Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Raja: the return after revocable divorce > Condition 2: that the divorce be fewer than three
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
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).
The jurists disagreed over the realization of the return: is it valid by action, such as intercourse or touching with desire, or only by word? Is intention required along with the action, or does the action alone suffice, even without intention? The majority of Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali jurists (of the madhhab) hold that the return is obtained by action as by word, with details among them.
The Hanafis said: the return is valid by action: if he penetrates her front or rear, kisses her or touches her with desire, or looks at her inner private part with desire, which only takes place when she bends; for through intercourse and every act reserved for marriage he perpetuates the ownership of the marriage, and these acts indicate it, being even stronger than speech; all the more so as we agree that he owns her without her consent, with no offer and acceptance required, no dower or counter-value due, the counter-value being owed only for ownership of the body, and the body belongs to him. It is nonetheless disliked, and it is recommended that he take her back thereafter by word. As for looking at other than the private part, it does not produce the return, and seclusion with her is not a return: nothing indicates it, neither word nor action. The return is likewise obtained if she touches her husband with desire or looks at his private part with desire, according to Abu Hanifah and Muhammad: her act upon him equals his act upon her, lawfulness being shared between them; her act upon him, in the case of the unlawfulness of affinity, equals his act upon her: the same applies to the return. Abu Yusuf said: if she touches him and then leaves him while he can prevent her, it is a return; if he prevents her and does not leave her, it is not: this act of the husband is the sign of the ownership's preservation, and she has no authority to preserve ownership; her act is therefore not a return. In Al-Yanabi': if she touches him concealing her act while he is reluctant, asleep or insane, and he confirms that she did it with desire, it is a return according to both. Muhammad said: if the heirs confirm after his death that she touched him with desire, it is a return; if they testify that she kissed him with desire, the testimony is not admitted, desire being a state of the heart they do not see; some said it is admitted, desire showing itself in the animation of the face; if they testify to intercourse, it is admitted by agreement, for it is seen: no need to condition desire upon it. If she looks at his private part with desire: according to Abu Hanifah it is a return, according to Abu Yusuf it is not; if he looks at her rear with desire, it is not a return by agreement: it does not follow the way of the front. The Hanafis thus conditioned the kiss, the look at the private part and the touching upon desire: without desire, neither touching, nor looking, nor kissing, nor seclusion produces the return; for these things occur from the husband as from others: the women of her company, those who speak with her, the midwife, the physician and others; looking at other than the private part occurs among the women of her company, and the husband is of her company during the 'iddah: were it a return, he would divorce her, and the 'iddah would be lengthened upon her (1).
The Malikis said: the return is obtained by action, intercourse, touching or kissing, on condition of intention, that is, the husband intending by these acts the return; the action alone, if he has intercourse with her, approaches her or touches her with desire, or looks at the place of intercourse with desire without intending the return, does not produce it, by the Prophet's word (peace be upon him):
« Deeds are only by intentions, and every person shall have only what he intended. »Reported by Bukhari (1)
Since entering upon her is part of the action, if he intends the return by it, that suffices. The Mudawwanah reports: « I said: what do you think of a man who divorces his wife with a divorce leaving the return, then kisses her during her 'iddah out of desire, or touches her out of desire, or has intercourse with her in the front or below, or undresses her to look at her and her private part: is that a return according to Malik? He answered: Malik said: if he has intercourse with her during the 'iddah intending thereby the return without knowing that witnessing is required, it is a return; otherwise not », a view shared by Abd al-Aziz ibn Abi Salamah (1). Al-Khirshi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « The return is not obtained by an act stripped of the intention of return, even by the strongest of acts, intercourse, all the more the kiss and the touching; entering upon her is part of the action: if he intends the return by her, that suffices » (2).
