counts as one irrevocable divorce. The rationale behind the report that Mālik treated the annulment of a pilgrim’s marriage as a divorce is precisely the existence of scholarly disagreement over the issue. According to this view, should the man remarry her afterwards she returns to him with two divorces remaining, whereas on the first opinion she would come back with the full three still intact.

A pilgrim (muḥrim) may revoke a revocable divorce pronounced upon his wife, whether the divorce occurred before he entered iḥrām or after, provided he entered that state while she was still in her waiting period. Even so, he is not allowed to have intercourse with her.

By contrast, a man who contracted marriage during iḥrām, consummated it, and then had the union annulled, has no right to take the woman back while he remains consecrated. Since a muḥrim is barred from concluding a marriage contract in that state, he is likewise barred from resuming a marriage that was contracted during it until he has exited his pilgrimage.

He may, however, purchase slave-girls while in iḥrām, but he may not have intercourse with them until he has left that state.

One report from Mālik declares the prohibition in this matter to be permanent, akin to a marriage contracted during a waiting period. The better-known position from him, however, is that the prohibition is not perpetual, and that once the pilgrim leaves iḥrām he may marry the woman anew under a fresh contract.