Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:229

(Divorce is twice): This is an allusion to the divorce understood from His saying, Exalted is He: (...and their husbands have more right to take them back in that [period])—which is the revocable divorce. It is synonymous with "divorcing," which is an act of the man, just as taslim (delivering) is synonymous with "delivering." This is because it is described as being singular or plural, unlike that which is described by the woman. Supporting this is the mention of what is also an act of the man, by His saying, Exalted is He: (then keeping [her] in an acceptable manner)—meaning by reconciliation and good companionship—(or releasing [her] with good treatment)—meaning a release accompanied by soothing the heart and the fulfillment of rights. This is either by not taking her back until she becomes irrevocable (bain) or by pronouncing the third [divorce]; this is what has been transmitted.

Abu Dawud and a group have narrated from Abu Razin al-Asadi that a man said: "O Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), I hear Allah, the Exalted, saying: 'Divorce is twice'; so where is the third?" He replied: "The release with good treatment is the third." This indicates that the meaning of "twice" is two [divorces]. The particle fa (then) in the first clause supports the covenantal [consecutive] meaning, as its manifest implication is succession without delay; and the ruling of a thing follows it without separation. This is what the Shafi'is have relied upon in the verse.

Perhaps this is more appropriate to the structure, as it has transitioned from the mention of the oath to the mention of Ila’ (vow of abstinence), which is a [type of] divorce, then transitioned to the mention of the rulings of the "divorced women" regarding the 'iddah (waiting period) and reconciliation, then transitioned to the mention of the rulings of divorce that succeeds reconciliation, and then transitioned to the explanation of khul' (divorce at the wife's instance) and the three divorces. It is also more consistent with the cause of revelation (sabab al-nuzul). Malik, al-Shafi'i, al-Tirmidhi (may Allah be pleased with them), and others have narrated from 'Urwah, who said: "A man used to divorce his wife and then take her back before her 'iddah expired, and that was his right, even if he divorced her a thousand times. So a man decided [to deal with] his wife and divorced her; then, when she approached the end of her 'iddah, he took her back, then divorced her, and said: 'By Allah, I will not shelter you with me, nor will you ever be free.' So Allah, the Exalted, revealed this verse."

Those who were led to this position [that triple divorce is permissible] based it on their claim that combining three divorces is not forbidden, and that there is no sunnah in separating them—as is in their Tuhfah. They argued for this by the fact that 'Uwaymir al-'Ajlani, when he performed li'an (imprecation) against his wife, divorced her three times before the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) informed him of its prohibition for him—narrated by the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim). If it were forbidden, he would have forbidden him from it, because he initiated it while believing the marriage still existed; and with that belief, combining them is forbidden according to the opponent, and with the presence of prohibition, it is necessary to rebuke the knowledgeable and teach the ignorant. Since neither occurred, it indicates there is no prohibition. Furthermore, a group of the Sahabah (Companions) did it, and others issued fatwas for it.

Our masters, the Hanafis, said: "Combining two or three pronouncements of divorce is an innovation (bid'ah). The sunnah is to separate them, as it is narrated in the hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to him: 'The sunnah is to face the period of purity (tuhr) and divorce her for every cycle (quru').' By 'sunnah,' he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not intend that which entails reward because it is something permissible in itself—not a recommended act—but rather it is part of the path followed in the religion, meaning that which does not necessitate punishment." The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) restricted it to separation; thus, it is known that what is other than that—such as combining them or divorcing during menstruation—is an innovation, meaning it entails liability for punishment. By this, the objection that the hadith only shows that combining two or more divorces in one tuhr is not sunnah, but not that it is an innovation, is refuted; for the opponent [claims] there is an intermediary status [between sunnah and bid'ah]. The method of refutation is manifest, as is not hidden.

In al-Hidayah, it is stated: "Al-Shafi'i said: 'All divorce is permissible because it is a legitimate transaction... and legitimacy does not coexist with prohibition, unlike divorce during menstruation, for what is forbidden is the lengthening of the 'iddah for her, not the divorce itself.' Our answer is that the origin in divorce is prohibition because it involves cutting off the marriage, to which religious and worldly interests are attached. Its permissibility is for the necessity of release, and there is no need to combine the three—which is established in separation during the periods of purity, considering its proof. The need itself remains, so it is possible to formulate a proof for it. The legitimacy in its essence, in that it is the removal of the yoke, does not contradict the prohibition due to a meaning in something else, which is what we have mentioned." End quote.

