His statement, “or for clarification”: that is, he says, “I repeated it only because I feared that she had not understood.” In that case, one divorce takes effect, because he intended to make her understand. Likewise, if, for example, he says, “You are divorced,” while she can hear and her hearing is sound, but she is distracted and occupied with something, so he says, “You are divorced; you are divorced,” then one divorce takes effect, so long as he intended clarification.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words, and those of others, is that there is no difference whether there is an indication that she needs clarification or no such indication. It has also been said that, if there is no indication, his claimed intention of clarification is accepted only as a matter between him and Allah; that is, he is religiously bound by it, but it is not accepted in legal judgment.

However, according to the sounder view in these matters, only one divorce takes effect, even if he says, “I intended divorce by the second and the third statements.” We say: This is an invalid intention and has no effect whatsoever.

“If he repeats it using ‘rather,’ ‘then,’ or ‘so,’ or says ‘a divorce’ after it, before it, or along with it, two divorces take effect. If he has not consummated the marriage with her, she is irrevocably separated by the first, and what follows it does not become binding upon him. A conditional divorce is like an immediate divorce in this regard.”

His statement, “If he repeats it using ‘rather,’ ‘then,’ or ‘so’”: if he repeats it with “rather,” saying, “You are divorced—rather, divorced—rather, divorced,” three divorces take effect, because he has used coordination. If he says, “I intended to emphasize the first by the second,” we say: That is invalid. The reason is that the wording is not identical. But if he says, “I intended to emphasize the second by the third,” this is accepted and valid, because the wording is identical and connected. If he says, “I intended to emphasize the first by the third,” it is invalid, due to the separation and the difference in wording, since the coordinating particle requires the second to be distinct from the first. How can you say that you intend emphasis when you have used a coordinating particle? The meaning of emphasis is that the second is the first, whereas the coordinating particle requires difference.

His statement, “or with ‘then’”: how common this is among the Bedouin: “You are divorced, then divorced, then”