‘This is valid’ or ‘This is not valid,’ as declarations of legal status and statements of fact.” Yet it is well known that such expressions do not occur in the words of Allah and His Messenger: expressions such as “Purification is a condition of prayer,” “Disbelief is an impediment to the validity of prayer,” and “This contract and this act of worship are invalid,” and the like.

Rather, their words contain commands and prohibitions, declarations of permissibility and prohibition, and statements denying acceptance or propriety, such as:

“Allah does not accept prayer without purification, nor charity from misappropriated property.”

And:

“This is not proper.”

They also contain statements such as “Allah dislikes such-and-such,” promises, and similar expressions. Thus, on their account, we can ascertain validity and invalidity only through the expressions they have mentioned. Yet their account does not require that the Lawgiver should have explained this—an implication whose falsity is known with certainty.

Furthermore, the Lawgiver prohibits something because it involves unmitigated or predominant harm. His purpose in prohibiting it is to prevent that harm and ensure that it does not occur. If, despite its prohibition, it produced the same legal effects as something lawful, so that He made it binding and effective just like something lawful, He would thereby be imposing the very harm He intended to prevent. This would mean that He intended that harm not to occur while nevertheless binding people to it. This is a contradiction far beneath the Lawgiver—may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

Some of these scholars have said: “He prohibited triple divorce only so that the divorcing husband would not regret it. This indicates that regret necessarily follows if he does so, which entails that the divorce is valid.”