Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Raja: the return after revocable divorce > Condition 2: that the divorce be fewer than three
Contents
Updated on 26 September 2026 at 7:12 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This part belongs to the full chapter: See all parts.
The return (raj'a) is the husband's recognized right to take back his wife during her 'iddah after a first or second divorce, without a new contract or a new dower. The fiqh encyclopedia sets out here its conditions (a divorce fewer than three, the wife still in her 'iddah), its formula (explicit or allusive, valid both in earnest and in jest), its realization by action, the witnessing before witnesses, the status of the revocably divorced woman (travel, adornment, inheritance) and the disputes over the expiry of the 'iddah. The positions of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali schools are reported with their classical references.
The woman who has not been touched owes no 'iddah. Allah said regarding those who are divorced before being approached:
« You owe them no waiting period: grant them provision and release them in a beautiful manner. »
Surah Al-Ahzab, 49
Allah thus made clear that there is no 'iddah upon her: as soon as she is divorced, she becomes like a woman whose 'iddah has ended, with no possible return to her and no right to maintenance. If her divorcer desires her anew, he is among the suitors: he marries her with her consent by a new marriage, and she returns to him only after two divorces; if he has divorced her twice and then married her, she returns to him after a single divorce, without disagreement among the people of knowledge (1).
If he wishes to take her back, he concludes a new contract with her, according to its conditions and pillars.
Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « They agreed that the woman who has no 'iddah is not returned to him, except under the rule of establishing a new marriage » (2).
Second condition: that the divorce be fewer than three.
The people of knowledge agreed: for the validity of the return, the woman must have been divorced once or twice. If she has been divorced three times, the return is not valid and she does not become lawful for him again until she has married another husband, without disagreement among the scholars of the community, by the word of the Most High:
« If he then divorces her, she shall no longer be lawful to him until she marries another husband. Then, if the latter divorces her, no blame shall fall upon the two of them should they return to one another. »
Surah Al-Baqarah, 230
The Muslims agree on this meaning: if the one who divorced her did so twice, she does not become lawful for him after this third divorce until she has married another husband; if that second husband in turn divorces her, no blame falls upon her or the first husband in returning to one another, that is, in his marrying her a second time, if they hope to maintain the laws of Allah (1). Urwah ibn az-Zubayr reported that Aisha, wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), informed that Rifa'ah al-Qurazi had divorced his wife irrevocably, and that she had then married Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr:
She came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: « Messenger of Allah, I was the wife of Rifa'ah, then he divorced me irrevocably, and I married Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr, who, by Allah, has no virility except what a fringe of a garment has. » And she took hold of a fringe of her garment. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) smiled, laughing, and said: « Do you perhaps wish to return to Rifa'ah? Never, until you have tasted his sweetness and he has tasted your sweetness. »Reported by Bukhari (5456) and Muslim (1433)
Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « There is no disagreement among them: the woman divorced three times after consummation does not become lawful for him again until she has married another husband, by the word of Allah: "If he then divorces her, she shall no longer be lawful to him until she marries another husband" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 230) », and he then cited the preceding report of Aisha (2).
References: Al-Mughni (7/397); Maratib al-ijma' (p. 75); Al-Iqna' fi masa'il al-ijma' (3/1283, no. 2339); Al-Hawi al-kabir (10/303); Jami' masa'il Ibn Taymiyyah (1/286); Al-Fatawa al-hindiyyah (1/282); Ahkam al-Qur'an of Ibn al-Arabi (1/494); Al-Bayan (9/277); Rawdat at-talibin (4/758); An-Najm al-wahhaj (7/171-172); Kashshaf al-qina' (5/91); Sharh Muntaha al-iradat (5/172); Manar as-sabil (2/581).
This requirement holds because the husband, once he has received a compensation (in khul'), loses all right over what he has given up: whoever receives the counter-value of a thing leaves its ownership and no longer has any return over it. The woman, indeed, only gives up this compensation to remove harm from herself; every separation meant to remove harm implies the breaking of what would bring her back to him through the establishment of the return, and would thereby return her to the harm. She is also found unable to fulfil toward her husband the rights of Allah the Most High: she is therefore not entitled to it, as in separation for indigence (failure of maintenance) and in the ila'. If he wishes to take her back, a new contract is indispensable, with its conditions and pillars (1).
