Islamic Fiqh > Marriage and family > Talak (divorce): definition and forms > The allusive formulas: the Hanafi classification
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 3:23 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The Hanafis say: the allusions are of two categories. The first comprises three formulas that produce the revocable repudiation and produce only one repudiation: "complete your waiting period", "wait to establish the purity of your womb" and "you are a single one". "Complete your waiting period" indeed bears preparing oneself from marriage and preparing oneself by Allah's graces, so it requires intention; "wait to establish the purity of your womb" bears "because I repudiated you" and bears "I wish to repudiate you"; "you are a single one" bears the attribute of an implied verbal noun, "a single repudiation", and bears "you are unique among your people".
The rest of the allusions, if he forms the intention to repudiate through them, produce an irrevocable repudiation: all the allusions are irrevocable except those three formulas; if he intends three, they are three, for irrevocability is divided into the strong and the weak: sometimes separation occurs through a single repudiation, sometimes through three, and what he intends occurs; if he intends two, only one occurs, the intention of two not being valid. Such are "you are separated", "a rupture", "you are a rupture", "you are forbidden", "your girth is on your shoulder", "join your family", "you are freed of me", "you are quit" and others: these formulas bear repudiation and other things, intention is therefore necessary.
"You are separated" bears separation from marriage and separation from debt; "rupture" is the act of cutting, it bears the cutting of marriage and the cutting of generosity and goodness, and "you are a rupture" stands for "rupture"; "you are forbidden" bears repudiation and the oath; "your girth is on your shoulder" bears "because you have separated from me" and bears "you do not obey me"; "join your family" bears "because I repudiated you" and bears visiting her family; "you are freed of me" bears deliverance from marriage, from goodness and from occupation; "you are quit" bears deliverance from marriage and from debt.
"And I make you a gift to your family", whether they accept it or not, bears "I make you a gift to them because you have separated from me" and bears the gift of the eye; according to Abu Hanifah, if he says "I make you a gift to your family, your father, your mother or the spouses", it is a repudiation if he forms the intention, for she goes to them through repudiation and the spouses own her after repudiation; if he says "I make you a gift to your brother, your paternal uncle, your maternal uncle or to so-and-so the unrelated man", it is not a repudiation, for she does not go to them through repudiation.
"I have freed you" and "I have parted from you" are two allusions, for they are employed in repudiation and elsewhere: one says "I freed my camels" and "I parted from my friend"; "I have freed you" bears freeing through repudiation and freeing for my needs; "I have parted from you" bears repudiation and parting through my body. "You are free" indicates forbiddance and bears her being a freedwoman; "cover yourself" bears "because you are repudiated" and bears covering the nakedness, like "veil yourself"; "become a stranger" bears "because you have separated from me" and bears "you do not obey me", like "keep far" which means "withdraw and go far away", according to Allah's saying: "Not an atom's weight escapes your Lord" (Surah Yunus, 61), distance ('uzub) being remoteness and departure. "Seek other husbands" bears "because I repudiated you" and bears removing her from him.
Among the allusions also: "go out", "go away", "stand up", "marry whom you wish", "depart", "move away", "there is no marriage between you and me", "I have no claim over you", "I have no marriage over you": if he intends repudiation by them, it is a repudiation, otherwise not. If he says "I am quit of your marriage", repudiation occurs if he forms the intention; if he says "I am quit of your repudiation", nothing occurs, for innocence from a thing is abandoning it and turning away from it, and one who turns away from repudiation is not a repudiator, while one who turns away from marriage is a repudiator. If he says "take your repudiation" and she says "I have taken it", she is repudiated; if he says to her "may Allah repudiate you" or says to his slave girl "may Allah free you", repudiation and manumission occur, whether he intends them or not. If he says "all the women of the world are repudiated", his wife is repudiated, and his claim that he did not mean her is not accepted from him in court.
If he says "you are not my wife" or "you are not a wife to me", it is a repudiation according to Abu Hanifah, likewise "I am not your husband"; and if he is asked "do you have a wife?" and answers "no", if he forms the intention to repudiate, it is a repudiation according to Abu Hanifah. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad say that none of that is a repudiation, whether he intends it or not: the denial of marriage is a lie and produces nothing, like "I did not marry you". They all agree that if he says "by Allah, you are not my wife" or "I am not, by Allah, your husband", nothing occurs even if he intends it: the oath bearing the negation encompasses the past, he is a liar in the oath, and nothing occurs; indeed, having reinforced the negation with the oath makes it an information and not a production of effect, the oath reinforcing only report, and report does not produce repudiation: likewise "I repudiated you yesterday" produces nothing if he did not repudiate her yesterday.
If he says "I have no more need of you" forming the intention to repudiate, it is not a repudiation; if he says "go, be free", or "I have dissolved the marriage between you and me", forming the intention to repudiate, it is a repudiation. Without intention, no repudiation occurs through the preceding formulas, unless he is in the midst of discussing repudiation, that is, she demands from him her repudiation or the repudiation of another wife: repudiation then occurs in court, but not between him and Allah, unless he forms the intention. For in the midst of discussion of repudiation, every formula indicating separation produces the effect in court, such as "you are forbidden", "your affair is in your hands", "choose", "complete your waiting period", "you are freed of me", "you are quit", "you are separated": these formulas, issued in answer to her demand for repudiation, are a repudiation outwardly; they do not occur between him and Allah because they bear the answer and bear initiative, and nothing occurs except through intention.
If they do not occur amid discussion of repudiation but in anger or quarrel, repudiation occurs through every formula not intended as an insult, such as "complete your waiting period", "choose", "your affair is in your hands": these formulas do not suit insult but bear separation, and the state of anger is the state of separation, the apparent of his speech being therefore separation. In sum: the allusions are of three categories: the allusions, the indicators and the delegations.
