His statement, “whether said seriously or in jest,” means that it takes effect whether uttered seriously or jokingly. The difference between the two is that the serious speaker intends both the wording and its legal consequence, whereas the joking speaker intends the wording but not its legal consequence. Thus, the serious speaker divorces his wife intending the words and intending the consequence—namely, separation. As for the joking speaker, he intends the wording but not the consequence. For example, he may say: “I was joking with my wife and said, ‘You are divorced,’ or something similar, but I did not intend for her to be divorced.” We say: the ruling follows from it, because you have uttered the formula: “You are divorced,” or “My wife is divorced,” or something similar. The ruling belongs to Allah. So long as words of divorce have been uttered by a sane person who understands, can distinguish, and knows what they mean, his saying, “I did not intend for it to take effect,” is not for him to decide; rather, it belongs to Allah.

This is from the standpoint of reasoning and consideration. As for the textual evidence, it is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him: “Three matters, whether undertaken seriously or in jest, are binding: marriage, divorce, and taking back one’s wife” (1). In another narration: “and manumission” (2).

Some scholars have said that a divorce pronounced in jest does not take effect. How could a joking person’s divorce take effect when he did not intend it, but intended only the wording?! They strongly criticized those who held that a joking person’s divorce takes effect, saying: “You say that it is jest, not seriousness: he is laughing and joking. So how can you say that it takes effect and treat him as though he were serious?!”