he must pray with the congregation.” Would this be a proof?! Thus, if we say that revocation is a restoration that must be effected immediately, and so is not valid when made conditional upon a condition, we would be explaining the ruling by the ruling itself, which is unacceptable.

As for their statement that it does not indicate a desire to take her back, this too is open to question. A person may make it conditional upon a condition because he wishes to wait. For example, he may marry a young virgin, whereupon the mother of his children becomes upset and leaves the home. So he divorces this woman and says to her, “If the mother of my children does not return during the first two menstrual periods, or before you begin your third menstrual period, then I have taken you back.” This is a sound and intended purpose. Where there is a sound and intended purpose, the basic rule in matters other than acts of worship is permissibility, unless evidence establishes prohibition. Hence, some scholars have held that a revocation made conditional upon a condition is valid, and this view is more correct.

First, because the basic rule concerning customary matters is permissibility. Hence the poet said:

The basic rule concerning things is permissibility; deem an act worship only by the Lawgiver’s authorization. (1)

Therefore, we say: the basic rule is permissibility unless evidence indicates prohibition.

Second, the Prophet ﷺ said: “Muslims are bound by their conditions, except a condition that makes lawful what is unlawful or makes unlawful what is lawful.” (2) I had been hesitant to adopt this view, because those before us would always say, “This is the view of the majority,” while some of them would say, “There is consensus.” But I found disagreement on this issue. So long as the matter is not one of consensus, it is obligatory to examine the evidence, even if those who hold a view are few.