a woman divorced three times need only establish that her womb is free of pregnancy. This is because sound reasoning dictates that a woman whom her husband has no right to take back need observe no more than one menstrual period. This ruling was set aside in the case of a woman divorced three times because it contradicts the consensus.

His statement, “No divorce takes effect upon a woman observing her waiting period,” means that even if he says, “You are divorced,” the divorce does not take effect. The reason is that, through the irrevocable separation, she has ceased to be his wife, whereas divorce applies only to a wife. This is the rationale based on reason. As for the transmitted evidence, al-Rawd (1) states: It was reported from Ibn Abbas and Ibn al-Zubayr, may Allah be pleased with them, and no one is known to have disagreed with them. Thus, the evidence consists of the statements of the Companions and this legal rationale.

His statement, “even if he addresses her directly with it,” means that he says, “You are divorced.” The opposite of addressing her directly is to say, “So-and-so is divorced.”

A divorce pronounced upon a wife who remains under his marital bond takes effect even if he does not address her directly. Thus, if he says, “My wife, so-and-so, is divorced,” she is divorced. Likewise, if he speaks generally and says, “All my wives are divorced,” divorce does not take effect upon the woman who obtained khulʿ while she is still observing her waiting period. Thus, the opposite of addressing her directly takes two forms: generalization and specifying her by name.

His statement, “even if he addresses her directly,” indicates a point of disagreement, for some scholars maintain that if he directly addresses the woman who obtained khulʿ with a divorce pronouncement, she is divorced. However, this view has no evidence, neither in transmitted reports nor in reason. Their evidence is that she is still