that he not resume conjugal relations until the term has elapsed.
Accordingly, whoever understood the requirement of return (fayʾ) to mean a return after the period ends said: the meaning of His words, “And if they resolve upon divorce” (al-Baqarah 2:227), is a verbal pronouncement—“for Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing” (al-Baqarah 2:227).
The Mālikī school advances four proofs from the verse:
-
The waiting period is made a right of the husband alone, not of the wife; it thus resembles the deferment period granted to a debtor on a time-bound loan.
-
Allah, exalted be He, attributes the act of divorce to the husband’s own action, whereas in the Ḥanafī view it would only be ascribed to him figuratively; and one does not leave the literal sense for a figurative reading without evidence.
-
His statement, “And if they resolve upon divorce, surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing” (al-Baqarah 2:227), implies that the divorce must take place in a manner that can be heard—namely, by explicit speech, not merely by the lapse of time.
-
The prefixed faʾ in “But if they return, then Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (al-Baqarah 2:226) clearly indicates succession, showing that the return comes after the term. They even liken this period to the interval prescribed for the emancipation of a slave.
Abū Ḥanīfah, by contrast, based his ruling on likening this term to the waiting period (ʿiddah) of a revocable divorce, since the ʿiddah was legislated to guard against later regret. In brief, he compared ʿīlāʾ to revocable divorce and the term to the ʿiddah—a strong analogy, and one reported from Ibn ʿAbbās.
Issue Two
Their second dispute concerns the type of oath that constitutes ʿīlāʾ.
Mālik holds that any oath whatsoever brings ʿīlāʾ into effect.
Al-Shāfiʿī maintains that it is established only by oaths permitted in the Sharīʿah—namely, an oath by Allah or by one of His attributes. Mālik relied on the general purport of Allah’s words, “For those who swear abstinence from their wives there is a waiting period of four months” (al-Baqarah 2:226). Al-Shāfiʿī, however, likens ʿīlāʾ to the oath that incurs expiation: since both oaths generate specific legal consequences, the oath that triggers ʿīlāʾ must be of the same kind as the oath that entails expiation.
Issue Three
As for whether the ruling of ʿīlāʾ applies to a husband who merely refrains from intercourse without swearing an oath, the majority say it does not; Mālik obliges him when he intends to harm his wife by refraining, even without an oath. The majority relied on the outward wording, whereas Mālik considered the underlying intent: the ruling is incurred by his decision to withhold intercourse, whether or not he reinforces that decision with an oath, for the harm exists in both cases.
Issue Four
Regarding the duration of ʿīlāʾ, Mālik and those who share his view hold that it must exceed four months, for in their opinion the return (fayʾ) takes place only after four months. As for—