—such as: “You are divorced three times,” “You are divorced, divorced, divorced,” “You are divorced then divorced then divorced,” or he says, “You are divorced,” and then repeats, “You are divorced,” and then again, “You are divorced.” Likewise if he declares ten divorces, a hundred divorces, or anything of that sort—the scholars, both early and later, have expressed three opinions on the matter, whether the marriage had been consummated or not.

1. That it is a permissible and binding divorce. This is the position of al-Shafiʿi and of Ahmad in his earlier view, and it was adopted by al-Khiraqi.

2. That it is forbidden yet still binding. This is the view of Malik, Abu Hanifah, and of Ahmad according to the opinion preferred by most of his students, and it is transmitted from many early and later authorities among the Companions and the Successors.

3. That it is forbidden and that only a single divorce takes effect. This view is reported from a group of the early and later scholars among the Companions, is held by many of the Successors and those after them, and is the position of some adherents of Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Ahmad.

This third view is the one indicated by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Nowhere in the revealed sources is there any requirement to count three divorces against someone who pronounces them all at once, whether in a single phrase or in several, without an intervening waiting period or a new contract. What the Qur’an and the Sunnah do oblige is binding effect for the divorce that Allah and His Messenger have permitted. Analogy and the other foundational principles of the Law support the same conclusion… Nor is there any dispute among Muslims that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is protected from error in whatever he conveys from Allah; by unanimous agreement he is infallible in the legislation he established for the ummah, and the ummah itself is likewise protected from agreeing upon misguidance.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—said elsewhere: The difference is clear between divorce itself and swearing by divorce, and between a vow and swearing by a vow. If a man seeks something from Allah and says, “If Allah heals my sick relative, pays my debt, or delivers me from this hardship, I shall give one thousand dirhams in charity, or fast a month, or free a slave,” this is a vow whose fulfillment is obligatory according to the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and consensus. But if he frames it as an oath and says, “If I travel with you, or if I marry so-and-so, then pilgrimage is binding on me,” or “my property is charity,” then—according to the Companions and the majority of scholars—he is someone who has sworn by a vow, not one who has actually vowed; should he fail to carry out what he bound upon himself, the expiation for an oath suffices.

This is the essence of what we have presented to clarify this well-known, wide-ranging issue.

On either of the two positions, adopting one of them ought not to ignite the upheavals that have divided the Muslims, for it remains a subsidiary matter open to legitimate disagreement. Allah knows best.