Ila (الإيلاء): Another Tool given in hands of Husbands by Islam to control their wives by punishing them

In the Pre-Islamic period of ignorance in Arabia, a social tradition known as "Ila" (al-Ila) existed. Husbands used it as a tool to psychologically and mentally subdue their wives to force them to remain subordinate to their desires.

What was the reality of Ila? During the period of ignorance, when a husband was angry with his wife, he would take an oath that he would not establish sexual relations with her. There was no fixed duration for this oath; the husband could keep the wife in this suspended state for as long as he wished. If he fulfilled his oath, the marriage would end, and if he broke it, the marriage remained intact, but during this time, the woman remained a victim of severe uncertainty and isolation.

There was no 100% perfect Allah present in the heavens, and Muhammad was creating this religion himself. Since Muhammad was only a human being, he was also influenced by his ancient Arab society of the period of ignorance. Therefore, making a human error, Muhammad made the curse of Ila a part of Islamic Sharia. (Just as he made other laws of the period of ignorance a part of Islamic Sharia, such as ownership over the wife through Mahr, exploitation of women through 3 divorces, the injustice of Iddah, Halala, Zihar, etc.)

Quran 2:226-228:

For those who swear not to have sexual relations with their wives is a waiting time of four months, but if they return [to normal relations] - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. And if they decide on divorce - then indeed, Allah is Hearing and Merciful. Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this period [even against the wishes and the consent of the wife] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable, but the men have a degree over them. 
[Translation: Umm Muhammad, Sahih International, and Corpus Quran]

The unjust and cruel measures that Islamic Sharia imposes on women through Ila are as follows:

• The wife is subjected to a punishment of "solitary confinement." She was forced to limit herself to the husband's house for 4 months, and during this entire period, the husband would neither give her attention, nor love, nor fulfill sexual needs, nor come near her.

• The wife is kept in a state of uncertainty during the 4-month period where the poor woman does not know whether her husband will continue the marriage after 4 months or throw her out of the house by divorcing her.

• Ila is actually a tactic that enables husbands to blackmail their wives so that they act according to their desires.

• Even if the husband is entirely at fault or has bad intentions and wants to pressure the wife by exploiting her through Ila, the wife remains helpless before this kind of blackmail.

• Islamic courts do not have the authority to intervene in this matter to protect the wife from such exploitation by the husband.

• Islam does not allow a woman to take a divorce herself from such an oppressive husband. Remember, Khula (خلع) is not the right of the woman either, but is also the right of the man? That is, a woman can offer money to the man for Khula, but the final decision belongs to the man. If he rejects the woman's offer and wants to keep her in his marriage, no Islamic court can grant freedom to such a woman in the name of Khula. In this regard, you can read our detailed article on Khula here.

• During these four months, the husband cannot have intercourse or show love to the wife, but he has full permission to beat her. However, despite this beating, the wife does not have the right to take a divorce from such a husband. The scholars who tell you that hitting a woman is allowed only with a miswak (tooth-stick) are telling an absolute lie. Islam gives the husband the full right to give wives a severe thrashing and even leave bruises on their bodies (only taking care that no bone is broken). There are hadiths in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Companions used to leave bruises on their wives by beating them, and Muhammad never forbade the Companions from this. Read our detailed article: Islam allows husbands to beat wives and inflict worst violence (Difference between advice and law)

• Leave aside the right of divorce, the poor wife does not even have the right to leave the husband's house to temporarily escape this beating. ْ

• If the husband decides to divorce his wife after 4 months of Ila, the woman face additional hardships during the 'Iddah' (waiting period), which extends for another 3 months (or 3 menstrual cycles). During this, she again enters a kind of "solitary confinement" and bears the burden of various restrictions. This means the poor wife has to serve 4 months of Ila punishment and then 3 months of Iddah punishment (i.e., a total of 7 months). During this, she is in a state of "solitary confinement" and other restrictions are imposed; she will long for the love of a man and the fulfilment of her sexual desires, and she cannot even go to the funeral of her parents upon their death without the husband's permission.