The allusions are: "you are forbidden", "you are separated", "a rupture", "you are a rupture", "you are freed of me", "you are quit", "complete your waiting period", "wait to establish the purity of your womb": if he utters them amid discussion of repudiation and says "I did not intend repudiation", he is not believed; if he utters them with satisfaction, if he intends repudiation it occurs, otherwise not, and he is believed when he says he did not intend repudiation; if he utters them in anger, he is believed in five formulas that he did not intend repudiation: "you are forbidden", "you are separated", "a rupture", "you are freed of me" and "you are quit", for they suit insult: "separated" bears debt, "rupture" generosity, "freed" goodness, "quit" religion, "forbidden" having relations with you; the state being the state of insult, the apparent is that he meant that and not repudiation.
The indicators are: "go away", "stand up", "veil yourself", "cover yourself", "go out", "join your family", "your girth is on your shoulder", "there is no marriage between you and me" and the like: if he forms the intention to repudiate, the irrevocable repudiation occurs; if he intends three, they are three; if he forms no intention, it is not a repudiation, whether with satisfaction, in anger or amid discussion of repudiation. The delegations are "your affair is in your hands" and "choose": in anger, he is believed neither in the delegations nor in the revocable allusions; that is, he is not believed in the delegations when she answers "I have chosen myself" or "I repudiated myself": her saying "I have chosen myself" produces an irrevocable repudiation, her saying "I repudiated myself" a revocable repudiation (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 3/105, 108 ; al-Hidayah 1/241-242 ; al-Jawharah an-Nayyirah 4/403, 411 ; al-Ikhtiyar 3/165, 168 ; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 2/215, 217 ; al-'Inayah 5/272, 275 ; Mukhtasar al-Wiqayah 1/393-394 ; al-Lubab 2/79, 82 ; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 3/296).
The Malikis say: the allusion divides into apparent allusion and hidden allusion. The apparent allusion is that whose customary usage is repudiation through it in the Law or in the language, like the formula of freeing and separation, "you are separated", "a rupture" or "you are a rupture" and the like: its ruling is the ruling of the explicit formula. The apparent allusion has several types.
The first type: a single repudiation binds unless he intends more, in the case of the wife with whom the marriage has been consummated, and it is the formula "complete your waiting period": if he says it to his consummated wife, a single repudiation binds unless he intends more, what he intended then binding; as for the wife with whom it has not been consummated, she has no waiting period, and "complete your waiting period" with regard to her belongs to the hidden allusions. The second type: three repudiations bind in absolute terms, upon the consummated wife as upon the other, through these two formulas only: "you are a rupture" (the act of cutting: as if he had cut the marital bond between them) and "your girth is on your shoulder" (the girth designating the bond: if he throws it on her shoulder, nothing remains for him over her in absolute terms). It is as if his wife had bought the bond from her husband, saying "sell me your bond for a hundred", and he sold it to her: she then repudiates three times, whether he consummated or not.
The third type: three repudiations bind upon the consummated wife, one upon the other, unless he intends more, and these are three formulas. The first: "you are repudiated with a single irrevocable repudiation": on account of the word "irrevocable", for irrevocability after consummation without compensation is realized only through three, so the three bind, and no account is taken of the word "single": either because it is the attribute of an implied "once" ("a single time"), as indicated by "irrevocable" that follows it, or because precautions are taken for the private parts unlike others, the word "irrevocable" being considered and the word "single" voided. The second: intending the single irrevocable repudiation through "I have freed your way" or any other apparent allusion. The third: "enter, go away, depart" and the other hidden allusions: three bind upon the consummated wife, a single one upon the other unless he intends more; it is preferable to intend the single irrevocable repudiation through the explicit formula of repudiation: if he says to her "you are repudiated" intending the single irrevocable, the three bind upon the consummated wife only, unless he intends more, for intending irrevocability is like the other intentions.
The fourth type: three repudiations bind upon the consummated wife as upon the other, unless he intends less, and these are the formulas "like carrion" and "like blood": whoever says to his wife "you are to me like carrion, like blood or like the flesh of swine", "I make you a gift to your family", "I return you", "I have no bond over you", "you are forbidden or freed for your family (from the husband)", "you are quit or separated (from me)", "I have no bond over you", "you are separated", "I am separated from you", "I am freed, quit or separated": the three bind upon the consummated wife as upon the other, unless he intends less, what he intended then binding; and he must swear, if he wants to marry her, that he intended only the less, not if he did not intend it. Some of these formulas ("freed of me", "quit", "your girth on your shoulder", "like blood and carrion") impose what is mentioned only if usage runs through them; if their employment in repudiation has ceased among the people, as is now the case, they belong to the hidden allusions: if he intends repudiation by them, it binds, otherwise not.
The fifth type: three repudiations bind in absolute terms, whether he consummated or not, unless he intends less than three, like "I have freed your way": the three bind whether he forms the intention or none; if he intends less, what he intended binds, upon the consummated wife as upon the other; if he intends the single irrevocable, the three bind upon the consummated wife and a single one upon the other. The sixth type: the three bind upon the consummated wife only, and he intends the number for the other, like "my face is forbidden to your face", "my face upon your face is forbidden", "there is no marriage between you and me", "I have no ownership over you" or "I have no claim over you": the three bind upon the consummated wife only.
Except when it is for reproach: if it is reproach, nothing falls upon him, as when she does things contrary to his wish without his permission and he says that to her; reproach is an indication and a plainness of the absence of will to repudiate, like "how abominable" without intending repudiation, or "the lawful is forbidden", "the lawful is forbidden to me", "I have a forbiddance upon me", "all that I own is forbidden" without including the wife: nothing falls upon him; if he intends to include her, the three bind upon the consummated wife and the other, unless he intends less. The seventh type: a single repudiation binds unless he intends more, whether he consummated or not, like "I have parted from you": it is revocable upon the consummated wife.
