife, it neither becomes forbidden nor entails an expiation. But if he says to the wife, "You are unlawful, or unlawfirl for me, or I am unlawful for you," this would amount to a triple divorce in any case whether this was said to a wife with whom marriage has been consummated, or to one with whom it has not yet been consummated, unless his intention was of less than three divorces. Asbagh says: 'If a person says: whatever was lawful for me, is unlawful, the wife also becomes forbidden unless he makes an exception of the wife." In al-Mudawwanah, distinction has been made between the wife with whom marriage has been consummated and the wife with whom it has not been consummated. If one forbids oneself the former, a threefold divorce will take place irrespective of the intention, but in case of the latter the same number of divorces would take effect as was intended, and if there was no intention of any particular number, it would be considered a triple divorce (Hashiyah ad-Dusuqi). Qadi Ibn al-'Arabi in his Ahkam al-Qur'an has cited three statements of Imam Malik: (1) That forbidding oneself the wife amounts to an irrevocable divorce; (2) that it amounts to three divorces; and (3) that in case of the wife with whom marriage has been consummated it amounts to three divorces, bat in case of the one with whom it has not been consummated, to only one divorce if one was intended Then he says: 'The correct thing is that forbidding oneself the wife amounts to one divorce only. for if the man uses the word divorce instead of calling her unlawfirl without specifying the number, only one divorce will take place."
Three different views in this regard have been reported from Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal: (1) That to forbid oneself the wife, or to make a lawful thing absolutely unlawful for oneself, is zihar, whether zihar was intended or not; (2) that this is an express allusion to divorce, and it amounts to pronouncing a triple divorce whether only one divorce was intended; and (3) that it is an oath, unless The man had the intention of divorce or zihar and in this case the same would take effect as was intended. Of these only the first one is the best known view among the Hanbalis. (Al-Insaf)
*5) That is, "Allah is your Master and Guardian of your affairs. He knows best in what lies your own good, and whatever Commands He has given, they are aII based on wisdom. "The first thing means: "You are not independent in this world, but you are servant of Allah and He is your Master; therefore, none of you possesses any power to alter or change the ways and methods prescribed by Him; the best thing for you is to entrust your affairs to Him and continue to obey Him. "
The second thing means that all the methods and laws that AIIah has enjoined, are based on knowledge and wisdom, Whatever He has made lawful, has been made lawful on the basis of knowledge and wisdom and whatever He has made unlawful also has been made unlawful on the basis of knowledge and wisdom. Nothing has been made lawful or unlawful at random. Therefore, those who believe in AIIah should understand that it is Allah Who is AII-Knowing and All-Wist and not they. and their well-being lies only in carrying out duly the Commands given by Him.
Back to top button