. JI ದ : ; (cont.)

1 It seems, Allah knows best, that, except for the first view that the two words simply mean the same thing, all of the other interpretations are plausible and, in reality, there is no contradiction between them. They all imply that all forms of harming others and all forms of wrongfully reciprocating harm are illegal and prohibited in Islam. In a previous hadith, it was stated that all forms of zulm are forbidden. In reality, dharar is simply a subset of the acts of zulm.2 However, the best or strongest interpretation seems to be that of ibn Abdul Barr. Hence, the translation here, "There is not to be any causing of harm nor is there to be any reciprocating of harm." Ibn Rajah breaks down "harm" into two categories.3 The first category is an act whose only result is the harming of others. The second category is where the act brings about some benefit to the person but harms another person. These two categories will be discussed in detail below. Acts that Are Only Meant to Bring About Harm to Others This type of act is an evil and is prohibited in Islam. Indeed, one cannot imagine a true believer doing such a deed to his brother in Islam. It strikes at the very root of the brotherhood and love that each Muslim should have for each other. The Quran has specifically mentioned and forbidden actions of this nature. For example, Allah says about retaining one's wife after the pronouncement of divorce, ' / , / \L\M ୛µ j ੋJ/ э;. ji ƤJ/ ୠLl "Either take them back on a reasonable basis or let them free on a reasonable basis. But do not take them back just to hurt them. And whoever does that has wronged his soul" (al-Baqara 231). Allah also says about retaining one's divorced wife, 1 Al-Magharaawi, vol. 1 2, p. 12. Al-Bugha and Mistu (p. 227) conclude that this is the strongest interpretation. 2 Some have recently translated this hadith as, "There is not to be any causing of harm to oneself or causing of harm to others." This author could not find any support for this translation/interpretation of this hadith. None of the early scholars explained this hadith in this manner. 3 Cf., ibn Rajah, Jaami, vol. 2, pp. 2 12ff; al-Bugha and Mistu, pp. 230ff. Commentary on the Forty Hadith of al-Nawawi "And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish reconciliation" (al-Baqara 228). These verses prove that if a man returns to his divorced wife during her waiting period and he does that simply with the intention of causing her harm, by not letting her out of the marriage or not letting her free to marry someone other than him, then he is committing a sin. In pre-Islamic times, there was no limit to the number of times that one could make a pronouncement of divorce for his wife. Hence, a person could divorce his wife and then retain her just before the end· of the waiting period and continue to do that for as long as he was alive. Islam put an end to such harm and oppression by limiting the right to divorce to three pronouncements. After the third pronouncement, the man cannot return to his wife during the waiting period. In fact, according to Imam Malik, if a man divorces his wife and then, just before her waiting period is over, makes a verbal pronouncement of returning to her but then again announces a new divorce without having had intercourse with her in the meanwhile, her waiting period does not begin anew if it is determined that he did that simply to harm her. If he did not do that simply to harm her, her waiting period begins anew. According to Ataa, Qataada, al-Shafi'ee's old opinion and one narration from Ahmad, in all such cases, her waiting period does not begin anew but continues from when he took her back as his wife. According to the majority of the scholars, though, her waiting period will always begin anew in such cases. 1 A second example is that of a man not having sexual intercourse with his wife. One case is that of al-eelaa (Ƹ:ll.;)'1). This is where a man makes an oath that he will not approach his wife. The Quran has set a limit of four months for such an oath. After the four months, his repentance is to have intercourse with her. If he does not approach her at that time, then, according to some, she is divorced because of the passing of that time. According to others, he must have intercourse with her and if he does not, he is ordered to divorce her. The scholars also discuss the case of a man who does not have intercourse with his wife for four months, without previously making an oath, but with the intention of harming his wife.