From this, it is known that the opponent is a "generalizer," not a "divider." If we say he is a "divider" based on what is in some books of his school, then the furthest he has proven is that combining them is contrary to the best practice (khilaf al-awla) compared to separating them across periods of purity or months. You have already learned that the division of Abu al-Qasim (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is not his division.

It was answered regarding the report of 'Uwaymir that it was a specific incident, so perhaps it is among the exceptions, for the station of li'an is restricted, so such things are pardoned, and the possessor of zeal (ghayur) is excused. Acting upon both evidences is better than ignoring one of them. They interpreted the verse as meaning the legal divorce: one divorce after another in separation, because the function of the Lawgiver is to explain religious matters. The definite article (al- in al-talaq) is not a definitive text for specific covenanting, but rather the manifest meaning of it is the genus (jins). Also, qualifying the divorce as "revocable" renders the mention of reconciliation in His saying, "then keeping [her] in an acceptable manner," redundant, unless it is said that what is required here is the ruling alternating between keeping and releasing. Furthermore, in that [interpretation], the ruling of a single divorce would not be known except by the indication of the text. This interpretation, while being further from the suspicion of redundancy and its indication of the ruling of a single divorce by the expression, provides an additional ruling: separation. The indication of the verse on what they (the Hanafis) have gone to is manifest if the meaning of "twice" is mere indefiniteness. They interpret the dual form as [in the verse]: (Then return your eyes twice)—meaning a return after a return, not two times [simultaneously]. However, this necessitates removing the dual form from its manifest meaning, and similarly removing the particle fa (then), and making what follows it an initial ruling and a choice made absolutely after teaching them the method of divorcing. It is not arranged based on the first [divorce], necessarily because the absolute separation does not have one of the two matters follow it—for if it were by three, then neither keeping nor releasing is permissible afterward. The fa (then) is interpreted in that case as sequential in mention: meaning, "When you have learned the method of divorce, then know that its ruling is keeping or releasing." So, keeping is in the revocable [divorce] and releasing is in the other.

When the meaning of "twice" is separation along with the dual form—as the verifiers have stated based on it being the reality of the second, and manifest in the first—it is not said to one who gave another two dirhams at once that he gave him "twice" until he separates between them. Likewise, one who divorced his wife twice at once has not "divorced twice." The hadith regarding committing [a departure from] the manifest [meaning] in the dual form is refuted, as is its manifest implication in what follows, due to the validity of the sequence. The non-permissibility of combining the two divorces is derived from "twice," which indicates separation and the dual, and the non-permissibility of combining the third is derived from His saying, "or releasing," where He sequenced it to what preceded it with the fa (then). It is said: This is what is derived from the indication of the text.

Following this, those who obligated separation held that if he divorced without separating, his divorce occurs, but he is a sinner. The Imami [Shi'a] differed in this, as did some of the People of the Sunnah, such as Shaykh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah and his followers. They said: "If he divorces three times with one utterance, only one occurs," arguing by this verse and by analogy to the testimonies of li'an and the stoning of the pillars (jamarat). For if one performs the four [testimonies] with one utterance, it is not counted as four by consensus. Likewise, if he throws seven pebbles at once, it is not sufficient for him by consensus. Similar to this is if one swears to pray for the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) a thousand times, and says "May Allah bless the Prophet a thousand times," he is not fulfilling his vow unless he brings the thousand individually. They also held fast to what Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa'i, al-Hakim, and al-Bayhaqi narrated from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), who said: "The three divorces were [treated as] one in the time of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), Abu Bakr, and two years of 'Umar's caliphate. Then 'Umar said: 'People have been hasty in a matter in which they had a reprieve, so if we enforce it upon them...' and he enforced it."

