the legal effect of the condition? The apparent position of Ahmad’s school is that it does not. He explicitly distinguished, when divorce is made conditional upon marriage, between a woman who is still in her waiting period and one who is not. According to his school, therefore, she is divorced when he marries her. This is also one of al-Shāfi‘ī’s two opinions.

According to al-Shāfi‘ī’s other opinion—that an irrevocable separation terminates the legal effect of the condition—which is also one opinion reported from Ahmad, his saying, “If I marry her,” is like his saying, “If you enter the house.” Once she becomes irrevocably separated from him, this oath ceases to bind. He may therefore marry her without any divorce taking effect as a result. This is the view preferred by many of al-Shāfi‘ī’s followers.

As for his saying, “According to Mālik’s school,” this amounts to committing himself to a particular school, but that commitment is not binding. Rather, he may follow al-Shāfi‘ī’s school. If the divorce was irrevocable in exchange for compensation, and he subsequently pronounced the conditional divorce, whether during her waiting period or otherwise, then the condition concerns a woman who is no longer his wife. According to al-Shāfi‘ī’s school, no divorce therefore takes effect if he marries her.

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

A man who follows al-Shāfi‘ī’s school became irrevocably separated from his wife through three divorces. She subsequently married another man and became separated from her second husband. She then wished to reconcile with her first husband because she had children by him. He told her, “I cannot afford to maintain you or provide you with clothing.” She would not accept this, so he said to her, “Whenever you become lawful for me, you become forbidden to me.” Does she thereby become forbidden to him? And is that permissible?