If someone asks: “What is the wisdom behind prohibiting divorce during menstruation?” we say: There are two reasons.

First, it is customary that, when a man’s wife is menstruating and he is prevented from intimacy with her, he does not feel love and inclination toward her in his heart—particularly if she is among those women who dislike intimacy during menstruation. Some women experience distress when they menstruate, and so they dislike their husbands and dislike their approach. If he divorces her in this state, he will have divorced her out of aversion; whereas, had she been pure and he enjoyed intimacy with her, he might have loved her and not divorced her. It is therefore appropriate that he leave her until she becomes pure.

Second, if he divorces her during this menstrual period, it is not counted; thus, she must complete three full menstrual periods apart from the one during which he divorced her. He thereby harms her by prolonging her waiting period.

His statement, “then it is an innovation,” means that it is contrary to the sunnah. Here, we should note that the jurists do not generally apply the term innovation to matters such as this. Innovation is applied to an act of worship that has not been legislated, to an additional manner beyond what the Sacred Law has prescribed, or to matters of creed. This is what is generally termed innovation. In other matters, however, it is not called an innovation. Thus, you find them saying, “This is prohibited,” or, “This is disliked”; but for them to say, “It is an innovation,” is rare. Yet in this issue, they have described it in terms of innovation and sunnah: if he divorces her while she is menstruating, it is an innovation. Or, if you prefer, say that it is prohibited, for this is more fitting according to the terminology of the jurists.

It Takes Effect ..................................

His statement, “It takes effect,” means that the divorce takes effect even in the situation in which it is prohibited. The evidence is: