among the early generations—the Companions and Successors—that supported their view. This may well be the predominant position expressed in Ahmad’s recorded statements. Indeed, he expressly stated that divorce takes effect through action as well as speech. As evidence that it takes effect in writing, he cited the Prophet’s saying (may Allah bless him and grant him peace):

“Allah has pardoned my community for what they say to themselves, so long as they neither speak of it nor act upon it.”

He said: “When someone writes, he has acted.”

The Baghdad scholars of that time, such as Abū ʿAbd Allāh ibn Hāmid, and their followers, such as Judge Abū Yaʿlā and those who followed his approach, held that marital separation takes effect only through speech. They cited statements by Ahmad on which they relied for this position, reasoning that such separation is a dissolution of marriage: since marriage requires a verbal formula, its dissolution likewise requires one.

As for marriage, these scholars—including Ibn Hāmid, the Judge and his followers, such as Abū al-Khattāb, and most later scholars—held that it can be contracted only using the terms inkāh or tazwīj (giving in marriage), as al-Shāfiʿī also held. Their reasoning was that marriage cannot be contracted through indirect wording, because such wording requires an intention, while witnesses are a condition of a valid marriage, and witnessing an intention is impossible. They therefore did not recognize a marriage contracted using the terms “gift,” “bestowal,” or other expressions denoting a transfer of ownership.

Most of these scholars—including Ibn Hāmid, the Judge, and the later scholars—also held that anyone proficient in Arabic can contract marriage only using Arabic wording. If someone is unable to learn it, the marriage can be contracted in any language using wording that conveys its specific meaning. If he is able to learn it, there are two views;