—then divorce yourself,’ the utterance is null according to the tamlīk (transfer-of-ownership) view.

If he says, “Effect an irrevocable separation (abīnī) from yourself,” and she replies, “I have done so,” while both of them intend divorce, it takes effect; otherwise, it does not.

If he says, “Divorce [yourself],” and she answers, “I have effected an irrevocable separation,” intending divorce, or he says, “Separate yourself,” intending divorce, and she replies, “I have divorced [myself],” the divorce counts.

If he says, “Divorce [yourself],” intending three divorces, and she says, “I have divorced [myself],” likewise intending all three, then three divorces occur; if she does not share his intention, only one divorce is effected according to the sounder opinion.

Where only one of them intended three—whether he alone or she alone—the result is a single divorce.

Section

1. Utterances without intent
   • Words of divorce spoken by someone asleep are void.
   • A slip of the tongue that produces the word of divorce without intention is void, and the husband’s denial of intent is not accepted in court unless supported by evidence.
   • If the wife’s name is Ṭāliqa and he calls her, “O Ṭāliqa,” intending nothing but to address her, she is not divorced; the same holds, according to the stronger view, even if he uttered the word without any particular intention.
   • If her name is Tārika or Ṭālība and he mistakenly says, “O Ṭāliqa,” then explains that he meant only to call her and that a letter was mis-pronounced, he is believed.

2. Jesting, ignorance, and language
   • Divorce pronounced in jest, in play, or while imagining her to be a stranger—for example, in the dark—or when she had been married to him by a guardian or agent without his knowledge, is nonetheless effective.
   • A non-Arab who recites the Arabic formula of divorce without knowing its meaning does not effect a divorce; some hold that if he intends the meaning, it does take effect.

3. Compulsion
   • A divorce pronounced under compulsion is not valid.
   • However, if evidence of voluntary choice appears—such as being forced to pronounce three divorces but uttering only one; being compelled to use an explicit or conditional formula but resorting instead to an implicit, unconditional, or otherwise altered wording—then the divorce is valid.
   • For true compulsion, the coercer must be able to carry out the threatened harm by legal authority or overwhelming force; the coerced must be unable to escape or ward it off; and he must believe the threat will be carried out if he refuses.
   • Threats that constitute compulsion include severe beating, imprisonment, destruction of property, and the like. A second view limits it to death only; a third to death, amputation, or a frightening beating.
   • The coerced husband is not required to employ ambiguous wording (tawriyah) to avoid divorce; another view says that if he fails to do so without excuse, the divorce stands.

4. Loss of reason through sin
   • One who wrongfully impairs his reason with drink or drugs: according to the school, his divorce and all legal acts are binding, whether for or against him. Another view says they are not binding; a third, that they are binding only to his detriment.

5. Partial attributions
   • If he says, “A quarter of you,” “a part of you,” “a limb of you,” “your liver,” “your hair,” or “your nail is divorced,” the divorce takes effect. The same applies to “your blood,” according to the school; but not to excess substances such as saliva or sweat. Semen and milk count in the sounder opinion.
   • If he says to a woman whose right hand is amputated, “Your right hand is divorced,” nothing occurs, according to the school.

6. Attributing divorce to himself
   • If he says, “I am divorced from you,” intending thereby to divorce her, she is divorced; lacking that intention, nothing happens—and likewise if he did not mean to attribute the statement to her, according to the sounder view.
   • If he says, “I am separated (bā’in) from you,” a specific intention to divorce is required; whether attribution to her is also necessary is disputed.
   • Saying, “Free your womb from me,” is meaningless, though one view holds that if he intends divorce it is effective.

Section

Addressing a woman who is not yet his wife with words of divorce, or suspending a divorce upon marrying her or anything similar, is ineffectual.

The sounder view, however, is that a slave’s suspension of a third pronouncement is valid—for example, “If I am emancipated, or if you enter [the house], you are divorced three times.” The three divorces take effect once he is freed or once she enters after his emancipation, and the suspension attaches to a wife in a revocable waiting period but not to one released through khulʿ.

If he suspends the divorce upon her entering, she separates from him, he remarries her, and she later enters, the divorce does not occur if the entry took place during the period of separation, nor—according to the more apparent view—if she had not yet entered. A third opinion holds it does occur when the first separation involved fewer than three divorces.

If he divorces her with fewer than three pronouncements and then takes her back, or