Some went to the position that such [is the case] if he divorces three times in one gathering, that only one occurs, based on what al-Bayhaqi narrated from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), who said: "Rukanah divorced his wife three times in one gathering, so he was deeply saddened. The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) asked him: 'How did you divorce her?' He said: 'I divorced her three times.' He asked: 'In one gathering?' He said: 'Yes.' He replied: 'That is only one, so take her back if you wish.' So he took her back." Those who follow the Truth today are against all of this.

The answer to the argument from the verse is that it is not, as you know, a text for the intended [meaning]. As for the hadith, a group has answered it. Al-Subki said: "The best of the answers is that it refers to someone who knows the utterance; initially, they were believed in intending emphasis due to their piety. When confusion became widespread among them, the interest (maslahah) necessitated not believing them and enacting the three [divorces]." The scholar Ibn Hajar objected to this, saying: "It is strange, for the explicit position of our school is to believe the one who intends emphasis, provided he meets the condition, even if he has reached the peak of immorality." Then he narrated from some verifiers that the best of them is that they used to treat it as one divorce, then in the time of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), they became hasty and started making it three, so he treated them according to their case and made the three binding upon them. It is an account of the change in people's habit, not a change of a ruling in an issue. This was objected to by its lack of conformity to the manifest meaning of 'Umar's words, especially with the statement of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) "The three [divorces]..."—so it is a far-fetched interpretation, not a good answer, let alone the best. Then he said: "The best, in my view, is to answer that 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), when he consulted the people, knew a nasikh (abrogator) for what happened before, so he acted according to its implication. That abrogator was either a report that reached him or a consensus, and that could only be from a text. Hence, the scholars of the Ummah converged upon it, and the reports of Ibn 'Abbas were to explain that the abrogator was only known after a period had passed since his (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) death." End quote.

I say: The "three divorces" in the speech of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) could be with one utterance, and in that case, the inference from it to the claimant [position] is manifest. This possibility is supported by what Abu Dawud narrated from him: "If a man says to his wife 'You are divorced three times' in one breath, it is one." In that case, it is answered by abrogation. It is also possible that it was with three utterances in one gathering, such as "You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced." The report that Abu Dawud narrated is interpreted as this, such that "three" is an object for the verb "said," not an adjective for an elided noun (i.e., three divorces) or a specification for the ambiguity in the sentence before it. "In one breath" means consecutively. In that case, the report in its manifest meaning agrees with the proponents of the latter view. It is answered that this is in divorce before consummation, for it is likewise [only one]; it does not occur except as one, as Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) went, because the bainunah (irrevocability) occurred with the first divorce, so the second met it while she was already irrevocably divorced. Evidence for this is what Abu Dawud and al-Bayhaqi narrated from Tawus that a man called Abu al-Sahba' was a frequent questioner of Ibn 'Abbas. He said: "Don't you know that a man, if he divorced his wife three times before consummation, they used to treat it as one in the time of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), Abu Bakr, and early in the caliphate of 'Umar?" Ibn 'Abbas said: "Yes, a man, if he divorced his wife three times before consummation, they used to treat it as one... but when he saw that people were being consecutive in it, he said: 'Enforce them upon them.'" This is an issue of ijtihad that existed in the time of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and it is not narrated in the authentic [books] that it was raised to him and he said anything about it. Perhaps it was happening in distant places at the end of his life (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), so he who was given knowledge would exercise ijtihad and treat it as one. There is no explicit mention in the words of Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that the one who "treated" it so was the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace); rather, his saying "they used to treat it" is an indication of what we said. And 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), after days passed in his caliphate, it appeared to him by ijtihad that the best was the opinion of the occurrence of three. However, this is contrary to our school, and it is the opinion of many of the Sahabah, even Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Dawud, and al-Bayhaqi narrated from Mu'awiyah ibn Abi 'Ayyash that he was sitting with 'Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and 'Asim ibn 'Umar when Muhammad ibn Abi Iyas ibn al-Bukayr came to them and said: "A man from the desert divorced his wife three times before consummation, so what do you think?" Ibn al-Zubayr said: "We have no say in this matter. Go to Ibn 'Abbas and Abu Hurayrah, for I left them with 'A'ishah; ask them." He went and asked them. Ibn 'Abbas said to Abu Hurayrah: "Issue the fatwa, O Abu Hurayrah, for a difficult problem has come to you." Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with them) said: "The one [divorce] makes her irrevocable, and the three make her forbidden until she marries another husband." Ibn 'Abbas said the like of that. If the "three" in this report are interpreted as being by one utterance so as not to contradict the Imam's school—for according to him, if a man divorces his non-consummated wife three times by one utterance, they occur upon her because what occurs is an elided source (meaning: an irrevocable divorce), so "You are divorced" was not a separate initiation, thus they occur as a whole—then this report would be in opposition to what Muslim narrated, [and] it would be supported by abrogation, like the report narrated by al-Tabarani and al-Bayhaqi from Suwayd ibn Ghafalah, who said: "A'ishah al-Khath'amiyyah was with al-Hasan ibn 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with them). He said to her: ''Ali (may Allah honor his face) has been killed.' She said: 'May the caliphate be pleasant for you.' He said: ''Ali is killed and you show gloating? Go, you are divorced three times.' She wrapped herself in her garments and sat until she completed her 'iddah. He sent her the remainder of her dowry and ten thousand in charity. When the messenger came to her, she said: 'Little provision from a departing loved one.' When her words reached him, he wept and said: 'Were it not that I heard my grandfather—or my father narrated to me that he heard my grandfather—saying: "Any man who divorces his wife three times at the periods of purity or three times vaguely, she is not lawful for him until she marries a husband other than him," I would have taken her back.'"

