for it is a divorce assigned to the past, and a divorce assigned to the past does not take effect, as mentioned previously.

His statement, “But if he arrives after a month and part of a month, the divorce takes effect within it,” means that if he says to her at 8:30 on the twenty-sixth of Shawwal, “You are divorced one month before Zayd’s arrival,” and Zayd arrives at 8:31 on the twenty-sixth of Dhu al-Qa‘dah, she is divorced, because during that one minute he is able to say, “You are divorced.”

But if Zayd arrives at 8:29 on the twenty-sixth of Dhu al-Qa‘dah, she is not divorced, because one minute remains before the month is complete. Thus, she would be divorced in the past—namely, one minute earlier. But is he permitted to enjoy marital relations with her during this period? He is not permitted to do so, because there is a possibility that Zayd may arrive earlier or later. So we say: avoid her, for he may arrive after a full month and a few seconds, in which case your marital relations with her would be relations with a woman who is unlawful to you.

His statement, “Thus, if he enters into a khul‘ divorce with her one day after the oath, and Zayd arrives after one month and two days, the khul‘ is valid and the divorce is annulled”: He says, “You are divorced three times one month before Zayd’s arrival,” then on the following day he enters into a khul‘ divorce with her. If Zayd arrives after one month and two days, the khul‘ is valid, because it has not yet become clear that she was divorced; and the divorce does not take effect, because it becomes clear that it occurred after the khul‘. Thus, when the divorce would take effect upon her, she is already irrevocably separated by the khul‘; and when she is irrevocably separated, divorce does not take effect upon her. This is why he says: “The khul‘ is valid and the divorce is annulled.”