The Hanbalis of the madhhab: the return is obtained by intercourse, whether or not he intends the return; for the cause of the ownership's disappearance occurred with the option, and the owner's intercourse prevents its disappearance, like the seller's intercourse during the option period. It is also reported from him: the return is not obtained thereby except with the intention of the return, as Ibn Mansur transmitted. Ibn Abi Musa said: if he intends the return by his intercourse, it is a return, the view chosen by Shaykh Taqi ad-Din (may Allah have mercy on him). The return is not obtained by enjoyment of the revocably divorced woman without the front, whether kissing, touching, approaching, looking at what is unlawful for him or looking at her private part, according to the apparent sense of Ahmad's words; for none of that pertains to intercourse, which indicates the return manifestly, unlike the preceding. According to one view, it is thereby obtained: it is an enjoyment unlawful with a stranger and lawful with the wife: the return is obtained thereby as by enjoyment. The first is the correct view: it does not validate the buyer's option over the slave girl, like touching without desire. Ibn Hamid reported it in two ways, based on the two narrations concerning the prohibition of affinity through it: the first: it is a return, for it is an enjoyment lawful with the wife: the return is obtained thereby as by intercourse; the second: it is not a return, for nothing attaches to it the obligation of 'iddah or dower: it is not obtained thereby, like looking. As for seclusion with her, it is not a return according to the correct view of the madhhab, the prohibition of affinity not being established thereby; according to one view it is thereby obtained, being unlawful with other than the wife: it resembles enjoyment (1).
The Shafi'is and Imam Ahmad (in one narration) hold that the return is not valid by action in any manner, whether the action is accompanied by the intention of return or not, whether it is intercourse or below it; the return is valid only by word, not by an unlawful act. Intercourse with her is unlawful before he takes her back; for the return is the authorization of an intended enjoyment obtained by word: it is therefore not obtained by action while speech is possible, like marriage, whose establishment is not obtained by action: the same applies to the return. Moreover, intercourse entails an 'iddah: how could it cut it off? Imam ash-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « It is only by speech, not by action, intercourse or otherwise; for it is a sending back without speech: no return is established for a man over his wife until he speaks the return, just as there is no marriage or divorce until he speaks them. If he speaks it during the 'iddah, the return is established for him; and the speech of the return is: "I have taken her back, I have returned to her, I have sent her back to me, I have returned to her"; if he says this, she is his wife » (1). They said: enjoyment of the revocably divorced woman, by intercourse or otherwise, is unlawful, even looking without desire; for she is separated from him like the irrevocably divorced woman; marriage renders enjoyment lawful, and divorce renders it unlawful, being its opposite. If he has intercourse with the revocably divorced woman, no punishment befalls him or her, even if he knew the prohibition, given the scholars' disagreement over its lawfulness; only the one who believes it prohibited while knowing it is disciplined, having rushed into disobedience as far as he is concerned, unlike the one who believes it lawful or is ignorant of the prohibition, being excused; the same applies to the woman; all enjoyments are like intercourse regarding disciplinary sanction.
Intercourse with the revocably divorced woman entails, definitively, an equivalent dower (mahr al-mithl) if he does not take her back: she is, with respect to the prohibition of intercourse, like the apostate wife in her waiting period, and likewise the dower; a single dower is due even if intercourse is repeated, by the identity of the doubt. The dower is likewise due if he takes her back after intercourse, according to the explicit madhhab; for the return does not erase the effect of the divorce, and the revocably divorced woman is not a wife from every aspect, the contract having been shaken by the divorce; what thereafter entails the equivalent dower is the doubt, not the marriage contract: the dower was thus owed through intercourse upon a doubt, without contract. This resolves the objection of the one who said: « the dower being owed through intercourse leads to two dowers being owed under a single contract »; he was answered that the second dower is owed through intercourse upon a doubt, not through the contract. According to a reported view, no dower is due if he takes her back after intercourse (1). Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « I know of no one who imposed the equivalent dower except ash-Shafi'i, and his view is not the stronger: she has the status of wives, she inherits from him and he from her: how could an equivalent dower be due for intercourse with a woman whose rulings are mostly those of a wife? The doubt in ash-Shafi'i's view is nonetheless strong: she is unlawful to him except through her return; and they agreed that the dower is due to the one approached upon a doubt: let that suffice you » (2).
Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « As for their disagreement over the means of the return, some said: the return takes place only by word alone, and this is ash-Shafi'i's view. Others said: the return takes place by intercourse; these divide into two groups. Some: the return is not validated by intercourse without intention, for the action with them holds the rank of speech with intention: this is Malik's view. Abu Hanifah, however, permitted the return by intercourse both with and without intention. As for ash-Shafi'i, he drew an analogy between the return and marriage: Allah commanded witnessing, and witnessing takes place only upon speech. As for the cause of the disagreement between Malik and Abu Hanifah: Abu Hanifah holds the revocably divorced woman lawful for intercourse, by analogy with the female slave freed and the woman of zhihar, ownership not having been severed in his view: hence their mutual inheritance. In Malik's view, intercourse with the revocably divorced woman is unlawful so long as he has not taken her back: intention is therefore required of him. Such are their disagreements over the conditions of the return's validity » (1).
References: Al-Mabsut (6/22); Bada'i' as-sana'i' (3/183); Al-Hidayah (2/6); Al-Jawharah an-nayyirah (4/476, 478); Al-'Inayah (5/396-398); Sharh Fath al-Qadir (3/198); Al-Ikhtiyar (3/181-182); Al-Lubab (2/98); Mukhtasar al-Wiqayah (1/405); Al-Mudawwanah al-kubra (5/324); At-Taj wa-l-iklil (3/116); Sharh mukhtasar Khalil (4/81); Ash-Sharh al-kabir with the hashiyah of ad-Dasuqi (3/329-330); Tahbir al-Mukhtasar (3/226); Al-Mughni (7/404); Al-Kafi (3/229); Al-Mubdi' (7/393); Al-Insaf (9/154-156); Kashshaf al-qina' (5/398); Sharh Muntaha al-iradat (5/508-509); Ar-Rawd al-murbi' (2/412); Al-Umm (5/244); Al-Bayan (10/247); Rawdat at-talibin (5/528); Kinz ar-raghibin (4/8); An-Najm al-wahhaj (8/11); Maghni al-muhtaj (5/7); Tuhfat al-muhtaj (9/599); Ad-Dibaj (3/481); Rawdat at-talibin (5/533); Kinz ar-raghibin (4/15); An-Najm al-wahhaj (8/17-18); Maghni al-muhtaj (5/12); Tuhfat al-muhtaj (9/607-608); Nihayat al-muhtaj (7/72-73); Ad-Dibaj (3/485-486); Al-Istidhkar (6/162); Tafsir al-Qurtubi (3/121-122); Bidayat al-mujtahid (2/64).
The people of knowledge agreed upon the legality of witnessing the return, by His word: « When they reach their term, retain them honorably or release them honorably, and have two just witnesses from among you testify » (Surah At-Talaq, 2). Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge: the Sunnah is witnessing » (1). The witnessing consists of saying to two men among the Muslims: « Testify that I have taken back my wife into my marriage, or for the divorce that befell her », or any speech of that meaning; neither guardian, nor appointed witnesses, nor dower is required therein.
