so if the wife believes him, then no divorce takes place—unless she brings the matter before a court and the judge says, “You did not say, ‘if you stand up’; I rule according to what is outwardly stated, and a judge rules only on the basis of what he hears.” In that case, your wife is deemed divorced. But if the wife believes him and says, “Yes, the man intended ‘if you stand up,’ but he did not utter it,” then his statement is accepted, and litigation is forbidden. However, if she most likely believes that he is lying, she must bring the matter before the judge. If she is uncertain, she has the choice, though it is better for her to leave it, since divorce is disliked.

Likewise, if he enters upon his wife and says, “You are divorced,” then afterwards says, “I said, ‘You are divorced,’ because So-and-so told me that you were speaking with So-and-so on the telephone; but when it became clear that you had not spoken with him, there is no divorce,” we say: this is not accepted judicially, though he is bound by it in what lies between himself and Allah. But if he is told, “Your wife is flirting with So-and-so,” and he says, “She is divorced,” then it becomes clear that she was not flirting with him, his statement is accepted because there is contextual evidence indicating this.

Likewise, if he asks a mufti, saying, “If I were to divorce my wife with such-and-such wording,” and the mufti tells him, “Your wife would become irrevocably separated from you,” then he acknowledges that he made his wife irrevocably divorced on the basis of that fatwa, she does not thereby become irrevocably divorced. This is because he made that acknowledgment on the basis of a fatwa, not on the basis of what was in his own mind and heart.

It thus becomes clear that a cause may qualify a general expression and restrict an unrestricted one. Therefore, if he says, “You are divorced,” on account of some cause, she is not divorced. If the cause accompanies the utterance, it is accepted judicially; but if it does not accompany the utterance, it is not accepted judicially.

“The conditional particles are: in (if), idha (when), mata (whenever), ayy (whichever), man (whoever), and kullama (whenever)—the latter alone denotes repetition—all of these, together with mahma (whatever) ...”

His statement: “The conditional particles”: the particle of anything is that which leads to it,