Fourth condition: that the woman still be in her 'iddah; if the 'iddah ends, there is no more return.
The people of knowledge agreed that the woman still in her 'iddah is a condition for the validity of the return when the husband has divorced her fewer than three times, once or twice, by His word: « And their husbands have a better right to take them back in that period » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 228), that is, during the 'iddah. If her 'iddah ends, his return is no longer valid, by agreement of the people of knowledge.
Allah said: « When they reach their term, retain them honorably » (Surah At-Talaq, 2), the term meaning the approach of the end; for the reality of the term, although it signifies the expiry of the period, as in « and when they reach their term, do not prevent them from remarrying their husbands » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 232) which aims at the expiry of their 'iddah, can figuratively mean the approach of the expiry, as here: the context of the two passages thus proves the distinction between the two moments (1).
Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him): « They agreed that if she completes the 'iddah before he takes her back, he has no return over her, except with her consent if she is among those who can consent, under the rule of establishing the marriage » (2). Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « They agreed that whoever divorced his wife once or twice has the right to take her back; if he divorces her the third time, she does not become lawful for him again until she has married another » (3). Imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « The condition for the validity of the return is the subsistence of the 'iddah: the return is not valid after its expiry, for the return is the perpetuation of an ownership, and the ownership vanishes after the expiry of the 'iddah; perpetuation is thus inconceivable, for it belongs to the one who maintains his protection against extinction, not to the one who removes it, as in the sale with an option clause in favor of the seller when the option period elapses: he can no longer recover ownership of the sold item through the expiry of the period. The same applies here » (1). And Ibn Qudamah said: « Issue: he said: (the free man who divorces his free wife fewer than three times has the right to return to her as long as she is in her 'iddah). The people of knowledge agreed: if the free man divorces a free woman after consummation fewer than three times, without compensation or any cause of separation, he is entitled to her return as long as she is in her 'iddah; and he has no return over her after her 'iddah has expired » (2).
References: Al-Ishraf 'ala nukat masa'il al-khilaf (3/381, no. 1210); Al-Hawi al-kabir (10/11-12, 303); Al-Bayan (10/37); Al-Mughni (7/251-252); Manar as-sabil (3/120); Al-Hawi al-kabir (10/303); Rawdat at-talibin (5/528); An-Najm al-wahhaj (8/11); Maghni al-muhtaj (5/8); Tuhfat al-muhtaj (9/600); Nihayat al-muhtaj (7/68-69); Ad-Dibaj (3/481); Maratib al-ijma' (p. 75); Al-Iqna' fi masa'il al-ijma' (3/1283, no. 2338); Al-Istidhkar (6/204); Bada'i' as-sana'i' (3/183); Al-Mughni (7/400).
The return has two manners: a return by word and a return by action. The jurists of the four schools and others agree that the return is valid by a word indicating it, as when he says to his revocably divorced wife: « I have taken you back (rajja'tu-ki), I have returned to you (irtajja'tu-ki), I have sent you back to me (radaddtu-ki), I have kept you (amsaktu-ki) ».
Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « As for the word, it suffices for the return without disagreement. Its formulas: I have taken you back, I have returned to you, I have sent you back, I have kept you; for these terms come from the Qur'an and the Sunnah: sending back (rad) and keeping (imsak) are employed by the Book: "And their husbands have a better right to take them back" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 228) and "retain them honorably" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 231), that is, the return. The Sunnah established it by the Prophet's word (peace be upon him): "Order him to return to her." This name spread among the Iraqis as the name of divorce spread among them: they call the return raj'a and the woman raj'iyyah. It is preferable that the formula be explicit alone, because it alone is widespread, as with the explicit divorce. As a precaution, he will say: "I have taken back my wife into my marriage, or into my marital bond, or for the divorce that befell her" » (1).
Al-Babarti (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « The formulas of the return: saying "I have taken you back" if she is present, or "I have taken back my wife" in her absence, provided he informs her, or in her presence as well; or saying "I have sent you back to me, or I have kept you"; or saying "you are with me as you were" or "you are my wife" if he intends the return. No one disputes the validity of the return by word » (2). As-San'ani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « They agreed upon the return by word » (3). The jurists divided the valid formulas into two categories: explicit and allusive.
References: Bada'i' as-sana'i' (3/183); Al-Mughni (7/400, 7/404); Al-'Inaya sharh al-Hidayah (5/397); Subul as-salam (3/182).
The explicit is the formula that does not require intention. Among the Hanafis, the explicit formulas are: « I have taken you back » when addressing her, and « I have taken back my wife » in her absence as in her presence; also explicit are « I have returned to you, I have given you back, I have sent you back, I have kept you », « masaktu-ki » (with a sin) standing for « amsaktu-ki », the two belonging to two dialects: by these formulas he takes her back without intention. It has been said that « I have sent you back » requires mention of the bond: « to me, to my marriage, or to my (marital) protection », a requirement that does not exist for the irtija' and the muraja'ah (1).
Among the Malikis, the explicit formula carrying only the meaning of the return is: « I have given back my wife » or « I have returned to my wife », as well as « I have taken her back, I have sent her back to my protection or to my marriage »; it is explicit only with mention of the complement, otherwise it is allusive. The famous position of the Mudawwanah is that explicit speech stripped of intention suffices for the validity of the return, even if uttered in jest; for his jest is earnest, it benefits him outwardly, he is not believed in what he alleges of absent intention: maintenance and the other rulings are upheld for him outwardly, not between him and Allah (2).
Among the Shafi'is, the explicit formulas of the return are obtained by « I have taken you back, I have given you back, I have returned to you »: these three formulas are explicit due to their generality and the arrival of the reports with them, by the Prophet's word (peace be upon him): « Order him to return to her. » There is no disagreement over these formulas when he attaches them to the woman's name, her pronoun, or points to her; it does not suffice to say merely « I have taken back » or « I have returned »: it must be attached to a manifest term (« I have taken back so-and-so »), a pronoun (« I have taken you back »), or one pointed at (« I have taken back this one »). Attached to them are the words derived from its name: « You are a taking-back, a returning, a claimed return ». The return is obtained by the meaning of these formulas and by any other language, whether or not he knows Arabic, and whether or not he adds « to me » or « to my marriage », though that is recommended. The soundest view is that « I have sent you back » and « I have kept you » are also explicit, due to their occurrence in the Qur'an: « And their husbands have a better right to take them back », that is, during the 'iddah; « if they desire reconciliation », that is, returning to one another; « retain them honorably » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 228, 231). He should therefore say: « I have sent her back to me or to my marriage », so that it be explicit, for thereby her being sent back to her family because of the separation is understood. According to a second view, these two formulas are allusive, not being widespread in the return as the explicit ones are. The correct view is that the explicit formulas of the return are limited: those of divorce are limited, and the return, being the obtaining of an authorization, is all the more worthy of limitation. According to another view, every formula carrying the meaning of the explicit is explicit, as in « I have lifted your prohibition, I have restored your lawfulness » (1).
The Hanbalis of the madhhab: the explicit formulas of the return are « I have taken back my wife, I have given her back, I have returned to her, I have sent her back, I have kept her »; if he addresses the divorced woman to take her back, the formula is: « I have taken you back, I have returned to you, I have brought you back, I have sent you back, I have kept you », due to the Sunnah's occurrence with the name of the return in the hadith of Ibn Umar, the generality of this name by custom, hence the appellation raj'ah and raj'iyyah, and the Qur'an's occurrence with sending back: « And their husbands have a better right to take them back », and with keeping: « retain them honorably » and « or a retention with kindness » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 228, 231, 229). Attached to them are the words of the same meaning, even without intention on the part of the one who utters them; for these are explicit, and the explicit needs no intention.
If he adds after these formulas « out of love » or « out of humiliation », it does not harm the return; likewise if he says: « I intended to take you back out of my love for you, or to humiliate you »: he uttered the return and clarified its cause. If he says: « I intended to humiliate you or to love you, and I have sent you back by this separation », that is, by that love or humiliation, it is not a return, due to the contradiction established therein: the return is not intended through separation. If he speaks without intending anything: « I have taken you back out of love or humiliation », the return is valid: he uttered its explicit form and attached to it what could be its cause or something else; the formula does not depart from its meaning through doubt.