The jurists disagreed over the status of witnessing the return: is it recommended, or obligatory and a condition? The majority of Hanafi and Maliki jurists (in the famous view), Shafi'is (in the later one, which is the madhhab) and Hanbalis (of the madhhab) hold that witnessing the return is recommended, not obligatory: whoever takes her back without witnessing has a valid return. Their proofs: (1) the generality of the texts concerning the return, unrestricted by witnessing: « retain them honorably or release them honorably » (Surah At-Talaq, 2), « And their husbands have a better right to take them back » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 228), « or a retention with kindness » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 229), « no blame shall fall upon the two of them should they return » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 230): witnessing is mentioned nowhere therein. (2) The Prophet's word (peace be upon him) to Umar: « Order him to return to her », with no order of witnessing: were it a condition, he would have commanded it. (3) The return requires no guardian: it therefore requires no witnesses, like sale and gift; the reverse holds for marriage. (4) The separation was his right and took place without witnessing, since another's consent is not needed; the return being likewise his right, it must take place without witnessing. (5) The return is the perpetuation of the marriage, and witnessing is not a condition for the marriage's perpetuation: Allah named the return "keeping", which prevents the one who removes it from acting after the expiry of the period: witnessing is therefore not a condition therein, like the fay' in the ila'. (6) The meaning of the witnessing verse, which is His word: « When they reach their term, retain them honorably or release them honorably, and have two just witnesses from among you testify » (Surah At-Talaq, 2), is recommendation: Allah joined the return and the separation and commanded witnessing upon both; witnessing upon the separation being recommended and not obligatory, the same applies to the return; it is the counterpart of His word: « and call to witness when you contract a transaction » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 282): sale is valid without witnessing: the same applies to the return. (7) Witnessing the return is recommended as a precaution against denial and persistence in situations of suspicion; for people know his divorce without restriction: without witnessing the return, he would be suspected of remaining with her. (8) The jurists agree that the separation mentioned in the verse designates leaving her until her 'iddah expires, and that the separation is valid even without witnessing, which may follow: witnessing is mentioned after the separation without being a condition of its validity: the same applies to the return. (9) Allah commanded witnessing upon the keeping or the separation as a precaution and to remove suspicion, when the divorce is known but not the return, or when the divorce and the separation are unknown; the precaution is not confined to the moment of the return or the separation: it persists after; the ruling on the two must not differ whether he testifies an hour or two after the return. Al-Jassas (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « We know of no disagreement among the people of knowledge over the validity of the return without witnesses, except a thing reported from Ata': Sufyan reported from Ibn Jurayj that Ata' said: divorce, marriage and the return take place by testimonial proof. This is understood as a command to witness as a precaution against denial, not as the invalidity of the return without witnesses: do you not see that he mentions divorce along with it, while no one doubts the validity of divorce without proof? » (10) Allah said « and call to witness » with nothing imposing comparison to the return: if he witnesses after the return, he has fulfilled the verse's requirement; witnessing after the return being recommended by agreement, the same applies at the moment of the return, as a precaution against joining the literal and figurative senses in a single formula. On this basis, if he witnesses and instructs the witnesses to conceal the return, it is valid, witnessing not being required (1).
The early Shafi'is, Imam Ahmad (in one narration) and the Malikis (in one view) hold that witnessing the return is obligatory and a condition of the return's validity, by the apparent sense of His word: « retain them honorably or release them honorably and have two just witnesses from among you testify » (Surah At-Talaq, 2): He commanded witnessing upon the return, and command implies obligation; the return being the authorization of an intended enjoyment, testimony is a condition therein, like marriage. If he takes her back without testimony, it is not valid: the existence of testimony in the return is what counts, not its acknowledgment, unless he intends by it the return, and it is then valid. According to this narration among the Hanbalis: if the husband instructs the witnesses to conceal the return, it lapses. Abu Bakr reported in Ash-Shafi' with his chain from Khallas: « A man divorced his wife publicly, took her back secretly and ordered the two witnesses to conceal the return; they brought the dispute before Ali, who flogged the two witnesses, accused them, and granted him no return over her » (a weak report: Qatadah is a mudallis in its chain, and the hadith of Khallas ibn Amr about Ali belongs to his book without his having heard it; his version is likely mursal) (1) (2).
