his īlāʾ is valid as well, because divorce is more serious than īlāʾ. The evidence is the general import of Allah’s statement:
“For those who swear abstinence from their wives...” [al-Baqarah 2:226]
The word “those” is a relative pronoun that conveys generality, and thus includes every husband.
Some scholars have said that īlāʾ is not valid from a discerning child, because his oath is not valid: he has no binding oath, since he is not legally accountable. However, the well-known position of the madhhab is that īlāʾ, like an oath, is valid from a discerning child.
His statement, “an angry person”: īlāʾ is valid from an angry person. Anger falls into three categories:
The first is anger in which a person does not know what he is saying. No consideration is given to his statements or actions, because he is mentally shut off and unaware; he is like an intoxicated person. Thus, īlāʾ is never established in this state. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) related scholarly consensus on this in his book Ighāthat al-Lahfān fī ʿAdam Wuqūʿ Ṭalāq al-Ghaḍbān.
The second is mild anger, in which a person understands what he says and does not find that anger has shut off his thinking and perception. This has no effect: divorce and īlāʾ take effect in this state, and all his statements and actions are legally consequential, because in this regard he is no different from one who is not angry.
The third is an intermediate level of anger: he knows what he is saying, but his mind is shut off, like one who is compelled. We have previously mentioned that the scholars differ concerning this, and that the correct view is that his divorce does not take effect, due to the Prophet’s statement, “There is no divorce under mental constraint” (1)—that is, when a person is placed under constriction. The same applies to īlāʾ.
Thus, his statement, “an angry person,” is not unrestricted, as we have explained.
His statement, “an intoxicated person”: this is one who has lost his reason through the pleasure and exhilaration of consuming