2/228 — The waiting period and a right in two directions
قُرُوء — the singular is qarʾ/qurʾ. The word is among those counted in Arabic as of contrary sense (aḍdād), and this is the source of the best-known disagreement over the verse:
| Reading | What qurʾ is | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Menstruation (the period of the menses) | The waiting period is three menstrual periods |
| 2 | Ṭuhr (the period of purity between two menses) | The waiting period is three periods of purity |
Both views have been defended by the great schools of law, and their grounds have to do with language: the lexicographers record that the root (ق-ر-أ) carries the sense "to gather, to bring together", and that this can fit both the gathering of blood in the womb and its flowing.
I adopt no preference and issue no legal ruling. The disagreement is real and must not be concealed; both views agree in the purpose of the waiting period: that lineage should not be confused, and that the parties should have time for a return.
وَبُعُولَتُهُنَّ أَحَقُّ بِرَدِّهِنَّ فِى ذَٰلِكَ إِنْ أَرَادُوٓا۟ إِصْلَٰحًا — the right of return is tied to a condition: the intention of setting right. The return, that is, cannot be used to keep matters hanging. The same clause will be repeated in harder language at verse 231.
وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ ٱلَّذِى عَلَيْهِنَّ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ — "women have rights, according to what is fitting, like what is due from them."
The construction of the sentence is symmetrical: lahunna (in their favour) / ʿalayhinna (against them). And between them stands the word مِثْل (the like, the equivalent).
What this sentence states has been debated in the classical commentaries, and the chief explanations are these:
| Explanation | Ground |
|---|---|
| That the authority to divorce and to take back lies with the man | The context: the verse is about this |
| The obligation of maintenance | A link is made with the obligation of maintenance at al-Nisāʾ 4/34 |
| The weight of responsibility within the family | An undertaking on the side of obligation |
I transmit these explanations as they are transmitted; I impose no preference and draw no legal conclusion.
The verse's own word order must be recorded: the sentence comes after it has been stated that the rights are mutual, and the context is the process of divorce. It is not a sentence built as a general declaration of superiority — I record this on the basis of the order of the text.