The return is not obtained by the divorcer's saying: « I married her, I took her as wife »; for this is an allusion, and the return is the authorization of an intended enjoyment: it is not obtained by allusion, like marriage. According to one view it is thereby obtained: Imam Ahmad inclined to it and Ibn Hamid chose it, for by this formula foreign women become lawful; intention is then required, for in every allusion intention is considered, as in the allusions of divorce (1).
References: Bada'i' as-sana'i' (3/183); Sharh Fath al-Qadir (4/159); Al-'Inayah (5/397); Al-Jawharah an-nayyirah (4/475); Al-Ikhtiyar (3/181); Mukhtasar al-Wiqayah (1/405); Al-Lubab (2/98); Al-Fatawa al-hindiyyah (p. 468); At-Taj wa-l-iklil (3/116); Sharh mukhtasar Khalil (4/80); Ash-Sharh al-kabir with the hashiyah of ad-Dasuqi (3/328); Tahbir al-Mukhtasar (3/225); Hashiyat as-Sawi on the Sharh as-saghir (5/417, 419); Al-Bayan (10/248-249); Rawdat at-talibin (5/526-527); An-Najm al-wahhaj (8/8, 10); Maghni al-muhtaj (5/6-7); Tuhfat al-muhtaj (9/596-598); Nihayat al-muhtaj (7/66-67); Ad-Dibaj (3/479-480); Al-Mughni (7/404-405); Al-Mubdi' (7/391); Ar-Rawd al-murbi' (2/411); Al-Insaf (9/150-151); Kashshaf al-qina' (5/396-397); Sharh Muntaha al-iradat (5/506-507); Matalib uli an-nuha (5/478).
Through allusion, the return takes place according to the majority of Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi'i jurists in the soundest view, and according to the Hanbalis in one opinion. The Hanbalis of the madhhab, as well as al-Adhra'i among the Shafi'is, hold that the return is not valid through allusions: the return is the authorization of an intended enjoyment, and is therefore not obtained by allusion, like marriage (1).
Among the Hanafis, the allusions are: « You are with me as you were » and « you are my wife »: he then takes her back only with intention, for the literal sense of his words suits his intention with respect to inheritance. They disagreed over keeping, marriage and taking as wife: if he marries her during the 'iddah, it is not a return according to Abu Hanifah; it is a return according to Muhammad; Abu Yusuf has two narrations. Abu Ja'far said: we take the view of Muhammad; in Al-Yanabi': the fatwa is on his view; likewise in Al-Quniyyah. Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « If he says to her "I married you or I took you as wife", it is a return according to the apparent sense of the narrations ». It is reported from Abu Hanifah that it is not a return. The reason for this narration is that marriage after a revocable divorce is established from every aspect: his saying "I married you" therefore confirms what is established, which is impossible and not legislated; legally assimilated to nothingness, it is not a return, unlike "I have taken you back", which does not establish marriage but realizes the established marriage, the latter being susceptible of realization since the cause of its disappearance has occurred; the return being the breaking of the cause and the preventing of its use, that is valid. According to the apparent sense of the narrations: marriage, although established in reality, does not bear establishment; it is thus used figuratively for the realization of what is established, through the resemblance between the two, rectifying its operation as far as possible. It has also been said, in one of the two interpretations of His word: « And their husbands have a better right to take them back in that period » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 228): their husbands have a greater right to their marriage during the 'iddah than any other man, marriage being attached to the revocably divorced woman: this proves the validity of the return through marriage (1).
The non-explicit among the Malikis is the ambiguous formula, such as « I have seized her or kept her »: it may mean « I kept her to punish her » or « I kept her as a wife within my bond »; if he utters this ambiguous formula with the intention of the return, it takes place (2). The Shafi'is: the return is valid by allusion with intention, as in « I have chosen your return, I have restored your lawfulness » and the like. Among the Shafi'i allusions in the soundest view are marriage and taking as wife in the returning husband's saying (« I took you as wife, I married you ») or concluding the marriage contract: because these terms are not widespread in the return; because what is explicit in one chapter is not explicit in another, as in divorce and zhihar; and because marriage always entails a counter-value, whereas the return entails none: neither is therefore concluded by the other's formula, as a gift is not concluded by the formula of sale. According to a second view, these two formulas are explicit, being fit to establish the contract and render lawful; what fits rectification is stronger: the formula of marriage and taking as wife is more affirmed than that of the return, since by it foreign women are made lawful; if he made her body lawful by the formula of the return, the formula of marriage and taking as wife is more fitting still (1).