All this holds so long as plainness and indications do not point to the absence of will to repudiate and so long as addressing by such a formula is not at all on the occasion of repudiation. He is believed in negating repudiation if a plainness indicates negation in all the apparent allusions as in the explicit formula: he is believed in his negation when the indications stand, as when repudiation reached her at her childbirth and he says "you are repudiated" to inform or to inquire, or she is restrained and she or another says to him "divorce me" and he answers "you are repudiated", and similar to what the state requires.
The second category is the hidden allusion: what can be employed for other than repudiation. The bearing allusion, such as "join your family", "go away", "keep far from me" and the like, imposes repudiation only if he forms the intention, and his declaration that he did not intend repudiation is accepted.
He intends, in the root of repudiation and in its number, in every hidden allusion that suggests the purpose of repudiating, such as "go away", "withdraw", "depart", "I did not marry"; or if he is asked "do you have a wife?" and answers "no"; or if he says to her "you are free", "you are manumitted" or "join your family": if he claims the absence of repudiation, he is believed; if he claims a number, one or more, he is believed; if he claims to have intended repudiation without intending a number, the three bind upon the consummated wife and the other. If he intends repudiation through a word like "give me to drink" or through a plain sound, it binds: it is hidden allusion according to the jurists, even if it is not employed bound to its meaning.
If he intends the articulation of repudiation and slips into something else by mistake, as if he wanted to say "you are repudiated" and his tongue turned into "you are standing", nothing binds: his pillar, the formula indicating it, or what replaces it together with his intention, is missing; he wanted to produce it through its formula and fell into something else. Likewise if he wants to utter the three and says "you are repudiated" then remains silent about uttering the three: what exceeds the single is not imposed on him, for he did not intend the three through "you are repudiated"; he wanted to utter the three, then their absence appeared to him and he remained silent about uttering them. As for one who wants to produce a single repudiation and says "you are repudiated three times", it is said that the three are imposed upon him in fatwa and in court: this is the view of Malik and Sahnun; as for one who wants to suspend the three by a condition and says "you are repudiated three times" then remains silent without bringing the condition, nothing falls upon him (al-Ishraf 3/420, 424 ; at-Taj wal-Iklil 3/59, 69 ; Mawahib al-Jalil 5/273, 277 ; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 4/43, 48 ; ash-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 3/267, 275 ; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 3/157, 165 ; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya 1/152 ; Hashiyat as-Sawi 'ala ash-Sharh as-Saghir 5/331, 343).
The Shafi'is say: the allusive formulas produce repudiation only with intention. They are numerous: "you are freed of me", "you are quit", "a rupture", "you are a rupture", "you are separated", "you are forbidden", "you are free", "you are a single one", "complete your waiting period", "wait to establish the purity of your womb", "join your family", "your girth is on your shoulder", "I do not tend your flock" (that is, I care nothing for your state), "become a stranger", "keep far", "go out", "go away", "travel", "keep away from me", "strip off", "cover yourself", "veil yourself", "take the road", "separate", "keep distant", "bid me farewell", "leave me", "I am quit of you", "I have no more need of you", "you and your state", "you are repudiated", "you are departing", "taste", "swallow", "provide for yourself" and the like: the criterion of allusion is any formula that indicates separation closely and whose employment in repudiation is not known, neither legally nor by usage.
The formulas that bear repudiation only through a far-fetched bearing have no effect and produce no repudiation even with intention, such as "may Allah bless you", "may Allah reward you well", "how beautiful is your face", "come", "draw near", "spin", "give me to drink", "feed me", "provide for me", "sit" and the like. If he says to his wife "you are free", "you are manumitted" or "I have manumitted you" intending repudiation, she is repudiated.
Repudiation is not the allusion of zihar nor the reverse, though they share the indication of forbiddance, for the effectuation of each in its locus is possible: this question belongs to the branches of the rule "what is explicit in its chapter and finds effect in its locus does not become the allusion of something else". If he says to his wife "you are to me like the back of my mother" intending repudiation, or "you are repudiated" intending zihar, what he intended does not occur: the purport of the explicit formula occurs. If he says to her "you are forbidden to me", "you are forbidden" or "I have forbidden you" intending repudiation, a revocable repudiation occurs; if he intends a number, what he intended occurs.
According to one view, it is not a repudiation if we consider the formula explicit for requiring expiation, the explicit formula that finds effect in its locus not turning to something else through intention; if he intends zihar by it, it is a zihar; if he intends both together, is it a zihar or a repudiation, or does he choose and what he chooses is established? Three views, the soundest being the third, and the two never combine categorically: repudiation removes the marriage and zihar requires its persistence. If he intends thereby the forbiddance of her person, of her private parts, of intercourse or of her head, she does not become forbidden to him, though it be disliked of him, according to what an-Nasa'i reported: a man asked Ibn Abbas: "I have made my wife forbidden to me." He said: "You have lied, she is not forbidden to you", then he recited: "O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you" and the verse; but the expiation of an oath is due from him, that is, its like, for that is not an oath: the oath is contracted only by one of Allah's names or one of His attributes, and its obligation does not depend on intercourse, as if he said that to his slave girl: it is drawn from the story of Mariyah, when the Messenger of Allah said to her "she is forbidden to me" and the word of Allah came down: "O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you" up to "Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths", that is, He imposed upon you an expiation like the expiation of oaths.