References: Ahkam al-Qur'an of al-Jassas (5/350-351); Al-Mabsut (6/19); Mukhtasar al-Wiqayah (1/406); Tibyin al-haqa'iq (2/252); Al-Ikhtiyar (3/182); Al-Jawharah an-nayyirah (4/478-479); Al-Lubab (2/98-99); At-Taj wa-l-iklil (3/123); Sharh mukhtasar Khalil (4/87); Ash-Sharh al-kabir with the hashiyah of ad-Dasuqi (3/341); Tahbir al-Mukhtasar (3/236); Hashiyat as-Sawi (5/438); Al-Bayan (10/249-250); Rawdat at-talibin (5/527); An-Najm al-wahhaj (8/10); Maghni al-muhtaj (5/6); Tuhfat al-muhtaj (9/598); Nihayat al-muhtaj (7/67); Ad-Dibaj (3/480); Al-Mughni (7/403); Al-Kafi (3/228); Sharh az-Zarkashi (2/488); Al-Mubdi' (7/392); Al-Insaf (9/152); Kashshaf al-qina' (5/397); Sharh Muntaha al-iradat (5/507); Ar-Rawd al-murbi' (2/411); Matalib uli an-nuha (5/479); Al-Muhalla of Ibn Hazm (10/24); Manar as-sabil (3/122).
The Hanafis (against Zufar), the Malikis and the Shafi'is hold that it is not permitted for the husband to travel with his revocably divorced wife before taking her back, by His word: « Do not expel them from their homes » (Surah At-Talaq, 1), a verse revealed concerning the women in 'iddah from a revocable divorce; for she is in 'iddah, and the woman in 'iddah is prevented from undertaking travel with her husband as with a mahram; moreover her 'iddah may end on the road, and she would remain without mahram or husband (1). Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « As for traveling with her, Zufar said it is lawful for him to travel with her before the return; according to the view of the three companions, it is not lawful, not because of the ownership's disappearance, but because she is in 'iddah, regarding which Allah said: "Do not expel them from their homes, nor should they leave, unless they commit a clear indecency" (Surah At-Talaq, 1): He forbade the men to expel them and the women to leave. The husband lifts the 'iddah by the return, the inviolability disappears, then he travels » (2).
The Hanafi and Hanbali jurists affirmed that the wife divorced revocably may adorn herself for her husband. The Hanafis: the woman in 'iddah from a revocable divorce adorns herself for her husband and looks out for him if he is expected to take her back; for she is lawful for him, the marriage subsisting between them, the return being recommended, and adornment invites it. If she knows he will not take her back, because of his great anger, she does not do so; and if it is his habit not to take her back, it is better that he signal his entry by clearing his throat or tapping his sandal; for entering upon her is not lawful in itself: the woman, in her house, wears work clothes; he might see her undressed, his gaze might fall upon a spot that would make him take her back, then he would divorce her, and the 'iddah would be lengthened upon her; Allah forbade that by His word: « And do not retain them to harm them » (Surah Al-Baqarah, 231), a verse revealed concerning Thabit ibn Yasar al-Ansari: « he divorced his wife; while her 'iddah was about to end, within a day or two, and she was almost free of him, he took her back then divorced her, and did so until seven months passed over her, to harm her »; it is disliked that he see her undressed if he has no intention of return (1). At-Tahawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « Regarding revocable divorce: are adornment and perfume forbidden? Our companions said: there is no problem with that. Bishr ibn al-Walid reported from Abu Yusuf: nothing prevents the divorced woman from looking out, perfuming herself and wearing jewelry if it is a revocable divorce. He said: he enters upon her only with permission. He said: he has another view: he enters upon her without permission, but he will clear his throat and tap his sandal; he may look at her hair and her private parts, and he looks at nothing unlawful of her until his return to her is attested » (1).