As for the Hanbalis, the correct view among them is that the return is not obtained by the allusions such as « I married her, I took her as wife ». Al-Mirdawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « His words: (if he says "I married her or I took her as wife", two views) according to the majority; these are two narrations in Al-I'idah, and he stated them without restriction in Al-Mughni, al-Muharrar, ash-Sharh, an-Nazm, ar-Ri'ayatayn, az-Zubdah, the Madhhab of Ahmad, al-Bulghah, al-Mubhaj, al-I'idah, al-Hawi as-saghir, al-Furu' and other works. The first: the return is not obtained thereby; affirmed in At-Tashih, Tashih al-Muharrar and al-Khulasah, stated categorically in Al-Wajiz, preferred in Al-Hidayah, al-Madhhab, Masbuk adh-dhahab, al-Mustaw'ib and others, chosen by al-Qadi, said in Al-Mubhaj. The second view: the return is obtained thereby; Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) inclined to it, said in Al-Mughni and ash-Sharh, chosen by al-Qadi and Ibn Hamid. He said in Al-Mujaz, at-Tabsirah, Al-Mughni and ash-Sharh: the return is obtained thereby with an intention, chosen by Ibn Abdus in his Tadhkirah. He said in Al-Munwir: "I married her, I took her as wife" is an allusion. He said in At-Targhib: is the return obtained by allusion, such as "I have restored you or I have taken you back anew"? Two views: in Ar-Ri'ayatayn, intention is required only in "I have restored you or taken you back anew". And in the thirty-ninth rule: if we require witnessing in the return, the return by allusion is not valid; otherwise, two views. The author of At-Targhib and others stated both views without restriction; the best is what we have cited. End of quotation » (1).
References: Ad-Dibaj (3/480); Al-Mubdi' (7/391); Sharh Muntaha al-iradat (5/507); Ar-Rawd al-murbi' (2/411); Bada'i' as-sana'i' (3/183); Sharh Fath al-Qadir (4/159); Al-'Inayah (5/397); Al-Jawharah an-nayyirah (4/475); Al-Ikhtiyar (3/181); Mukhtasar al-Wiqayah (1/405); Al-Lubab (2/98); Al-Fatawa al-hindiyyah (p. 468); At-Taj wa-l-iklil (3/116); Sharh mukhtasar Khalil (4/80); Ash-Sharh al-kabir with the hashiyah of ad-Dasuqi (3/328); Tahbir al-Mukhtasar (3/225); Hashiyat as-Sawi (5/417, 419); Al-Bayan (10/248-249); Rawdat at-talibin (5/526-527); An-Najm al-wahhaj (8/8, 10); Maghni al-muhtaj (5/6-7); Tuhfat al-muhtaj (9/596-598); Nihayat al-muhtaj (7/66-67); Ad-Dibaj (3/479-480); Al-Insaf (9/151-152).
The preceding context: one who takes back his wife without witnessing while believing it obligatory is believed between himself and Allah, and inheritance from her becomes lawful for him inwardly; but if he is brought before the judge, the latter prevents him (1). The jurists of the four schools agree that the return is valid both in earnest and in jest: if he says to his wife « I have taken you back » in jest, the return is valid, by what Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him):
« Three things whose earnest is earnest and whose jest is earnest: marriage, divorce and the return. »Hasan hadith: reported by Abu Dawud (2194), at-Tirmidhi (1194) and Ibn Majah (2039)
Imam al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « Likewise, the husband's compliance, seriousness and deliberation are not conditions for the validity of the return: the return is valid under duress, in jest, in play and by mistake, for the return is the preservation of an already established marriage and is below the creative act; these dispositions were not required for the creative act, all the more so not for preservation. It is reported in some narrations: "Three things whose earnest is earnest and whose jest is earnest: marriage, the return and divorce" » (2). The Malikis, in the famous position of the Mudawwanah: explicit speech devoid of intention suffices for the validity of the return even if uttered in jest, meaning a jest bare of any intention of return; his jest is earnest, it benefits him outwardly, he is not believed in what he alleges of absent intention: maintenance and the other rulings are upheld for him outwardly, not between him and Allah. The import of this rule, namely that jest counts as return outwardly and not inwardly, is to obligate him to the garment and the rest after the 'iddah, without it being lawful for him inwardly; unlike marriage, which is lawful inwardly and outwardly even in jest, since no one required intention for it, unlike the return, regarding which it was discussed in general terms (1). Ar-Rahibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « The return is obtained by the formulas: I have taken her back, I have given her back, I have returned to her, I have kept her, I have sent her back, I have taken her back in preparation, even without intention on the part of the one who utters them; for these are explicit, and the explicit needs no intention, even in jest » (2).
