the owner of the two-thirds share would win. But where two things are equal, what element of gambling is there in them?! Seeking decisions through divining arrows, however, is not like this. There are no two equal rights that need to be distinguished; rather, they are two possible intentions on the part of the person seeking a decision, and he uses these arrows to see which of these intentions will be allotted to him. Thus, there is a difference between them. Accordingly, the sound view is that drawing lots is established in every case involving two equal rights that cannot be distinguished except by this means.

“Such as one who irrevocably divorces one of his two wives and forgets which one. If it becomes clear that the divorced wife was other than the one upon whom the lot fell, she is returned to him, unless she has remarried or the lot was drawn by a judge. And if he says, ‘If this bird is a crow, then so-and-so is divorced; and if it is a pigeon, then so-and-so is divorced,’ and its kind is unknown, neither of them is divorced. …”

His statement, “Such as one who irrevocably divorces one of his two wives and forgets which one,” means: likewise, if a man irrevocably divorces one of his two wives—that is, with an irrevocable divorce—and then forgets which one, lots are drawn between them. Whichever one is selected by lot is the one upon whom the divorce takes effect.

His statement, “an irrevocable divorce,” means that with respect to one of them, he has only one remaining pronouncement of divorce. He then divorces one of them specifically, saying, “So-and-so is divorced,” but forgets whether he divorced the one whom he had not previously divorced or the one for whom only one pronouncement remained. If the divorce fell upon the one whom he had not divorced before, the matter is easy: if he wishes, he may take her back, and the matter is settled. But if the divorce fell upon the one for whom this was the final pronouncement of divorce, she is irrevocably separated from him and is no longer lawful for him. He is therefore uncertain, saying: “I divorced one of them, but I have forgotten which one.” In this case, we say: Draw lots between them. The one upon whom the lot falls is the divorced wife, while the other remains lawful for you. This is the position of the madhhab.

However, the majority of scholars hold that drawing lots does not apply in this case, because he is uncertain about two women: one of them is lawful and the other unlawful. If that is so, he must refrain from both of them until the matter becomes clear. If it does not become clear, what should we do? He divorces one of them, and then both women are divorced: one of them is