Contrary to the wife, Islam provides the following privileges to the husband:

• While on one hand, the wife is in a state of solitary confinement and is deprived of love and attention, on the other hand, the husband is completely free to have sex and enjoy himself with his other wives and dozens of slave girls.

• Furthermore, Islam gives the husband the unlimited right to take his wife back after 4 months and establish physical relations with her, even if it is against the wife's will and she wants to get rid of such an oppressive husband.

• A further cruelty is that Islam allows the husband to use the process of Ila repeatedly to prolong his wife's suffering as a punishment. This includes the husband establishing a physical relationship with his wife before the end of the initial 4-month period and then immediately taking an oath to abstain from physical relations for another 4 months. After each Ila, as an expiation (Kaffara), the husband only needs to feed 10 poor people or fast for 3 days only. In this way, the husband can keep his wife in a state of permanent solitary confinement by using Ila repeatedly, making her life hell and exploiting her completely.

The verse about justice between wives is also practically "abrogated"

When Allah (i.e., Muhammad) allowed men to have four wives, a condition was placed with it that justice must be done among all of them.

Quran 4:3:

"...marry those that please you of women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be able to do justice, then marry only one or those your right hands possess (i.e., slave girls)."

But later Allah (i.e., Muhammad) abrogated this condition and gave men the authority to usurp the rights of the wife by exploiting her in the name of "reconciliation."

(Quran 4:128-129):

And if a woman fears from her husband indifference or neglect, there is no sin upon them if they make terms of settlement between them (i.e., the woman agrees to give up some of her rights)... And you will never be able to do justice between wives, even if you should strive to do so.

The background of this verse is that when power and money came to Medina, Muhammad married several new, young, and beautiful women, and then he started feeling the presence of his old wife "Saudah" as a burden, as he had to give her a turn of one night. Consequently, Muhammad first claimed the revelation of a verse that gave him a free hand to divorce whichever of his wives he wanted "without any reason." Thus, the only wife Muhammad chose for divorce out of all his wives was the poor old Saudah. Even though Saudah had been taking care of Muhammad since the Meccan era (when he was weak and poor) and was raising his daughters, Muhammad did not care and wanted to divorce Saudah in this old age and turn her out of the house, even though he knew no other man would marry her at this age to support her.

Lady Saudah also fully knew that the basic issue was not divorce, but enjoying the young new wives at night. Therefore, she went to Lady Aisha and said that she gives her night turn to Aisha, but Muhammad should not divorce her.

When Muhammad learned that Saudah had transferred her turn to Aisha, he also happily and immediately claimed the revelation of a new verse (Quran 4:128-129) which allowed men to "blackmail" wives in the name of "reconciliation" by threatening them with indifference, Ila, or divorce, and force them to give up their rights. After that, "justice" remained a joke, and the verse stated that even if a man wants, he cannot do "justice" among wives.

Muslim Excuse: Limiting Ila to 4 months is a feat of Islam and a favuor to women

Unfortunately, Muslim apologists, instead of accepting the oppression of Islamic Ila as a punishment and injustice for women, call it a feat of Islam.

I was surprised to read the commentaries and writings of Islamic scholars where they were praising Islamic Ila by saying that in the period of ignorance, there was no fixed duration for Ila and it could exceed 4 months. But it is a feat of Allah and a favor to women that he limited Ila to only 4 months.

One can only feel regret at this situation where Muslim scholars turned even Allah's open injustice and cruelty toward women into a favor upon them.

Muslim Claim: Islam has also respected the woman's will in Ila

An Islamic apologist writes:

In Surah Baqarah, verse 228, Allah Almighty says that "women also have rights over men as men have over them, in kindness." This verse makes it clear that a woman's right is as credible as a man's, and she has been provided with complete justice in the matter of Ila.

