and upon the first husband. Both have thus transgressed Allah’s limits: one once more, and the other once. The woman and her guardian, having knowingly participated in this, have also transgressed Allah’s limits. Holding them to their divorces in these circumstances has therefore not restrained them from transgressing Allah’s limits; rather, it has increased such transgression. Not holding them to their divorces—even though they are wrongdoers who have not repented—is thus better than holding them to them. For that fornication leads to transgressing Allah’s limits time after time.

It may be objected: Had the man who sought a ruling from Ibn Abbās or someone like him been told, “Repent,” he would have repented. This is why Ibn Abbās sometimes ruled that such divorces were not binding, as Ikrima and others reported from him. Umar counted the expressions “You are free” and “You are released” as only a single revocable divorce. And when he said … Umar said (1):

“If they had done what they were admonished to do, it would have been better for them and given them greater steadfastness.”

When holding people to their divorces is a general, publicly established policy, singling some out for assistance would undermine it, and the individual’s repentance could not be trusted.

There are thus four cases. If they fear Allah and repent, there is no doubt that not holding them to their divorces—as was the practice during the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and Abū Bakr—is better. If, however, they desist only when held to their divorces, so that they then desist and do not pronounce forbidden divorces