, for whom she mourns for four months and ten days.” Likewise, he permitted an emigrant to remain in Mecca for three days after completing his pilgrimage rites. These hadiths are recorded in the Sahīh.

This is among the evidence cited by those who hold that divorce takes effect only where there is intent, and that divorce pronounced under coercion does not take effect. Similarly, according to explicit scriptural evidence and scholarly consensus, someone compelled to utter words of disbelief does not become a disbeliever. Yet someone who utters words of disbelief in mockery of Allah’s verses, Allah, and His Messenger becomes a disbeliever. Likewise, someone who pronounces divorce in jest effects a divorce.

If someone swears an oath invoking disbelief, saying, “If I do such-and-such, I disavow Allah and His Messenger,” or, “Then I am a Jew or a Christian,” he does not become a disbeliever by doing the act to which his oath relates. This is so even though the wording makes that outcome contingent upon a condition, because his purpose is to invoke it in an oath out of hatred and aversion for it, not because he desires it. This differs from someone who says, “If you give me a thousand, I will disbelieve,” for such a person becomes a disbeliever. The same reasoning is advanced by those who distinguish between swearing an oath by divorce, or making divorce contingent upon a condition one does not intend to occur, and intending divorce to take effect when the condition occurs.

For this reason, many scholars of the early and later generations held that khul' (release from marriage in return for compensation) is an annulment of the marriage, not one of the three divorces. This was the view of Ibn ‘Abbās, and one of the two views held by each of al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad. The woman has ransomed herself from her husband, just as a captive is ransomed; this is not the divorce that is, in principle, discouraged. Thus it is permissible during menstruation, unlike divorce. If, however, the husband turns away from khul' and instead grants her one of the three divorces in return for compensation, the fault lies with him.

A group of the early generations, such as ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān and others, took a position on this matter and transmitted concerning it a hadith traced back to the Prophet. Some later scholars among the followers of al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad regarded it as an annulment when concluded with a third party, like mutual rescission. The correct view is that its status when concluded with a third party is the same as when concluded with the woman herself. For if the woman’s release is secured by ransom just as ransom is paid for