Islam and the Quran

punishment. This helped in curbing instances of saying talaq in one go. Certainly, Umar’s practice was not a Sharia law. His step was rather an example of hukm al-hakim, or an executive order. His annulment of marriage in cases where men said talaq three times in one go was an exercise of the discretionary power of a ruler. Such executive orders are applicable to particular cases and do not have the status of Sharia law. In the British period, men again began to divorce their wives in one sitting. Now Muslim jurists belonging to the Hanafi school of law revived Umar’s order and made instant triple talaq valid. The Hanafi jurists cited Umar’s precedent, but this reference was unwarranted, because Umar had done so by way of an executive order while, in the later period, Hanafi jurists did so by issuing a fatwa. Moreover, Umar would also flog men as deterrent punishment, while Hanafi jurists were not in a position to flog anyone. In such a scenario, my advice to Hanafi Muslims is to take the Supreme Court’s verdict as a reminder and review their practice. They should consider uttering talaq thrice in one go as a case of a decision having been taken in anger and consider it only one as talaq – as had been done during the time of the Prophet. Why is there difference among scholars when it comes to the commentary (tafsir) or interpretation of the Quran? Tafsir involves application of the Quran. When you do commentary of a verse in an applied way, there will naturally be differences in interpretation. For example, the Quran says, ‘Do not worship idols’. (31:13) About this, one commentator would say it means one should not worship stone idols, while another would say it also means that one should not give excessive importance to human beings, as that would mean making them one’s idols (object of veneration) instead