Likewise she does not become forbidden to him though it be disliked of him, and the expiation of an oath is due from him immediately, that is, its like, as has passed; this holds if he had no intention in his saying "you are forbidden to me" according to the more apparent view, by the generality of what has passed. According to the second view, this saying is vain and there is no expiation.
The allusion does not act by itself: the intention of repudiation is required, and the intention is attached to the formula; if it precedes and he then articulates without intention, or he completes the formula and then forms the intention, she is not repudiated. If the intention accompanies the beginning of the formula without its end, or the reverse, she is repudiated according to the sounder view. The allusion does not become explicit through the wife's demand for repudiation nor through the indication of anger and obstinacy. Whenever he utters an allusion and says "I did not intend", he is believed upon his oath; if he prevaricates, she swears and the occurrence of repudiation is ruled; it may happen that indications present themselves by which it is permitted to swear to their like. The intention of repudiation in the allusion must be concurrent with the formula.
The state of intention has four cases. The first: the intention precedes the whole formula, and repudiation does not occur, the intention being stripped of the formula and the formula stripped of the intention. The second: the intention follows the whole formula, and repudiation does not occur either. The example of both is the intention of prayer: if it precedes the state of consecration, it is not valid; if it follows it, it is not valid. The third: the intention concurrent with the whole formula, present from beginning to end: repudiation occurs through formula and intention together, not through either alone, though the formula predominates by its evidentness.
The fourth: the intention is found in part of the formula and absent in another, either at the beginning and not the end, or at the end and not the beginning, as if he says "you are separated" forming the intention at "you are se" and leaving it at "-parated", or the reverse. Two views on the occurrence of repudiation: the first is that the formula is not counted once intention is considered in it, its presence in a part being like its absence in the whole, like the intention in the takbir of consecration; the second, which is sounder, is that repudiation occurs: the presumptive continuation of intention through everything in which it is considered is not necessary, like prayer, whose continuation of intention throughout is not necessary. Al-Mawardi said: the sounder in my view is to examine the intention: if it is found at the beginning of the formula, repudiation occurs even if absent at the end, like prayer whose intention at the beginning allows its absence at the end; if the intention is found at the end of the formula and absent at the beginning, repudiation does not occur, like the intention at the end of prayer; for once the intention has been contracted with the beginning of the formula, the rest refers back to it, and if it is empty of its beginning, it is vain, what remains together with the intention being incomplete and exiting the allusions of repudiation. This detail is nearer to al-Shafi'i's text, for he said: "it is not a repudiation until he begins and intends thereby repudiation": he considered the intention at the beginning of the formula, and Allah knows best (al-Hawi al-Kabir 10/163-164 ; see al-Bayan 10/92, 96 ; Rawdat at-Talibin 5/327, 333 ; an-Najm al-Wahhaj 7/486, 491 ; Kanz ar-Raghibin 3/801, 803 ; Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/458, 461 ; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 9/340, 354 ; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 6/497, 503 ; ad-Dibaj al-Mudhahhab 3/403, 405).
The Hanbalis say: the allusions in repudiation are of two types, apparent and hidden. The apparent produces the three repudiations, for it is reported from Ali, Ibn Umar and Zayd (may Allah be pleased with them) in different events, and no opposing Companion is known: it is therefore a consensus; it is a formula that demands separation by repudiation, so the three occur as if he had repudiated three times, and its leading to separation is apparent, with no difference between the consummated wife and the other, the Companions not having made a distinction. Imam Ahmad disliked giving fatwa in the apparent allusions, because of the disagreement of the Companions, while inclining to the view that they amount to three repudiations.
From him also: what was intended occurs through the apparent allusion, according to what is reported: Rukanah ibn Abd Yazid had repudiated his wife Suhaymah by "rupture" (battah); he informed the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said: "By Allah, I intended only a single repudiation."
Rukanah ibn Abd Yazid repudiated his wife Suhaymah by a rupture; he informed the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said: "By Allah, I intended only a single repudiation." The Messenger of Allah said: "By Allah, did you intend only one?" He said: "By Allah, I intended only one." He returned her to him, and he repudiated her a second time in the time of Umar and a third time in the time of Uthman.Reported by al-Shafi'i in al-Umm (5/118, 137), by Abu Dawud (2206) and by al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (2808); a weak hadith
This hadith is weak, though al-Hakim said it is sound by this narration: Imam al-Shafi'i mastered it and memorized it from his family, Sa'ib ibn Abd Yazid being the father of ash-Shafi'i and the brother of Rukanah ibn Abd Yazid, and Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Shafi' the uncle of ash-Shafi'i, the shaykh of Quraysh in his era. The proof according to him is that the Prophet said to the daughter of Ja'un "join your family", while he did not repudiate three times.
According to this narration, if he does not come with the apparent allusion while forming the intention of repudiating a number, a single repudiation occurs, as with "you are repudiated"; and his declaration of what he intended by the apparent allusion is accepted in court, as is his declaration that he intended nothing, according to the second narration, which knows better his design, a single repudiation then binding.
Three repudiations occur in "you are repudiated by a separation", "you are repudiated by a rupture" or "you are repudiated without taking back", without need of intention, for he thereby described the explicit repudiation. If he says to his wife "you are repudiated once, irrevocably" or "once, by a rupture", a revocable repudiation occurs, for he described the single one by other than its description, which was voided; and "you are repudiated once, three times, or three times, once": the three occur.
