The Holy Quran, as a comprehensive source for guiding humanity, has delineated rulings and principles in various social, familial, and ethical domains. Among these rulings, which pertain to spousal relations, is the ordinance of Ilaa, addressed in verse 226 of Surah Al-Baqarah. Ilaa, a particular form of oath within the marital context, poses jurisprudential and social challenges that necessitate precise and scholarly examination. This treatise, grounded upon the exegesis of the noble verse and its jurisprudential and social analyses, endeavours to explore the dimensions of this ruling within its historical and contemporary frameworks. The objective is to provide a comprehensive and systematic analysis which, whilst preserving the authenticity of religious texts, responds to modern inquiries concerning gender justice and women's rights.
Verse 226 of Surah Al-Baqarah, following the discussion on general oaths in verses 224 and 225, addresses a specific type of oath known as Ilaa. This transition from general oaths to a particular oath within spousal relations demonstrates the Qurans comprehensiveness in elucidating familial and social rulings. The noble verse states:
لِلَّذِينَ يُؤْلُونَ مِنْ نِسَائِهِمْ تَرَبُّصُ أَرْبَعَةِ أَشْهُرٍ ۖ فَإِنْ فَاءُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ
"For those who swear to abstain from their wives, a waiting period of four months is prescribed; then if they return, verily Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
This verse, articulated with precise language and a coherent structure, delineates a ruling whereby the husband abstains from conjugal relations with his wife through an oath. The term ylna derives from the root al, meaning to swear with arrogance and pride, indicating a deliberate act with a specific intent within this context.
Within Islamic jurisprudence, Ilaa refers to an oath sworn by the husband with the intention of causing harm or retaliation, whereby he refrains from marital relations with his wife. This oath may be permanent or last for a period exceeding four months. Contrary to general oaths, Ilaa is exclusively exercised by the husband towards his wife; the wife cannot enact Ilaa upon her husband. This unilateral nature, reflected in the phrase lilladhna yulna min nisihim, raises questions regarding gender justice within Islamic rulings.
Ilaa is commonly motivated by the husband's resentment or dissatisfaction with his wife and is employed as an instrument of punishment or retaliation. Although the Quranic text does not explicitly mention this motive, it is discussed within Islamic jurisprudence, reflecting the complexity of human relationships and the necessity of managing them within a religious framework. The husband may, due to the wife's conduct, deprive her of conjugal rights via the oath of Ilaa, an act which can entail profound psychological and social consequences.
Islamic jurisprudence stipulates conditions for Ilaa, such as the oath being Jalalah (an oath sworn by invoking the name of Allah), a duration exceeding four months, and verification within a Shariah court. These conditions, detailed in jurisprudential texts such as Lum'at Dimashqiyyah and Shari al-Islm, aim to prevent misuse of the ruling. Nevertheless, some jurists argue that even mat (intent without specific phrasing) suffices for Ilaa, a flexibility which, while reducing restrictions, does not address the fundamental issue.
Ilaa, as a particular oath within spousal relations, holds a distinct position in the Quran and Islamic jurisprudence. Rooted in the culture of early Islam, this ruling, by specifying a four-month waiting period and emphasising divine mercy, attempts to regulate marital relations. However, its unilateral nature and consequent implications raise critical questions about justice and fairness that demand further in-depth inquiry.
Due to its unilateral nature and potential for harming the wife, Ilaa is regarded as a symbol of patriarchy and masculine authoritarianism. This ruling, permitting only the husband to swear separation, may be critically viewed as indicative of inequality in spousal rights. In the patriarchal society of early Islam, Ilaa may have been accepted as a mechanism for regulating familial relationships, yet in modern society, it appears inconsistent with the values of gender justice and human rights.
Psychologically and socially, Ilaa is more severe than physical chastisement, as it may deprive the wife of conjugal rights permanently or for an extended period. While physical punishment may conclude with an apology, Ilaa suspends the wifes rights and places her in a state of deprivation, imposing profound pressure. If the wife refrains from lodging a complaint, this condition could persist for up to two years, inflicting severe psychological and social harm.
The kaffarah (expiation) for Ilaa, traditionally limited to feeding ten indigent persons, is insufficient in comparison to the harms it causes. Though not mentioned in the verse, this kaffarah is prescribed in traditions, but does not correspond to the gravity of Ilaas consequences. For example, a narration states: "Man al fakkfaratuhu i'mu ashara maskn" (Whoever performs Ilaa, his expiation is feeding ten poor people). This mild penalty, which may equate to providing simple food such as an omelette, raises questions about the proportionality of crime and punishment.
Upon the wife's complaint, the husband is summoned before the Shariah court and must choose between reconciliation (resuming conjugal relations) or divorce. Although this mechanism is designed to protect the wife, the difficulty of proving Ilaa and its unilateral nature may impede effectiveness. The wife must wait four months and, if the husband does not return, approach the court, a process which may impose additional psychological burdens.
Despite its historical and jurisprudential roots, Ilaa poses significant challenges in terms of gender justice and women's rights. Its unilateral nature, mild kaffarah, and psychological and social consequences highlight the necessity for re-evaluation from both jurisprudential and social perspectives. These critiques are not a repudiation of divine rulings but an invitation to deeper analysis for alignment with contemporary societal needs.
Ilaa emerged within the cultural milieu of pre-Islamic Arabia (Jahiliyyah), dominated by patriarchy. During this period, women endured severe oppression such as the burial of daughters alive, an act condemned in verse 8 of Surah Takwir:
وَإِذَا الْمَوْءُودَةُ سُئِلَتْ
"And when the girl [who was] buried alive is asked."
The Arabs of Jahiliyyah, fearing the economic burden of raising daughters or the loss of tribal honour, buried them alive. This practice, seemingly motivated by mercy to reduce future suffering, reflected the depth of women's oppression.
Islam, by abolishing Jahiliyyah customs such as burying daughters alive and enacting protective rulings, took steps towards enhancing women's rights. Nevertheless, rulings like Ilaa, rooted in patriarchal culture, continue to prompt questions regarding gender justice. Islam sought to limit these behaviours by prescribing a four-month waiting period and permitting reconciliation or divorce; yet, the unilateral character of Ilaa remains problematic.
Ilaa originated within the patriarchal culture of early Islam and was moderated by Islamic rulings. However, its patriarchal origins and contemporary implications necessitate reconsideration and deeper analysis, which should take into account principles of justice and human dignity.
Religious sciences, particularly in rulings such as Ila