The response is that, first of all, this translation of the verse is not correct. The correct translation is:

And their husbands have more right to take them back in this period [even against the wishes and the consent of the wife] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable, but the men have a degree over them. 
[Translation: Umm Muhammad, Sahih International, and Corpus Quran]

And the second point is that the Quran's verbal claim that "women also have rights similar to those against them according to what is equitable" is only a recommendation. Leaving her at the mercy of the husband without "practical measures" for her protection is a human error that cannot be expected from a 100% perfect heavenly God. Therefore, even if the husband shows indifference without reason, or beats the wife, or harasses her through Ila, Islam has "practically" provided no protection to the woman against these tactics, and she cannot obtain freedom from the husband on these grounds.

Muslim Claim: There is "Wisdom" in Ila so that husband and wife can reform themselves

An Islamic apologists wrote:

In Islamic law, various Imams have interpreted the duration of Ila as "wisdom". Imam Ibn Taymiyyah says that this period is so that during this time both husband and wife can reflect on each other and reform themselves.

First Problem: One-sided punishment for the woman only, and also unjust duration

The response is that for any 'reformative' process, it is necessary for both parties to be equal. But in Ila:

• After keeping the wife "suspended" for four months, if divorce occurs, the burden of another three months of Iddah is also placed on her. This means this punishment for the woman extends to seven months.

• On the other hand, there is no restriction on the man and he is completely free to maintain sexual relations with his other wives and slave girls during this entire period.

Therefore, the question is, is reform intended only for the woman while the man does not need reform?

Consequently:

• Reforming such abusive husbands is only possible when the wife has the freedom to leave his house instead of being imprisoned and suffering his oppression, and the husband knows that if he does not reform himself, the wife also has the right to leave him.

• But if you leave an innocent wife at the mercy of such an abusive husband who puts the wife in solitary confinement and is free to have sexual relations with other wives and dozens of slave girls, then he will not reform himself, but will only and only exploit the innocent wife.

Second Problem: Why a license to perform Ila "repeatedly" and permanently for the man?

• Well, if the opportunity for reflection was to be given, Ila should have been limited to only "one" time. But here, by allowing the husband to perform Ila "repeatedly," Islam is giving him a free license to break the oath before 4 months end and immediately take the Ila oath again after establishing a relationship, keeping the wife stuck in the middle.

What kind of reformation is this where husbands get free licence to make lives for women miserable and blackmail them constantly?

Questioning Allah's "Wisdom": Why is the expiation of Ila so trivial?

The seriousness of any law is judged by the punishment received for its violation. If we examine the Islamic expiation (Kaffara) of Ila (the oath not to have intercourse), it appears as a collection of "human contradictions" rather than "heavenly wisdom."

In Islamic Sharia, there are two such laws that affect a woman's life based on words spoken from a man's tongue: Ila and Zihar. But there is a massive difference in the expiation (Kaffara) of these two:

• Strict expiation for Zihar: If a man, in anger or ignorance, merely says to his wife "You are to me like my mother's back," then before establishing marital relations again, he will have to free a slave, or feed 60 poor people, or fast for two consecutive months. Remember that in this, the man has not taken any oath by Allah, but it is just a sentence.

• Trivial expiation for Ila: In contrast, when a man formally takes an oath by Allah and keeps his wife in sexual and emotional torment (solitary confinement) for four months, the expiation for him is only to feed 10 poor people or merely 3 days of fasting.

Just think! The religion that gives a punishment of fasting for 2 consecutive months for a "sentence" (Zihar) is satisfied with only 3 days of fasting for keeping a woman suspended in the middle for 4 months and using an oath by Allah as a weapon.

If Islam really wanted to save the woman from the husband's exploitation, the expiation of Ila should have been even stricter than Zihar so that the man would think a thousand times before blackmailing the wife by taking Allah's name. But here, instead of bringing him to his senses, the man has been given a "cheap escape."

This unbalanced difference in punishments between Ila and Zihar does not meet the "balance of justice." It cannot be expected from a complete and perfect heavenly God that he prescribes a large punishment for a smaller crime (Zihar) and such a trivial punishment for a serious psychological crime (Ila).

