and the position of Mālik, as well as the sounder of the two positions reported from Ahmad, adopted by most of his followers, including Abū Bakr ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Judge Abū Yaʿlā, and his followers.

The second view is that pronouncing all three divorces together is not forbidden, but merely falls short of what is preferable. This is the position of al-Shāfiʿī and the other position reported from Ahmad, which al-Khiraqī adopted. They cited as evidence that “Fātimah bint Qays was divorced three times by her husband, Abū Hafs ibn al-Mughīrah; Rifāʿah’s wife was divorced three times by her husband; and the husband involved in mutual imprecation divorced his wife three times, and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not object to this.”

The majority replied that, in the reports concerning Fātimah and Rifāʿah’s wife, the three divorces were pronounced on separate occasions. This is established in the Sahīh: the third was the last of three separate divorces. Neither husband pronounced all three together.

A Companion’s statement, “He divorced her three times,” includes divorcing her on three separate occasions: he divorces her, then takes her back, then divorces her, then takes her back, then divorces her. This is divorce in accordance with the Sunnah, and all the imams agree that it takes effect. This was the commonly understood meaning of divorcing three times during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Pronouncing all three divorces in a single utterance, however, was considered objectionable among them and occurred only rarely. An unqualified expression may therefore not be interpreted as referring to the rare, objectionable practice rather than the common, legitimate one. Nor may it be claimed that either of these husbands pronounced all three divorces together. Such a claim has no evidence; indeed, it contradicts the evidence.

As for the husband involved in mutual imprecation, his pronouncement of divorce came after irrevocable separation, or after separation had become obligatory—a separation that makes the wife unlawful to him more absolutely than a third divorce does. His pronouncement thus confirmed the consequence of mutual imprecation.