or to his own admission of having divorced her.

If the two witnesses disagree—one saying, “He pronounced a single divorce,” while the other says, “He pronounced two,” or “three”—only one divorce is established. The husband must then swear that no additional divorce occurred. If he takes the oath, he is cleared of the extra divorces; if he refuses, two opinions are reported from Malik. According to one, an additional divorce becomes binding; according to the other, nothing beyond the single divorce proved by their testimony is binding, yet he is imprisoned until he swears regarding the remainder, and if his detention drags on he is released.

Likewise, were one witness to attest to a single divorce, another to two, and a third to three, two divorces would be deemed established, and the same principle is applied in every comparable case.

If one of the pair testifies that the husband actually divorced her, while the other testifies that he acknowledged divorcing her, the divorce is binding according to Malik and the majority of his companions.

Should two men testify that a man divorced his wife at two different times, the divorce becomes binding; their testimonies are combined and take effect together.

But if one witness states that the husband conditioned her divorce on the performance of an act, and the other states that he later performed that act, their testimonies are not combined and the divorce does not take effect. For, in Malik’s view, separate testimonies about verbal declarations may be joined, whereas separate testimonies about actions are not joined unless two witnesses concur concerning the very same action.

Finally, if a husband summons witnesses and they conceal their testimony of the divorce until after his death, only then seeking to testify, their testimony is inadmissible so long as they were present together with the couple at the time.