In the copy of Bukhari which the Shaykh had it was narrated: Muhammad ibn Bashshar narrated to us. He said that ʿAbd al Wahhab narrated to him, who said that Ayyub informed him, from ʿIkrimah, that Rifaʿah divorced his wife, after which she married ʿAbd al Rahman ibn al Zubayr al Quraziʿand Aishah رضي الله عنها said: She was wearing a green khimar, and she complained to her. And the greenness of her skin was visible.
When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ came, and women support one another, ʿAishah said: I have not seen believing women suffer as much as this. The greenness of her skin was more intense than the greenness of her garment. He said: And he heard that she had come to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, so he came, and with him were two sons from another wife.
She said: By Allah, I have no grievance against him except that what he has is no more sufficient for me than this.
And she took a fringe from her garment. He said: She has lied, by Allah, O Messenger of Allah. Indeed I shake her as leather is shaken, but she is rebellious and she wants Rifaʿah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: If that is the case, then you are not lawful for him, or you are not suitable for him, until he tastes from your sweetness and you taste from his sweetness. He then saw that he had two sons with him and said: Are these your sons? He replied: Yes. He said: This is what you claim. By Allah, they resemble him more than a raven resembles a raven.
There are several issues that need to be examined.
Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen رحمه الله said:
First, the greenness on her skin. What was its cause?
The apparent meaning is that this greenness was not from the khimar she was wearing. In your copies it reads: The greenness of her skin was visible. It was from the effect of his striking her. In this there is a shift in expression or abstraction.
It also contains proof of the permissibility of a woman seeking relief from harm if the husband is unable to have intercourse.
The evidence is that the Prophet ﷺ did not object to her raising the matter. However, since she had been divorced by a previous husband, he said that she was not lawful for him until the first husband tasted the sweetness of the second, and the second tasted her sweetness.
It also contains proof that when a claim is made and the one against whom it is made denies it, the claim is not established merely by the allegation. The man denied it and said that he was capable of intercourse and that he shook her as leather is shaken. The Messenger ﷺ also supported his statement by pointing to the 2 sons.
It further contains proof that it is permissible for a plural pronoun to refer to two.
The Prophet ﷺ said: Are these your sons? And he said: By Allah, they resemble him more than a raven resembles a raven. He did not say: The two of them resemble him, nor did he say: Are these 2 your sons?
As for his statement: By Allah, I shake her as leather is shaken, this is a metaphor for complete strength in intercourse. He did not say: shaken with the letter ta, because there is no need for a feminine marker here. She wants Rifaʿah.
He said: But she is rebellious. He did not say: rebellious in the feminine form. It was said that nushuz is specific to women. However, this requires consideration, because nushuz occurs in both men and women. Allah said:
وَإِنِ امْرَأَةٌ خَافَتْ مِنْ بَعْلِهَا نُشُوزًا أَوْ إِعْرَاضًا
‘And if a woman fears from her husband nushuz or turning away’ (4:128)
It may be said that the feminine meaning is understood from the pronoun referring to her in his words: But she is rebellious. The term itself may apply to both, but the pronoun clarifies it here.
As for the one who caused the bruising, it is not known with certainty who it was. It may have been her husband, or her brother, or someone else, or even another woman with whom she fought. If he had struck her with a severe beating that is not permitted, she would likely have complained clearly about that. The apparent state suggests that she was not truthful, because of the presence of the sons and because he claimed strength in intercourse.
The prohibition of severe beating applies to the husband or to anyone else. Even if it were her brother or another person, severe harm is not permitted. What matters here is that with respect to the husband, there is no clear objection established. It may also be that someone struck her in retaliation if she had wronged them. The important point is that there was an effect of striking, but it is not known who struck her or whether it was done with right or without right. There is no definitive ruling based solely on that.
It is also known that women often support one another. When one comes complaining to another, she supports her, whether rightly or wrongly.
This is common among people. When she came complaining, they supported her. They did not say to her: Be patient, seek reward, reflect carefully, perhaps matters will change. Rather, they sided with her.
These are three principal issues arising from the narration