As for the hidden allusion, a single repudiation occurs through it, for its purport is abandonment without separation, like the explicit formula of repudiation; the Prophet said to the daughter of Ja'un "join your family" without repudiating three times, and he forbade that; and he said to Sawdah "complete your waiting period", making it a single repudiation.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to the daughter of Ja'un: "Join your family."Reported by Bukhari (5254)
Sawdah's hadith is weak: reported by al-Bayhaqi (7/347). The three narrations of the Companions on the apparent allusions are: from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), judged hasan: reported by ad-Daraqutni (5/58), by Sa'id ibn Mansur in his Sunan (1/227, no 1679) and by al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (7/344); from Ibn Umar, judged sound: reported by Malik in the Muwatta (2/552, no 1152), by Abd al-Razzaq in al-Musannaf (6/358, no 11184), by Sa'id ibn Mansur (1/227, no 1678) and by al-Bayhaqi (7/344); from Zayd, judged hasan: reported by al-Bayhaqi (7/344), its chain containing Umar ibn Amir al-Basri, whom Ibn Adi described as a righteous shaykh, strengthened once by Ibn Ma'in and weakened another time, an-Nasa'i saying of him "he is not strong", that is, a weakness that does not spoil the hadith.
"Your girth is on your shoulder" means that the girth is at the front of the saddle: you are sent away, freed, neither held nor restrained by the knot of marriage. Also hidden are: "marry whom you wish", "you are lawful for the spouses", "I have no claim over you", "I have no authority over you", "I have manumitted you", "cover your hair", "cover yourself", "your affair is in your hands".
The hidden allusion is more concealed in its indication than the first: these are the formulas established for the single repudiation unless he intends more, such as "go out", "go away", "taste", "swallow", "I have freed your way", "you are freed" (repudiated, according to their saying "he freed my way"), "you are a single one" (isolated), "you are not my wife", "complete your waiting period", "wait to establish the purity of your womb" (from the purification of urine), "keep apart" (remain alone on one side), "join your family", "I have no more need of you", "nothing remains", "may Allah pardon you", "Allah has already given you rest from me", "choose", "the pen has run", and by the words of separation and freeing and their derivatives, except what was excluded in the explicit formula.
Ibn Aqil said: "Allah has already repudiated you" is a hidden allusion, likewise "Allah has separated between you and me in this world and the hereafter". Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was consulted about a man who said to his wife: "If you declare me innocent, you are repudiated." She said: "May Allah declare you innocent of what women claim against men." He believed that she was declaring him innocent and repudiated her. Ibn Taymiyyah said he is declared innocent of what women claim against men if she is of sound judgment.
These three questions ("Allah has already repudiated you", "Allah has separated between you and me in this world and the hereafter", "may Allah declare you innocent") have the same ruling; their parallel is "Allah has already sold you" in obliging the sale, or "He has already released you" in release, and similar "Allah has already hired you or made you a gift"; the preceding declaration of innocence is valid even if she did not know what she declared him innocent of.
The allusion, even the apparent one, produces no repudiation so long as he does not intend it, for the allusion, its rank being below the explicit formula, has its action suspended upon the intention of repudiation to strengthen it; it is a formula bearing another meaning than repudiation, so it is not fixed for it without intention. The intention must be concurrent with the formula of the allusion: if he utters the allusion and then forms the intention to repudiate through it afterwards, nothing occurs, like one who forms the intention of purity through ablution before finishing it. According to one view, it suffices that it accompany its beginning: if it accompanies the second part of the allusion without the first, repudiation does not occur, what remains being unable to produce the effect after the first part came without intention; if it is found at the beginning and absent in the rest, it occurs.
Or he comes with the allusion accompanied by what stands in place of the intention of repudiation, as in quarrel, anger or answer to her question to repudiate him: repudiation then occurs from one who comes with an allusion, even without intention, for the indication of the state is like intention, since it changes the ruling of words and deeds: "O chaste one, son of the chaste one" in a state of veneration is praise, and in a state of insult it is blame and slander. One who claims in these states, quarrel, anger and demand for repudiation, that he did not intend repudiation or intended something else, is held accountable between him and Allah, his truth being possible, but it is not accepted from him in court, for it contradicts what the state indicates.
The formulas that do not indicate repudiation, such as "eat, drink, sit, stand up", "may Allah bless you", "you are beautiful" or "you are ugly", produce no repudiation even with intention, for they do not bear repudiation; had repudiation occurred through them, it would occur through mere intention, which is already excluded. Likewise "I am repudiated", "I am repudiated of you", "I am separated of you", "I am forbidden of you" or "I am quit of you": no repudiation binds even with intention, for it is a locus to which repudiation is not attached through intention, what is fixed for him (al-Mughni 7/297, 302 ; al-Kafi 3/171 ; ash-Sharh al-Kabir 8/285, 287 ; Sharh az-Zarkashi 2/468, 470 ; al-Mubdi' 7/275, 279 ; al-Insaf 8/475, 480 ; Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/287, 291 ; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 5/384, 385 ; Matalib Uli an-Nuha 5/349, 352).
The jurists differ over the man's saying to his wife "you are forbidden to me": is it a repudiation, a zihar, an oath whose expiation is due, or nothing of all that, or does it follow his intention?
The Hanafis hold that the formulas "you are forbidden to me", "I have forbidden you to myself", "I am forbidden to you", "I have forbidden myself to you" or "you are forbidden (muharramah) to me" are all equivalent: he is asked his intention, for he has uttered a vague word bearing several meanings, and the speaker's word is referred to his design, which is known only from him. If he says "I intended repudiation", it is an irrevocable repudiation, unless he intends three: they are then three; if he intends one, one; if he intends two, an irrevocable one, "forbidden" being an allusion to which one reverts through his intention.
If he says "I intended zihar", it is a zihar according to Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf, for he described her by forbiddance and zihar is a type of forbiddance; the absolute is referred to the specified when he forms the intention, the woman being sometimes forbidden through repudiation and sometimes through zihar: whichever of the two he intends, he intended what his word bears and he is believed. Muhammad says it is not a zihar, for want of comparison with the forbidden relatives: zihar is a comparison of the lawful to the forbidden, and comparison requires a particle of comparison which is absent.
