—peace and blessings be upon him—gave his wives the choice of either remaining with him or parting from him. (1) Just as a man may give his wife the choice between divorce and remaining married, this is similar, for he has placed the matter in her hands through agency. Thus, according to the established position of the school, he may appoint his wife as his agent to divorce herself.

Appointing a woman as an agent to divorce herself, although she does not herself possess the right of divorce, is an exception to their statement in the chapter on agency: “Whoever has authority to dispose of something may validly appoint an agent regarding it and serve as an agent regarding it.” They have enumerated certain exceptions, including this issue: it is permissible to appoint a woman as an agent concerning divorce, even though she does not possess the right of divorce.

This issue has been disputed among the scholars, both early and later. The literalists and a group of the early and later scholars prohibited it, saying: Divorce cannot be placed in the wife’s hands through agency, because a wife differs from an unrelated person in that she is quick to emotion and easily affected, and does not deliberate in matters. If the slightest thing comes from her husband, she says, “I divorce myself by virtue of the agency.” For this reason, the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—described her, saying: “If you were to treat her well for a lifetime, then she saw something from you, she would say: ‘I have never seen any good from you at all.’” (2)

This differs from the husband’s agent. Accordingly, it is not valid for him to appoint his wife as his agent to divorce herself. Based on this view, they said that if he makes her divorce conditional upon an act she performs, the divorce does not take effect; for example, if he says, “If you do such-and-such, then you are divorced,” and she does it, then she