The Hanbalis: the revocably divorced wife may adorn herself for her husband as women adorn themselves for their husbands, given her lawfulness for him as before the divorce; and she may look out for him by presenting herself to him and letting herself be seen, so that he desires her (2). The Malikis and the Shafi'is hold that she may not adorn herself for her husband, for enjoyment of her is forbidden to him in every manner. The Malikis: enjoyment of the revocably divorced woman is forbidden before the return, by looking or otherwise, by seeing her hair and secluding with her; for divorce is the opposite of marriage, which is the cause of lawfulness, and an opposite does not subsist with the presence of its opposite; he does not speak with her and does not enter upon her, even with a keeper; he does not eat with her, even with a keeper; and he does not speak with her even intending the return, until he takes her back: a strict measure so that they not conspire and he have intercourse with her. There is no harm in seeing her face and hands without desire, by agreement, the stranger himself being entitled to it; he may dwell with her in a house shared by her and the people, even if he is alone; but seclusion with her and dwelling with her are not permitted. Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « The one who divorces his wife with a divorce leaving the return takes no pleasure in her by a look or otherwise, does not eat with her, does not see her hair and is not alone with her »; he used to say: « nothing prevents entering upon her and eating with her if there is a keeper »; then he retracted and said: « let him not do so ». Al-Iyad said: « Its apparent sense is the prohibition of taking pleasure in her in every situation » (1). Al-Mudawwanah al-kubra reports: « I said: what do you think of the thrice-divorced woman, or one divorced once without return, or once with return, when there is only one house for her and her husband, the one in which they lived? He answered: Malik said: he moves away from her, without being with her in her room, which she would close upon the two of them; the irrevocably divorced and the one with return are equal in this. Malik said: if it is a shared house, nothing prevents his being with her in the house, she in one dwelling and he in another; Malik said: Abdallah ibn Amr and Urwah ibn az-Zubayr moreover moved away. Sahnun reported from Ibn Wahb from Ibn Lahí'ah that Yazid ibn Abi Habib reported to him that Umar ibn al-Khattab sent word to the woman concerning her divorce, without entering upon her until he had taken her back. Rabi'ah said: he moves away from her and leaves her in her house: a lock must not take hold of them both; and he enters upon her only with permission, for a need; if maintenance is due to him during her 'iddah, it falls to him to move out of her place » (1).
The Shafi'is: enjoyment of the revocable wife is unlawful, likewise touching her and looking at her, with or without desire, and all enjoyments; for marriage renders intercourse lawful, and divorce renders it unlawful as its opposite, and she is like the irrevocably divorced woman (2). Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « They agreed that the woman divorced with a divorce leaving her husband the right of return does not leave her house... As for the hadith of Ibn Umar, which Malik reported from Nafi': Abdallah ibn Umar had divorced a wife lodging in the dwelling of Hafsah, wife of the Prophet (peace be upon him), which was on his way to the mosque; he therefore took the other road, behind the houses, out of scruple at having to ask her permission, until he took her back: this belongs to his scrupulous piety. Others ordered the revocably divorced woman to adorn herself, to look out for her husband and to present herself to him; this is reported from several jurists among the Successors. Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "let her look out for him". Ibn Abbas said: "it is not fitting that he see her hair". Ubaydullah ibn Umar reported from Nafi' from Ibn Umar: "he divorced his wife once or twice and used to seek permission to enter upon her", according to Abu Bakr from Abdah ibn Sulayman from Ubaydullah. Ma'mar reported from az-Zuhri that Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said: "when a man divorces his wife once, he seeks permission to enter upon her; she wears whatever clothes and jewelry she wishes; if they have only one house, let them place a curtain between them, and he greets when entering." Az-Zuhri and Qatadah said, regarding the man who divorces his wife once or twice: "let her look out for him". Ibrahim said: he is not with her in her house and enters upon her only with permission. Al-Hasan, Mujahid, Ata' and Qatadah said: he signals his presence by clearing his throat, spitting and the like. Malik, regarding the revocably divorced woman: no seclusion, entry only with permission, looking at her only when clothed, no looking at her hair, eating with her permitted if others than they are present, no night with her, and he does not move out from her. Ibn al-Qasim said: Malik retracted that and said: he does not enter upon her, does not see her hair and does not eat with her. Ath-Thawri said: nothing prevents her looking out for him, adorning herself and greeting; he does not ask permission to enter and does not have a third announce him; he signals himself by clearing his throat; he sees neither her hair nor anything unlawful: this is Abu Yusuf's view. Al-Awza'i said: he enters upon her only with permission; she looks out for him, adorns herself and bares her hands and her kohl-lined eyes. Abu Hanifah said: nothing prevents the revocably divorced woman from adorning herself for her husband and perfuming herself. Abu Yusuf said once: he enters upon her without permission, clearing his throat and tapping his sandal; another time: he enters upon her only with permission, and sees none of her charms until he takes her back. Abu Hanifah and his companions do not disagree: she adorns herself for him, perfumes herself, wears jewelry and looks out. Al-Hasan ibn Hayy said: he keeps apart from her, does not see her hair and does not look at her; between them a veil; she presents herself to him and adorns herself. Al-Layth said: he sees none of her charms until he takes her back » (1).
