the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, to the husband after mutual imprecation had been completed: “You have no claim over her.” Its apparent meaning is permanence, since he did not qualify it with any condition by which she might become lawful to him again. An unqualified prohibition is understood to be permanent. Consider a woman divorced three times: were it not for Allah’s words concerning her, “until she marries another husband” [al-Baqarah: 230], she would never become lawful to him again, given the apparent meaning of His words, exalted is He: “If he divorces her, she is not lawful to him thereafter” [al-Baqarah: 230].

Section

If we hold that this is an annulment rather than a divorce, it follows that, if he undertakes mutual imprecation against her before consummation, she is entitled to none of the bridal dower—not half of it or any other amount. This is also stated in Ibn al-Jallāb’s book, but it conflicts with Mālik’s statement in his Muwatta’ and with what appears in al-Mudawwana. The rationale here is that we cannot know whether the husband is telling the truth: the child may be his, and he may merely intend to divorce her and make her permanently forbidden to him through mutual imprecation so that he owes no bridal dower. Since he is suspected of this, he is required to pay half the bridal dower.

Ibn al-Jallāb’s book also states that a man who purchases his wife before consummation owes her half the bridal dower. This conflicts with the established position in the school. His statement in al-Mudawwana that a woman who undergoes mutual imprecation is not entitled to a consolatory gift is sound on this reasoning. Thus, explaining the absence of a consolatory gift in cases of mutual imprecation on the grounds that it is an annulment, and that Allah has required this gift only of men who divorce their wives, is sounder than the explanation he gives in al-Mudawwana.

Section

Upon completion of mutual imprecation, separation takes effect between the spouses even if the ruler has not separated them. Scholars have differed considerably on this matter. Mālik’s position is as we have stated. Al-Shāfi‘ī said that separation takes effect upon completion of the husband’s imprecation, and she never becomes lawful to him again. Abū Hanīfa and some of his disciples said that separation does not take effect between the spouses until the ruler separates them. Once the ruler has separated them, she does not become lawful to him unless he declares his own accusation false. If he does so, he receives the prescribed flogging and may seek her hand in marriage like any other suitor. Another view is that, if he declares his accusation false, he receives the prescribed flogging and his wife is restored to him. Another view is that mutual imprecation