counted as one of the three divorces. This shows that the word “divorce” can encompass an annulment that does not count as one of the three divorces.
It also shows that if someone embraces Islam while married to more than four women and says, “I have divorced this woman,” this constitutes separation from her and the choice to retain the other woman. This contradicts the position of some followers of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad, who maintain that if he says regarding one of the two, “Divorce her,” this constitutes choosing her. They argue that divorce can apply only to a wife. This position contradicts both the Sunnah and reason. A man who divorces a woman has no desire for her and wishes to part from her; how, then, can he be choosing her and wishing to retain her? What led them into this was their assumption that the word “divorce” is used only for a divorce that counts as one of the three. This is a false assumption, contrary to Islamic law, linguistic usage, and scholarly consensus.
Furthermore, the Lawgiver has not prescribed a particular wording for divorce. Rather, according to the Companions, the early generations, and scholars generally, divorce takes effect through any wording capable of conveying it. Only some later Shīʿī and Zāhirī scholars disputed this; no disagreement on it is known among the early generations. Thus, if a man says, “I have parted from you,” “I have released you,” or “I have let you go,” intending divorce, it takes effect. The same applies to all other indirect expressions.
If these indirect expressions are used in exchange for compensation—for example, if she says to him, “Release me,” “Let me go in return for a thousand,” “Part from me in return for a thousand,” or “Leave me in return for a thousand”—what difference is there between this and her saying, “Accept a thousand in ransom for my release,” “Grant me khulʿ in return for a thousand,” or “Annul my marriage in return for a thousand”? The same applies to all other indirect expressions. Moreover, when the terms “khulʿ” and “annulment” are used without compensation, with the intention of divorce, a revocable divorce takes effect. They are therefore among the indirect expressions of divorce. What distinction, then, can be drawn between one indirect expression and another?