What compensation is due when a husband makes three concurrent pronouncements of divorce without explicitly linking the sum to all of them?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Khul' (Redemption Divorce)
Primary text
If the husband states, 'You are divorced and divorced and divorced,' without mentioning the sum, and is then asked which pronouncement was intended to be against the compensation offered previously: If he specifies the first, she is divorced once finally, and the subsequent two do not occur. If he specifies the second, she is divorced once finally, and two other pronouncements take effect. If he specifies the third, all three take effect. If he states his intention was that the thousand applied to all three pronouncements, she is divorced by the first pronouncement alone, and the subsequent ones do not occur. In this case, he owes one-third of the thousand, as he agreed to effect the divorce with that amount, similar to a case where the wife requests divorce for a thousand, and the husband agrees to divorce for five hundred. This view is narrated by Al-Qadi and aligns with the school of Al-Shafi'i.
Supporting text
An alternative view suggests the full thousand is due because he enacted what compensation was offered for with the intent of compensation, and the partial nullification of the sum due to his subsequent intention should not void the whole claim. Another possibility is that all three divorces take effect because the conjunction 'and' (wa) implies aggregation without demanding strict sequence, making it equivalent to stating, 'You are divorced three times for a thousand.' This latter ruling applies even if the pronouncements are made to a wife with whom consummation has not occurred.