irrevocably divorced, and the other revocably divorced. This latter view is the one chosen and defended by al-Muwaffaq in al-Mughnī. He said that it is the view of the majority of scholars; that he knew of no Companion who held otherwise; and that what is reported from the Companions concerning drawing lots relates to inheritance, not to marital permissibility. That is, if a man irrevocably divorces one of his wives and then dies, lots are drawn between them for the purpose of inheritance, not for determining marital permissibility. He said: lots apply to property, but not to sexual relations.

Yet there is no doubt that what the author said is closer to what is correct, because it is easier for the legally responsible person. To say, “Avoid both women,” is problematic, for the divorce only affected one of them. Then, if he avoids both women and we say, “Neither woman is lawful for you”—one because she is irrevocably divorced, and the other because she is divorced revocably—this entails a further consequence: they become separated from him and lawful for other husbands, even though he did not divorce both of them. If we require him to divorce the second one, we may harm him. Thus, the correct view is what the author stated: lots should be drawn between them. The one upon whom the lot falls is the divorced wife, while the other remains his wife.

His statement, “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,” means that lots were drawn between Fatimah and Zaynab, and the lot fell upon Zaynab, so we said to her, “You are divorced.” Then it becomes clear that Fatimah was the divorced wife. In that case, Zaynab is returned to him, because it has become clear that she was not the divorced wife. Drawing lots is only a means of resolving a difficulty from which we have no other way out; when another way out becomes clear to us, we revert to what has become clear—except in two cases: