his subsequent discovery of the truth would not cause the divorce to take effect.

Likewise, if, as a precaution, he took his wife back, fearing that the divorce might have taken effect or believing that it had, it would not take effect. Even if, after discovering the invalidity of the Surayjī doctrine, he acknowledged that the divorce had taken effect, no divorce would take effect through this acknowledgment.

If he believed that the divorce had taken effect, took his wife back, and then did what he had sworn not to do, believing that he had already broken his oath once and therefore could not break it a second time, no divorce would take effect through that act. That act is one matter, while his oath not to do that thing remains in force. If the reason for the oath persists, the oath remains in force; if that reason has ceased to exist, he may, on that basis, do what he swore not to do without breaking his oath.

Likewise, if he married her again and then did what he had sworn not to do, believing that an irrevocable separation had occurred and that the original oath was no longer binding, he would not have broken his oath, because he believed it was no longer in force. Similarly, according to the more correct of the scholars’ two views, a person does not break his oath if he does not know that what he has done is the very thing he swore not to do.

As for subsequently saying to his wife, “You are divorced,” this divorce does take effect. If he believes that this pronouncement brings the total to three divorces and acknowledges that he has divorced her three times, neither this belief nor this acknowledgment causes any divorce to take effect.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

“What is your view on acting upon the ‘Surayjī doctrine,’ whereby a man says to his wife, ‘If I divorce you, you are divorced three times before it’? This is known as ‘the question of Ibn Surayj.’”