As for the hadith of Rukanah, it has been narrated in several ways. What is authentic is what al-Shafi'i, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, al-Hakim, and al-Bayhaqi narrated, that Rukanah divorced his wife al-battah (irrevocably). The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was informed of this and said: "By Allah, I did not intend anything but one." The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "By Allah, I did not intend anything but one." Rukanah said: "By Allah, I did not intend anything but one." He said: "It is what you intended," so he returned her to him. This does not serve as evidence for that claim because the divorce in it is a metonymy (kinayah), and the intention of the number in it is taken into account. It might be argued that it proves the validity and variety of three by one utterance because it indicates that if he had intended more than one, it would have occurred; otherwise, the swearing would have had no benefit.

The analogy to the testimonies of li'an and the stoning of the pillars is an analogy in an inappropriate place. Do you not see that it is impossible to suffice with some of that [in li'an] in any way, whereas it is possible to suffice with some of the units of the three in divorce, and the bainunah is achieved by the completion of the 'iddah, and the objective is fulfilled by consensus. Due to the gravity of li'an, nothing was sufficient except by bringing the testimonies one by one, confirmed by oaths, coupled with the fifth in terms of the man [calling down] the curse if he is a liar, and in terms of her [calling down] the wrath if he is truthful. Perhaps a retraction or confession occurs in between, and thus concealment is achieved, or the prescribed punishment is carried out, and the sin is expiated. Furthermore, the four testimonies from the man are placed in the position of four witnesses required in [the accusation of] stoning chaste women, with an addition, as indicated by His saying, Exalted is He: (And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses, lash them), along with His saying, Exalted is He, after it: (And those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, then the testimony of one of them shall be four testimonies), etc. Just as the testimony of witnesses is multiple and a single utterance is not sufficient for it, so too is that which is placed in its position. Stoning the pillars and doing so seven times is a ritual matter, and its secret is hidden, so precaution is taken for it, and the transmitted [tradition] is followed exactly. The chapter of divorce is not like these two chapters. Moreover, one of the precautions in it is that we make it three with one utterance and one gathering, and we do not nullify the word "three," which was not intended except to initiate it in the most perfect and complete manner. What was mentioned in the issue of the oath not to pray for the Prophet a thousand times—that he does not fulfill it unless he brings the thousand individually—is a matter necessitated by intention and custom, and that is beyond what we are in, as is not hidden.