This contradiction is a clear testimony that these laws were not formulated by an All-Knowing God, but by a human being who was a victim of the social influences and "human errors" of his time. These punishments are a reflection of human understanding and the tribal system of that time rather than divine wisdom, where the price of a woman's psychological torment was not considered more than feeding 10 poor people.

You can read more details about Zihar in our this article.

An even more dangerous alternative to Ila: "Suspension" (Ta'liq)

The most surprising thing is that an alternative path even more terrifying than Ila exists in Islamic Sharia, by using which a man can keep a wife suspended for life without any oath.

See the fatwa of Dar al-Ifta Jamia Islamia below, where the wife is demanding divorce, but the husband has kept her hanging in the middle for several years by giving expenses (Link):

Question
If husband and wife do not establish marital relations for three years due to a severe fight, does the marriage break, while the husband has been giving expenses to the wife in these 3 years and the wife has been doing housework? During this period, the wife has been demanding divorce by giving him a share in property.

Answer
If the husband has not taken an oath to not establish marital relations with the wife for four months or more, then no matter how long marital relations are not established, the marriage does not break. Only Allah knows best.

Fatwa Number: 144010200177

Dar al-Ifta: Jamia Uloom Islamia Allama Muhammad Yusuf Banuri Town

Therefore, while this alternative procedure of "Suspension" exists, what "heavenly wisdom" was it to make the period of ignorance law of Ila a part of Islamic Sharia as well?

The truth is that this alternative procedure of suspension is even more dangerous for women than Ila, where there is neither a 4-month restriction on the man nor any expiation at all. Therefore, if any Muslim man performs Ila (i.e., takes an oath not to have intercourse) despite this alternative procedure being available, it is only and only the "foolishness" and "stupidity" of that Muslim man himself.

Therefore, if Ila became a part of Islamic Sharia despite this alternative procedure, the only reason was that Sharia was not being created by a perfect heavenly Allah, but Muhammad was creating it himself. And since he was only a "human," he committed such a "human error" by being influenced by his environment.

Moreover, Muslims also assert that:

• The West gave women "Equal Rights". But they consider it a mistake. 
• For Muslims, women don't need "Equal Rights", but they need rights on the basis of  "JUSTICE". 

However, this assertion by Muslims lacks validity. The divine Allah they worship did not bestow women with equitable rights, nor did it establish these rights on the foundation of justice. Yes, their Allah gave rights to women neither on the bases of equality nor on the basis of justice. 

Consequently, women remain vulnerable to the tyranny and manipulation of their male counterparts, without adequate safeguards.

In contrast, the Western world, driven by human intellect, recognized women as equal beings to men. It bestowed women with parallel rights, including the crucial right to divorce, thus thwarting any potential for malevolent individuals to exploit and blackmail them. This approach from the West ensures comprehensive protection for women against all forms of oppression and coercion.

Conclusion: The Human Fingerprints on Divine Law

The study of Ila reveals a profound disconnect between the claim of "perfect divine justice" and the reality of Sharia legislation. By taking a pre-Islamic custom used to subdue women and codifying it into sacred law, the system did not abolish oppression, but it merely regulated it.

The the crushing psychological weight of a seven-month "suspension," the mockery of a trivial three-day fast as expiation, and the existence of even more dangerous alternatives like "Ta'liq", they all point toward a singular conclusion that these are not the laws of an All-Wise, All-Merciful Creator. Instead, they are the fingerprints of a 7th-century human author, Muhammad, who was deeply influenced by the tribal and patriarchal norms of his time.

A truly divine system would provide immediate protection and an escape route for an abused wife. In contrast, Islamic Sharia leaves her at the mercy of her husband's whims, trapped in a cycle of oaths and excuses. For the modern seeker of truth, the law of Ila stands as a clear testament to the "human errors" inherent in the foundations of the religion.