she intended two or even three pronouncements, he may challenge her claim and take an oath as to what he actually meant to cede to her in the matter of divorce. If she says, “I meant nothing at all,” nothing is binding upon the husband. Whenever he undertakes such a challenge, he may swear only to what he intended at the very moment of empowerment; if he had formed no specific intention, the ruling follows whatever she decrees.
An empowered wife, whether the marriage has been consummated or not, stands on equal footing: should she effect more than a single pronouncement, he is entitled to dispute her and swear accordingly. If the empowered wife issues the triple divorce and he does not contest her on the spot, it is binding. But if he does contest her, saying, “By that empowerment I meant only one pronouncement,” his word is accepted once he has sworn. When he had no definite intention in mind, she may pronounce as many divorces as she wishes, and he has no right to challenge her.
If he explicitly granted her authority over all three pronouncements and she uses them, he may not dispute her. If he empowered her conditionally, she gains control of her affair once the condition is realised; if the condition is not met, she gains no such control. Should he empower her with a description that customarily must occur, the empowerment becomes binding. If he postpones the matter to a fixed term, she nevertheless acquires authority over herself immediately. Where the empowerment is tied to a contingency that may or may not occur, she does not acquire authority until that contingency actually takes place.
When he empowers her in return for compensation, the resulting divorce is irrevocable. If he empowers her without compensation, as a gratuitous act—and this was neither at the time of the marriage contract nor a stipulated right for her—the governing rule is whatever she decrees, unless he challenges her and swears that he intended only a single pronouncement; in that case he retains the stronger authority over her. The same applies if he vested her with authority during the marriage contract itself: the ruling is what she decrees unless he disputes her, swearing he meant but one pronouncement, in which event he keeps the upper hand.
Furthermore, if, at the time of contracting with her, he empowered her on the basis that if he should marry another wife, take a concubine, absent himself, expel her from her home, or strike her, the matter would revert to her—then, once he actually does any of those things, her affair is in her own hand. She may pronounce a triple divorce if she so wishes, or any lesser number, and he has no right to contest her. According to Mālik, however, his right to dispute her remains only in the specific instances set out above.