expression is ancient, dating back to the era of the Salaf: they called a divorce that accords with what has been commanded a sunnah divorce, and one that contravenes what has been commanded an innovated divorce.

An innovated divorce may relate either to the number of pronouncements or to the timing. That is, it is deemed innovated either because it occurs at a prohibited time or because it involves a prohibited number of pronouncements. As for innovation in timing, it is for a man to divorce a woman who is required to observe a waiting period based on menstruation while she is menstruating, or during a period of purity in which he has had intercourse with her, if she is among women who menstruate and it has not become clear that she is pregnant. If her pregnancy has become clear, however, it is permissible to divorce her even if he had intercourse with her during that period of purity. The same applies if she is not required to observe a waiting period, such as a woman with whom the marriage has not been consummated: if he divorces her while she is menstruating, the divorce is in accordance with the sunnah. Likewise, if she is one who does not menstruate, such as a young girl or an elderly woman, there is no harm in divorcing her.

As for innovation in the number of pronouncements, it is for him to divorce her more than once—for example, by saying, “You are divorced twice,” or, “You are divorced three times.” For the sunnah is to divorce her with one pronouncement. Does such a divorce take effect or not? The majority of scholars hold that it does take effect, but the preponderant view is that it does not. Thus, if a man divorces his wife by saying, “You are divorced; you are divorced,” then, according to the preponderant view, only one divorce takes effect, because the second is an innovation, and an innovation may not be upheld. If we were to say that the divorce takes effect, that would entail upholding an innovation, and upholding an innovation is reprehensible.

Moreover, the Prophet’s statement, “Whoever performs an act that is not in accordance with our matter shall have it rejected” (1), entails that the second pronouncement is rejected and does not take effect, because it was not commanded; rather, it is an innovated pronouncement of divorce. An innovation cannot take effect, for every innovation is misguidance. This