divorce me, so I divorced.” He does not say, “He compelled me to divorce, so I divorced in compliance with his command, not intending the divorce itself.”

Second: if he is a student of knowledge who distinguishes between warding off coercion and intending that which he was compelled to do, a person is still human. The predicament of being pressured is known only to one who has experienced it. As long as a person is at ease, he finds himself in control—or feels that he is in control of all matters—but when he falls into hardship, his ability to think departs. For this reason, some scholars—and their view is closer to what is correct—held that coercion removes legal effect altogether, unless he is at ease with the act. This, however, is far-fetched. Thus, there are three cases:

The first: that he does not intend it at all, but intends only to ward off the coercion.

The second: that he intends it because of the coercion.

The third: that he is at ease with it, such that he does it whether he was coerced or not.

In the last case, the act takes effect, and he is deemed to have acted voluntarily, without any disagreement. In the first case, it does not take effect, without any disagreement. Regarding the second, there are two views; the stronger view is that it does not take effect, because he pronounced divorce while under constraint. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “There is no divorce under constraint.” (1)

Divorce takes effect in a marriage whose validity is disputed, …

His statement, “Divorce takes effect in a marriage whose validity is disputed,” means a marriage concerning whose validity there is disagreement. Marriage falls into three categories: one whose validity is agreed upon, one whose invalidity is agreed upon, and one concerning which there is disagreement.