If he says "I intended forbiddance" or "I intended nothing", it is an oath that makes him a man bound by an oath of estrangement: the original in forbidding the lawful is the oath. If he says "I intended forbiddance", he intended the oath; if he says "I intended nothing", he is not believed in court, for the apparent is the oath; the oath being established, he becomes thus bound, to the point that if he leaves her four months, she separates irrevocably, the original in forbidding the lawful being the oath. If he says "I intended the lie", it is nothing and so it is: it is not an ila, for he intended the literal meaning of his words; that is between him and Allah, but in court he is not believed and it is an oath, for the apparent is that forbiddance in the Law is an oath.
Allah said: "O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you" up to "Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths": the verse, it is said, came down concerning the forbidding of his bondwoman Mariyah the Copt when he said "she is forbidden to me", and Allah named that an oath through "Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths", that is, Allah gave you latitude or permitted you to make lawful what is forbidden to you by oath, through the expiation; in some readings: "the expiation of your oaths". The address is general, encompassing the Messenger of Allah and his bondwoman; the expiation of the oath requires the existence of the oath, which proves that this formula is an oath in the Law: if he intends by it the lie, he is not believed in court in annulling the oath, for he turned away from the apparent.
In al-Lubab: some of the early masters turn the formula of forbiddance into repudiation without intention, because of the ruling of usage; Imam al-Mahbubi said this is what is given fatwa upon. Najm al-A'immah said: our later companions hold that "the lawful is forbidden to me", "you are forbidden to me", "the lawful of Allah is forbidden to me" or "every lawful thing is forbidden to me" is an irrevocable repudiation that needs no intention, on account of usage; they answered Muhammad's saying ("if he intends an oath, it is an oath and his wife enters it only through intention, and it concerns food and drink") that this accords with the usage of their lands, whereas in the usage of our lands they intend the forbidding of the wife with whom the marriage has been consummated, and it is referred to that. In Mukhtarat an-Nawazil: the later ones said repudiation occurs through it without intention, by the predominance of customary usage, and the fatwa is upon it, so that only men swear by it. Among the formulas employed in our Egypt and our countryside: "repudiation is binding upon me", "the forbidden is binding upon me", "upon me is repudiation", "upon me is the forbidden", as in at-Tashih (al-Lubab 2/111, 113 ; al-Mabsut 6/270, 272 ; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha 2/197 ; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 3/167, 169 ; al-Hidayah 2/13 ; al-'Inayah 5/362, 363 ; al-Jawharah an-Nayyirah 4/510, 512 ; Ikhtilaf al-'ulama' 1/198).
The Malikis hold that the man who says to his wife "you are forbidden to me" causes her to be repudiated with three repudiations, and he is not asked his intention, according to what Malik reported in the Muwatta: Ali ibn Abi Talib used to say, concerning the man who says to his wife "you are forbidden to me", that it is three repudiations. Malik said: "It is the best of what I have heard on this" (al-Muwatta 2/552). If he says it before consummating the marriage, she is repudiated by three, unless he says "I intended a single repudiation" according to Malik; Abd al-Aziz ibn Abi Salamah said she is repudiated by one unless he says "I intended three repudiations"; Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun said he forms no intention and they are three in every state, upon the consummated wife as upon the other.
Al-Mudawwanah reports: if he says to his wife "you are forbidden to me", he is asked neither intention nor anything else according to Malik, and they are three absolutely if the marriage has been consummated. If he says "I did not intend repudiation by it, I intended by this word the zihar", Malik heard regarding one who says "you are repudiated by a rupture" claiming to have intended a single repudiation that it is not accepted from him: people are taken by what their tongues have uttered in the matter of repudiation. Ibn al-Qasim said that "the forbidden" with Malik is a repudiation and no one is held religiously accountable in the forbidden as one is not in the repudiation. If he intends one or two repudiations: if the marriage has been consummated, they are the absolute (three) and his intention is worth nothing; otherwise they amount to what he intended, for the single and the double forbid the wife with whom it has not been consummated, whereas the consummated is forbidden only by three. "I have forbidden you to myself" and "I have forbidden myself to you" are equivalent with Malik, like "I repudiated you" and "I am repudiated from you": she is repudiated. Before consummation, "you are forbidden to me" amounts to three according to Malik, unless he intends one or two, in which case it amounts to what he intended (al-Mudawwanah al-Kubra 5/393-394 ; Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 7/401-402 ; al-Kafi p. 265 ; al-Istidhkar 6/16, 22 ; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 2/58-59).
Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the proof of Malik and his adherents concerning the forbidden is the consensus of the scholars that the wife repudiated three times becomes forbidden to her husband: the three repudiations being a forbiddance, the forbiddance amounts to three repudiations, and Allah knows best (al-Istidhkar 6/22).
The Shafi'is hold that if the man says to his wife "you are forbidden to me" intending repudiation, it is a repudiation, for the formula bears forbiddance through repudiation, and the number he intended occurs, one, two or three; without intending a number, it is a revocable repudiation in which he retains the taking back. If he intends zihar by it, it is a zihar, for it bears forbiddance through zihar; if he intends ila by it, it is not an ila, for ila is an oath that is not contracted through allusion. If he intends the forbidding of intercourse, she does not become forbidden to him and the expiation of an oath is due from him, according to what Sa'id ibn Jubayr reported: a man came to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: "I have made my wife forbidden to me." He said: "You have lied, she is not forbidden to you", then recited: "O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking the pleasure of your wives? Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths" until the end of the verse; the expiation of an oath is due from him, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had forbidden Mariyah the Copt, mother of Ibrahim son of the Messenger of Allah, and Allah sent down the verse: the expiation became due for the bondwoman through the verse, and the free woman was analogized to her, for they are alike in the lawfulness and forbiddance of the private parts.
