relinquish it. As for the third category—for example, her saying, “I have chosen myself when Eid arrives or the new crescent appears,” or the like—she is divorced immediately. As for the fourth category—her saying, “I have chosen myself if I touch the sky”—this amounts to relinquishing the authority granted to her, and she may no longer exercise it. Our scholars do not differ over these categories in broad terms, though they differ greatly over their details, as recorded in the principal works. This is not the place to discuss them. If, however, she qualifies her statement by saying, for example, “I have accepted so that I may consider my situation,” the matter remains in her hands even after the gathering has ended, until she is required to decide. There is no disagreement on this.

As for her delegating the matter to someone else, this is when she says, “I choose it if so-and-so chooses it,” or “I have delegated my affair to so-and-so.” There are two positions on this. The first is that this is permissible if that person is present or only a short distance away. In the transmissions of ʿĪsā, this is described as two or three days away; in al-Wādiha, Asbagh reports from Ibn al-Qāsim that it is a day or thereabouts. If he is far away, the matter reverts to her. The second position, that of Asbagh, is that she may not transfer the matter to another person, even if he is present. Rather, the matter reverts to her, and she may either exercise her authority or relinquish it. This position of Asbagh accords with the report of ʿAlī ibn Ziyād from Mālik in the Book of Options in al-Mudawwana, so consider this carefully. As for the tenth category, in which she explicitly chooses her husband, there is nothing to discuss.

Section

This explains the woman’s expressions when she is given the choice. As for the man’s expressions of divorce, they fall into three categories: explicit wording, wording with an apparent meaning, and ambiguous wording. Explicit wording is that which expressly specifies the number of divorces. Wording with an apparent meaning is that concerning which his claim about his intention is not accepted when witnesses testify to his words, because he claims something contrary to their apparent meaning. This falls into two categories. The first is that he uses wording whose apparent meaning is divorce [and then says, “I did not intend divorce by it.” The second is that he uses wording whose apparent meaning is three divorces and then says, “I did not intend three.” As for his using wording whose apparent meaning is divorce and then saying, “I did not intend divorce by it”], when witnesses were present, he is not believed, whether before or after consummation. An example is his saying, “My wife is divorced,” and then saying, “I did not intend divorce by it; I only meant that she was released from bonds,” or the like. He is not believed unless he produces something indicating