References: At-Taj wa-l-iklil (3/116); Sharh mukhtasar Khalil (4/80-81); Ash-Sharh al-kabir with the hashiyah of ad-Dasuqi (3/328); Tahbir al-Mukhtasar (3/225); Hashiyat as-Sawi (5/417, 419); Bada'i' as-sana'i' (3/186-187); An-Nahr al-fa'iq (3/522); Matalib uli an-nuha (5/478).
First condition: that the return be immediate (not suspended). The majority of Hanafi, Shafi'i and Hanbali jurists affirmed that the validity of the return requires it to be immediate: not to suspend it upon a condition, as in « if tomorrow comes, then I have taken you back », or « if you enter the house, or do such a thing, then I have taken you back »: this is not a return; for the return is the authorization of an intended enjoyment, and it is not suspended upon a characteristic, like marriage (1). As-Sarakhsi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « Suspending the return upon a condition is void, as is attaching it to a term, to the point that if he says "I have taken you back tomorrow" or "if tomorrow comes", it is void; for the return is the perpetuation of an ownership, it does not bear suspension upon a condition, like the very establishment of marriage; only what may be sworn upon may be suspended upon a condition, and one does not swear by the return, unlike divorce » (2). Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « Among these conditions is the absence of suspension upon a condition and of attachment to a future term, to the point that if the husband says after the divorce: "if you enter the house, I have taken you back", "I have taken you back if you enter the house", "if you speak to Zayd", "if tomorrow comes, I have taken you back tomorrow", or "at the beginning of such a month", the return is not valid according to all of them; for the return is the realization of the ownership of marriage: it bears neither suspension upon a condition nor attachment to a future term, any more than the establishment of ownership. The return indeed entails the annulment of the divorce at the very moment of its conclusion, the cause of the ownership's disappearance and of the prevention of its use; if he suspends it upon a condition or attaches it to a future term, he has kept the divorce until a limit, and keeping the divorce until a limit amounts to making it perpetual, for it does not bear the fixing of a term, as when he says to his wife: "you are divorced for a day, a month or a year": the fixing is void and the divorce becomes perpetual; the return is therefore not valid, provided he has effected the return » (1).
As for information given about the return in the past: if he says « yesterday I took you back » and the woman believes him, the return is established, whether he speaks during the 'iddah or after its expiry while she was in it yesterday; if she denies him while he speaks during the 'iddah, his word prevails: he reports a thing he can create at once, the husband having the power of return at once; whoever reports a thing he can create at once is believed, for otherwise he would create it immediately, and the denial has no effect. He becomes like the agent before revocation saying: « I sold it yesterday » (1). Likewise, if he says after the divorce « I have taken you back tomorrow, or at the beginning of such a month », the return is not valid according to all of them, as in Al-Bada'i' (2). The Shafi'is and Hanbalis affirmed: if he says « I have taken you back if you will », it is not valid either; among the Shafi'is it does not harm if he says « I have taken you back if you will, or an shi'ta » (with an open hamzah), for that is a justification and not a suspension: one must therefore distinguish the grammarian from the rest and question the one ignorant of the Arabic language (3).
References: Al-Jawharah an-nayyirah (4/478); Sharh Fath al-Qadir (3/198); Al-Ikhtiyar (3/182); Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (5/243-244); Al-Fatawa al-hindiyyah (1/470); At-Tanbih (p. 182); Al-Bayan (10/250); Rawdat at-talibin (5/527); An-Najm al-wahhaj (8/10); Maghni al-muhtaj (5/7); Al-Mughni (7/405); Al-Mubdi' (7/395); Al-Insaf (9/157); Kashshaf al-qina' (5/398); Al-Mabsut (6/22); Bada'i' as-sana'i' (3/185); Al-Fatawa al-hindiyyah (1/470).