"O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking the pleasure of your wives? Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths. Allah is your Master."
Surah at-Tahrim, 1-2
If he formed no will, neither repudiation nor zihar nor forbiddance attaches to him; is the expiation of an oath due from him or not? Two views: it is due from him, or it is not. Imam ash-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if the man says to his wife "you are forbidden to me", no repudiation occurs so long as he does not intend repudiation; if he forms the intention, it is a repudiation of the number intended; if he intends a repudiation without intending a number, it is a single repudiation in which he retains the taking back. If he says "I intended her forbidding without repudiation", she does not become forbidden to him and the expiation of an oath is due from him; he may have intercourse with her if he wishes before performing the expiation. We say the expiation of an oath is due from him because he intended her forbidding without intending her repudiation: the Prophet forbade his bondwoman and the expiation of an oath was ordered; the verse establishes that, the husband not intending repudiation through the forbidding of his wife, the forbidding fell upon a lawful private part that does not become forbidden by its being forbidden: the expiation is due from him as from one who forbids his bondwoman, and she does not become forbidden to him, for both are a forbidding of two private parts without repudiation through either.
If he says "everything I own is forbidden to me", meaning his wife, his bondwomen and his wealth, he expiates for the woman and the bondwomen with an expiation each, if he did not intend the repudiation of the woman; if he says "my wealth is forbidden to me" without intending his wife or his bondwomen, no expiation is due from him and his wealth does not become forbidden to him (al-Umm 5/262 ; al-Hawi al-Kabir 10/182-183 ; al-Muhadhdhab 2/83 ; Sharh Sahih Muslim 10/73-74 ; al-Awsat 9/188, 195 ; al-Ishraf 5/200, 202).
The Hanbalis in the doctrine hold that one who says to his wife "you are forbidden to me" commits a zihar whose zihar expiation is due, whether he intends it or not, for it is a forbidding of the wife without repudiation, the zihar expiation is therefore due, as if he said "you are forbidden to me like the back of my mother". This is because Allah established that comparing her to those forbidden to him by zihar makes him a man of zihar; his explicit forbidding is therefore stronger still. This is supported by the fact that Allah did not give man the forbidding and the making lawful: one who says "you are to me like the back of my mother" or "you are forbidden to me" has uttered the rejected speech and falsehood, lied against Allah, and has imposed upon himself the greater of the two expiations: the zihar expiation.
Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: I asked my father about a man who said to his wife "you are forbidden to me" intending repudiation: he answered that it is not a repudiation, whether he intends it or not, and the zihar expiation is due for it (Masail Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad 1/343). The second narration: it is an oath whose expiation is due, for Allah said "why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful to you" (Surah at-Tahrim, 66:1) then "Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths" (Surah at-Tahrim, 66:2); Ibn Abbas said: "When a man forbids his wife, it is an oath whose expiation he performs", and he recited "You have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example" (Surah Luqman, 21) (reported by Bukhari 4965 and Muslim 1473); and because it is a forbidding of the lawful, like the forbidding of the bondwoman, and it is reported from as-Siddiq, Umar, Ibn Mas'ud and Aisha (may Allah be pleased with them): it is a forbidding of a woman, it is therefore an oath like the forbidding of the bondwoman.
A third narration from him: if he intends repudiation by it, it is a repudiation, for repudiation is a forbidding and the allusion is valid through "the forbidden" as in "you are the distress"; if he does not intend repudiation, it is a zihar. If he says "you are forbidden to me" intending repudiation and zihar together, it is a zihar and not a repudiation: a single formula cannot be both zihar and repudiation, zihar being more worthy of this formula, toward which it turns. If he says "you are forbidden to me, I intend by it the repudiation", there are two narrations: the first, the famous one, is that it is a repudiation, for he is explicit through the word of repudiation; the second is that it is a zihar, for "the forbidden" does not stand as an allusion to repudiation and does not become repudiation through "I intend by it the repudiation", as in "you are to me like the back of my mother" (Masail Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad 1/343 ; al-Ifsah 2/187-188 ; al-Mughni 7/317-318, 8/8, 12 ; al-Kafi 3/173-174 ; ash-Sharh al-Kabir 8/300, 304 ; ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 2/377, 423 ; Manar as-Sabil 3/134-135).
Imam al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars have differed, over the man who says to his wife "you are forbidden to me", upon eighteen opinions, which he then enumerated (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 18/180, 185). Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: such is also the ruling of "if you do this, you are forbidden to me", which deserves the expiation of an oath more than "you are forbidden to me". Concerning "you are forbidden to me", "what Allah has made lawful is forbidden to me" or "you are forbidden to me like carrion, blood and the flesh of swine", here are the schools:
The first: it is a vain and void word from which nothing follows: this is one of the two narrations from Ibn Abbas, the view of Masruq, Abu Salamah ibn Abd ar-Rahman, Ata, al-Sha'bi, Dawud, all the literalists and most of the hadith scholars, and one of the two views of the Malikis, chosen by Asbagh ibn al-Faraj. In the Sahih, Sa'id ibn Jubayr heard Ibn Abbas say: "Whoever forbids his wife, it is nothing: you have had in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example" (Bukhari 4965). Masruq said in an established report: "It matters little to me whether I have forbidden my wife or a dish of broth"; al-Sha'bi said concerning the forbidding of the woman: "It is a play lighter upon me than my sandals"; Abu Salamah said: "It matters little to me whether I have forbidden my wife or the water of the river"; and Hajjaj ibn Minhal reported that a man made his wife forbidden and then asked Humayd ibn Abd ar-Rahman, who answered him: Allah said "So when you are free, devote yourself" and "and to your Lord turn your longing" (Surah ash-Sharh, 7-8): you are a man who plays, so go and play.