Therefore, it has been narrated from the People of the House (Ahl al-Bayt) what supports the school of the People of the Sunnah. Al-Bayhaqi narrated from Bassam al-Sayrafi who said: "I heard Ja'far ibn Muhammad say: 'Whoever divorces his wife three times in ignorance or knowledge, she is irrevocably divorced.'" And from Maslamah ibn Ja'far al-Ahmas who said: "I said to Ja'far ibn Muhammad (may Allah be pleased with them): 'They claim that whoever divorces three times in ignorance is returned to the sunnah, and they make it one. They narrate this from you.' He said: 'Allah forbid! This is not our saying. Whoever divorces three times, then it is as he said.'" You have heard what we narrated from al-Hasan, and what the Imami [Shi'a] adopt is what they narrate from 'Ali (may Allah honor his face), which has no foundation. The matter is the opposite, and it was fabricated against 'Ali (may Allah honor his face) by a sheikh in Kufa, and he confessed to the fabrication before al-A'mash (may Allah have mercy on him). So preserve what we have recited, for I do not think you will find it recorded in a book.

(And it is lawful for you to take), in exchange for divorce, (from what you have given them), meaning of dowries, for that is contrary to kindness. Other property of theirs is equal in ruling, except that the specification is either to observe the custom or to alert that the impermissibility of taking what is other than that is more emphatic. The prepositional phrase could be related to "what he has" or be a circumstantial state from "something" (shay'an), because if it were delayed from it, it would be an adjective for it. The tanwin [in shay'an] is for belittlement. The address is to the rulers, and the attribution of taking and giving to them is because they are the ones who order them during litigation. It is said: It is an address to the husbands. The objection to this is that it causes confusion in the noble structure, because His saying, Exalted is He: (Unless they both fear)—meaning both spouses or one of them—(that they will not keep the limits of Allah), by leaving the fulfillment of marital obligations, does not align with it, because the expressed address is only to the husbands, and in the third person it is to the husbands and the wives. It is not possible to attribute it to a shift of address (iltifat), for a condition of it is that the expression in both paths is the same. Where is this condition? Yes, this opinion has a correctness, but it does not nourish nor avail, which is that since the exception was after the passing of the sentence of address from the most general of conditions or times or the object for which [it was done], it means: "due to one of the reasons of fear, it is permissible to change the speech from address to third person for a subtle point, which is that a believer should not be addressed with the fear of not keeping the limits of Allah." It was read (takhafa) and (tuqima) with the ta of address, and according to it, the matter is easy, for it then becomes a case of emphasizing the addressed husbands over the absent wives, and the expression in the dual is in consideration of the two parties. Hamzah and Ya'qub read (yukhafa) in the passive voice, and substituting "that" and its connection from the pronoun alif [of the verb] as a substitute of comprehensiveness (badal ishtimal), as in your saying: "Zayd was feared [regarding] his leaving" (...the limits of Allah). This is supported by the reading of 'Abdullah: "Unless they fear" (yukhafu). Ibn 'Atiyyah said: Khāfa (to fear) is transitive to two objects: one is the subject of the verb, and the other [the preposition is elided], so the place of "that" (an) is genitive due to an elided preposition, or accusative, according to the difference of opinions. It was refuted in al-Bahr that the grammarians did not mention it when they counted what is transitive to two. The origin of "one of them" is with the preposition. In the reading of Ubayy: "Unless they both think" (yazunna), and it supports interpreting "thought" as "fear." (So if you fear)—an address to the rulers and no one else, lest it necessitate changing the style before the passing of the sentence—(that they will not keep the limits of Allah), which He has set for them.