Imam Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « They disagreed over what the husband may see of the revocably divorced woman so long as she is in the 'iddah. Malik said: no seclusion, entry only with her permission, no looking at her hair, and eating with her permitted if someone other than they is present. Ibn al-Qasim reported that he retracted the permission to eat with her. Abu Hanifah said: nothing prevents the revocably divorced woman from adorning herself for her husband, perfuming herself for him, looking out and baring her hands and her kohl-lined eyes; ath-Thawri, Abu Yusuf and al-Awza'i said this; all of them said: he enters upon her only on condition that she know of his entry by a word or a movement, a clearing of the throat or a tapping of the sandal » (1). Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: « As for seclusion: if he intends the return, he is not blamed; if he does not intend to take her back, he is blamed, not because of the marriage's disappearance and the lifting of lawfulness, but so as not to harm her: without the will to realize the marriage through the return, as soon as he is alone with her, a contact of desire may occur: he becomes a returning husband, then divorces her a second time, which lengthens the 'iddah and harms her; this is the meaning of His word: "And do not retain them to harm them" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 231). The same applies to the division: were it established, he would be alone with her, leading to the foregoing if he does not wish to take her back; if he intends to take her back, the division belongs to him and seclusion with her is permitted to him » (2).
References: Al-Mabsut (6/34); Mukhtasar ikhtilaf al-'ulama (2/383-384); Al-Jawharah an-nayyirah (4/486); Sharh Fath al-Qadir (4/174-175); At-Taj wa-l-iklil (3/120); Ash-Sharh al-kabir with the hashiyah of ad-Dasuqi (3/338); Al-Hawi al-kabir (10/309); Rawdat at-talibin (5/525); Bada'i' as-sana'i' (3/180); Al-Muhit al-Burhani (4/16); Al-Jawharah an-nayyirah (4/484-486); Mukhtasar ikhtilaf al-'ulama (2/383); Al-Mughni (8/125); Al-Kafi (3/229); Kashshaf al-qina' (5/398); Sharh Muntaha al-iradat (5/508); At-Taj wa-l-iklil (3/120); Sharh mukhtasar Khalil (4/85-86); Ash-Sharh al-kabir with the hashiyah of ad-Dasuqi (3/338); Tahbir al-Mukhtasar (3/233); Hashiyat as-Sawi (5/435); Al-Mudawwanah al-kubra (4/188); Al-Bayan (10/245); Rawdat at-talibin (5/533); Kinz ar-raghibin (4/15); An-Najm al-wahhaj (8/17); Maghni al-muhtaj (5/12); Tuhfat al-muhtaj (9/607-608); Nihayat al-muhtaj (7/72-73); Ad-Dibaj (3/485-486); Al-Istidhkar (6/160-162); Bidayat al-mujtahid (2/64); Bada'i' as-sana'i' (3/180).