the worshippers, those who praise”—to His words: “and those who forbid what is wrong” (al-Tawbah 9:112). And regarding the wives of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, He says: “Perhaps, if he divorces you, his Lord will give him in exchange wives better than you: submissive to Allah, believers, devoutly obedient, repentant, worshippers, given to fasting, previously married and virgins” (al-Tahrim 66:5).
“Say, ‘My Lord knows best their number’”—that is, their actual number. “None knows them except a few”—that is, only a few people. Ibn Abbas said, “I am among the few: they were seven.”
Muhammad ibn Ishaq said, “They were eight,” citing, “and their dog was the eighth”—that is, their keeper. The first view, however, is correct.
It is related from Ibn Abbas that he said: They were Miksalmina, Yamlikha, Martunus, Baynunus, Sarinunus, Dhu Nuwanis, and Kashfaytatnunus, who was the shepherd; and the dog was Qitmir (1).
“So do not argue about them”—that is, do not dispute or make assertions concerning their number and their affair—“except on the basis of what is clear,” meaning only on the basis of the apparent account We have related to you. In other words: What I have related to you is sufficient; do not add to it, but stop at it. “Nor consult any of them concerning them”—that is, any of the People of the Book—“at all”: do not refer back to their statements after We have informed you.
“Never say of anything, ‘I will certainly do that tomorrow,’ (23) without saying, ‘If Allah wills.’ And remember your Lord when you forget, and say, ‘Perhaps my Lord will guide me to what is nearer than this to right guidance.’ (24)”
“Never say of anything, ‘I will certainly do that tomorrow,’ without saying, ‘If Allah wills’”—meaning: when you resolve to do something the following day, do not say, “I shall do it tomorrow,” until you say, “If Allah wills.” This was because the people of Makkah asked him about the spirit, the Companions of the Cave, and Dhu al-Qarnayn. He said, “I shall inform you tomorrow,” but did not say, “If Allah wills.” Revelation was then withheld for some days, after which this verse was revealed (2).
“And remember your Lord when you forget.” Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and al-Hasan said: Its meaning is that if you forget to make the exception and then remember, you should make it.
Ibn Abbas permitted a delayed exception, even if made up to a year later. Al-Hasan permitted it so long as one remained in the same gathering, while some of them permitted it when only a short time had elapsed; but if the interval was long, it was not valid. A group did not permit [an exception] (3) unless it was joined directly to the statement (4).
(1) See above, p. 145, note 2.
(2) See al-Durr al-Manthur, 5:337; Zad al-Masir, 5:127; Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 3:72-73.
(3) Manuscript B reads: “he permits it.”
(4) Al-Tabari states in his Tafsir, 5:229-230: “The sounder of the two views is that of those who say that its meaning is: ‘Remember your Lord when you have neglected to remember Him,’ for one of the meanings of forgetting in Arabic speech is abandonment. If it is asked, ‘May a person qualify his oath after some time has passed since he swore it, given that the meaning is as you have explained?’ the answer is: Rather, he should make the qualification even after breaking his oath, by saying, ‘In sha Allah’ (‘if Allah wills’), so that by saying this he may free himself from the obligation which Allah has imposed upon him in this verse. Thus, the blame for failing to say it is removed from him. As for expiation, it is not waived in any circumstance unless his qualification was joined directly to his oath.”
He then explained the view of Ibn Abbas and those who held that one may make the qualification as long as one remains in the same sitting: “Their meaning is similar to ours: namely, that he may do so even after ten years, and that his qualification and his saying, ‘In sha Allah,’ some time after taking the oath removes from him the blame which would otherwise have been binding upon him had he not said it. As for expiation, it remains binding upon him for breaking the oath in every case, unless his qualification was connected to the oath. For we know of no one who maintains that a delayed qualification removes the obligation of expiation when he breaks his oath. This is the clearest proof of the soundness of what we have said on the matter.” This is also the view preferred by Ibn Kathir, 3:80.
Al-Jassas says in Ahkam al-Quran, 5:41-42: “This type of qualification removes the legal effect of the statement, so that it makes no difference whether the matter in question occurs or does not occur. Allah Most High encouraged qualification by His will so that the one swearing would not become a liar through his oath; this shows that its ruling is as we have described. This is also indicated by Allah’s words, relating from Moses: ‘You will find me, if Allah wills, patient.’ Yet he did not remain patient, but he was not a liar, because the qualification was present in his statement. This proves that its meaning is as we have described: it enters into the statement in order to remove its legal effect. Therefore, its ruling should not differ whether it is attached to an oath, a declaration of divorce, or a declaration of manumission ...”
He then preferred the view that such a qualification is valid and has the effect described only when it is connected directly to the oath—this being the point on which he agrees with al-Tabari’s interpretation. This was the view of Ibrahim, Ata, and al-Shabi: “For a qualification is like a condition: it is valid and has legal effect only when joined to the statement without interruption, as when one says, ‘You are divorced if you enter the house.’ If he were to say, ‘You are divorced,’ and then, after remaining silent, say, ‘if you enter the house,’ this would not make the divorce contingent upon entering the house. If this were permissible, a man could say to his wife, ‘You are divorced three times,’ and then, a year later, say, ‘In sha Allah,’ thereby invalidating the divorce, and she would not need to marry a second husband before becoming lawful again for the first. Allah’s prohibition of her to him after a threefold divorce unless she marries another husband proves the invalidity of a qualification made after silence ...”
For the account of Abu Hanifah’s argument in support of this before al-Mansur, see Adwa al-Bayan by al-Shanqiti, 4:79. See also al-Qurtubi, 10:386, who preferred the view that the verse does not concern oaths at all, but is, more correctly, an opening formula for speech.