(There is no blame upon both of them)—meaning the two spouses—and this stands in place of the answer, meaning: "Command them, for there is no blame (in what she redeems) herself with and separates [herself] through; neither upon the husband in his taking, nor upon her in her giving it to him." Ibn Jarir narrated from 'Ikrimah that he was asked: "Did khul' have an origin?" He said: "Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) used to say that the first khul' in Islam was the sister of 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy, the wife of Thabit ibn Qays. She came to the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, nothing will ever unite my head and his. I raised the corner of the tent and saw him approaching among a group, and he was the blackest of them, the shortest of them, and the ugliest of them.' Her husband said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I gave her the best of my wealth, a garden of mine. If she returns my garden...' He asked: 'What do you say?' She said: 'Yes, and if he wishes, I will add more.' So he separated them." In a narration of Bukhari, the woman's name is Jamilah and she is the daughter of 'Abdullah the hypocrite, and this is what the memorizers have preferred. That her name is Zaynab came via the path of al-Daraqutni. The memorizer Ibn Hajar said: "Perhaps she had two names, or one of them is a nickname; otherwise, Jamilah is more correct." It occurred in another hadith narrated by Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Dawud that the name of Thabit's wife was Habibah bint Sahl. The memorizer said: "What appears is that they were two incidents that occurred to him with two women, due to the fame of the two hadith and the soundness of the two paths and the difference in the two contexts." (Those are the limits of Allah): an allusion to what He has set of rulings from His saying, Exalted is He: "(Divorce is twice)" to here, so the sentence is a summary of that, brought to arrange the prohibition upon it. (So do not transgress them), by opposition and rejection. (And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah, then it is they who are the wrongdoers)—a tailpiece for hyperbole in the threat; the waw is for interruption. In placing the explicit [noun] in the position of the pronoun, there is what is not hidden of inserting awe and cultivating majesty. The manifest meaning of the verse indicates that khul' is not permissible without dislike and discord, because the negation of legality, which is the ruling of the contract in all conditions except the condition of discord, indicates the invalidity of the contract and its impermissibility [manifestly], unless the evidence points to other than the manifest. And [it indicates] that it is not permissible for it to be for all that the husband had given her, let alone more, because the min in "from what you have given them" is partitive (tab'idiyyah). Thus, the import of the exception is the legality of taking "some" of what you have given them at the time of fear. As for the word "what" (ma) in His saying: (in what she redeems [herself] with), it is not manifest in generality such that it would contradict the manifest meaning of the verse in the mentioned ruling; rather, the fa of explanation in "(So if you fear)" indicates manifestly that it is an explanation for the ruling understood via the way of opposition from the exception. Its benefit is to make the ruling explicit and to negate blame in this contract, for the establishment of legality derived from the exception might coexist with blame, by being with dislike. Yes, it admits generality, so it is not a text for the impermissibility of khul' with all that is given. That is why 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) said: "Grant her khul' even if for her earring." The first is supported by what Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi (and he graded it hasan), and al-Hakim (and he graded it sound) narrated from Thawban, who said: "The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: 'Any woman who asks her husband for divorce without harm, the scent of Paradise is forbidden to her.' And he said: 'The women who seek khul' are the hypocrites.'" The second is supported by what was narrated from some paths that he (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said to Jamilah: "Do you return his garden to him?" She said: "I return it and add more to it." He (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "As for the increase, no." Even if this indicates the negation of the increase—not the entire dowry—it is derived from it that "what she redeems herself with" is not in its generality, so the meaning of it is what is derived from the exception, which is "some." Most jurists are of the opinion that khul' without discord and for all that he gave is disliked, but it is effective because the pillars of the contract—offer and acceptance—and the eligibility of the contractors along with mutual consent are realized, and the prohibition is for a concomitant matter like selling at the time of the [Friday] call, and it does not contradict [the] validity. [It is valid] in that it is correct with the utterance of "redemption" because He, the Exalted, named the separation "redemption." It was differed over: if the utterance of "divorce" occurs, is it a rescission (faskh) or a divorce (talaq)? Those who made it a rescission argued with His saying: "(So if he divorces her)..." and its sequence to the khul' after mentioning the two divorces requires it to be a fourth divorce if the khul' were a divorce. The more apparent [view] is that it is a divorce, and this is the view of our companions, and it is a view of the Shafi'is, because it is a separation by the choice of the husband, so it is like divorce in exchange for compensation. In that case, "(So if he divorces her)" is related to His saying, Exalted is He: "(Divorce is twice)" as an explanation for His saying, Exalted is He: "(or releasing with good treatment)"—not related to the verse of khul' so as to necessitate the [aforementioned] drawback. The mention of khul' is an interruption to explain that divorce occurs gratuitously at times and with compensation at others. The meaning is: "If he divorces her after the two [divorces] or after the divorce described by what preceded..."