The second school: it is three repudiations: this is the view of Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah ennoble his face), of Zayd ibn Thabit, of Ibn Umar, of al-Hasan al-Basri and of Muhammad ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi Layla; the commander of the faithful Ali ruled the three in the case of Adi ibn Qays al-Kilabi and said to him: "By Him in Whose hand my soul is, if you touch her before marrying another woman, I will have you stoned." The proof of this view is that she becomes forbidden to him only through the three: the occurrence of the three therefore follows from her being forbidden. The third: she becomes forbidden to him through this word without repudiation: established also from Abu Hurayrah, al-Hasan, Khilas ibn Amr, Jabir ibn Zayd and Qatadah, who mentioned no repudiation but ordered only abstaining from her; established also from Ali: either two narrations from him, or he meant the forbidding that follows from the three. The proof is that his formula demanded only forbiddance without touching the number of repudiation, so she is forbidden to him by the requirement of his forbidding.
The fourth: suspension upon the question: established also from the commander of the faithful Ali, and it is the view of al-Sha'bi, who said: some men say concerning "the lawful is forbidden" that she is forbidden until she marries another, attributing it to Ali; by Allah, Ali did not say that: he said "I do not make her lawful for you and I do not forbid her to you: if you wish, go ahead; if you wish, delay". The proof is that forbidding is not a repudiation, that he does not own the forbidding of the lawful, but that he owns the creation of the cause through which forbidding comes, namely repudiation; this formula is neither explicit for repudiation nor of that for which the legal usage has been established for forbidding the wife: the matter is therefore ambiguous. The fifth: if he intends repudiation by it, it is a repudiation; otherwise it is an oath: this is the view of Tawus, al-Zuhri, ash-Shafi'i and one narration from al-Hasan. The proof: it is an allusion within repudiation, intended it is repudiation, not intended it is an oath, according to "O Prophet, why do you forbid" up to "the dissolution of your oaths" (Surah at-Tahrim, 66:1-2).
The sixth: if he intends the three by it, they are three; if he intends one, an irrevocable one; if he intends an oath, it is an oath; if he intends nothing, it is a lie in which there is nothing: Sufyan said it and an-Nakha'i reported it from his companions. The proof: the formula bears what he intended of that and follows his intention. The seventh: the same, except that if he intends nothing, it is an oath whose expiation he performs: this is the view of al-Awza'i. The proof: the apparent of "Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths" (Surah at-Tahrim, 66:2): if he intends repudiation by it, it is not an oath; if he repudiates without intending repudiation, it is an oath. The eighth: the same, except that if he intends nothing, it is a single irrevocable repudiation, in application of the word of forbidding.
The ninth: the zihar expiation is due for it: established also from Ibn Abbas, Abu Qilabah, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Wahb ibn Munabbih and Uthman at-Taymi, and it is one of the narrations of Ahmad. The proof: Allah established that comparing the woman to his forbidden mother is a zihar, which He described as rejected speech and falsehood; comparison to the forbidden making the man a man of zihar, his explicit forbidding does so more. It is the most analogous and most discerning of the views, supported by the fact that Allah did not give the morally responsible the forbidding and the making lawful: they belong to Him; He gave him only the performance of deeds and words that bring about forbidding and lawfulness: the cause belongs to the servant, the ruling to Allah. One who says "you are to me like the back of my mother" or "you are forbidden to me" has uttered the rejected speech and falsehood, has lied, for Allah did not make his wife like the back of his mother nor forbid her: he has thus imposed upon himself the greater of the two expiations, the zihar expiation.
The tenth: a single repudiation: one of the two narrations from Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the view of Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, the teacher of Abu Hanifah. The proof: the repudiation of forbidding does not require forbidding through three but is valid through less, and the single one is definite: the formula is referred to it because it is certainty, like forbidding through the completion of the waiting period. The eleventh: he intends whatever he wishes of it, the root of repudiation and its number; if he intends forbidding without repudiation, it is an expiated oath: this is the view of ash-Shafi'i. The proof: the formula suits all of that, no single one being fixed except through intention; if he intends pure forbidding, he abstains from her through forbidding as he abstains through oath, and she does not become forbidden to him in either case. The twelfth: he also intends the root and the number, except that if he intends one, it is irrevocable; if he does not intend repudiation, he becomes bound by the oath of estrangement; if he intends the lie, it is nothing: this is the view of Abu Hanifah and his companions.
Another narration from Abu Hanifah: if he intends the lie, he is held accountable religiously without it being accepted in court, and he becomes bound by the oath; he does not become a man of zihar, whether he intends it or not, and even if he makes it explicit saying "I intend by it the zihar", he does not become a man of zihar. The thirteenth: it is an oath whose expiation he performs like an oath in every state: established also from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ibn Abbas, Aisha, Zayd ibn Thabit, Ibn Mas'ud, Abdullah ibn Umar, Ikrimah, Ata, Makhul, Qatadah, al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Sulayman ibn Yasar, Jabir ibn Zayd, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Nafi', al-Awza'i, Abu Thawr and a great many others. The proof: the apparent of the Qur'an: Allah mentioned the expiation of oaths after the forbidding of the lawful, so it certainly encompasses it, and the expiation cannot be established for other than what is mentioned before it.
The narrations of as-Siddiq, Umar and Ibn Mas'ud are judged weak: that of as-Siddiq has in its chain Juwaybir, a weak hadith transmitter, and ad-Dahhak did not meet Abu Bakr (Sa'id ibn Mansur 1/228, no 1695 ; Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Musannaf 5/74, no 18507); that of Umar has in its chain Ikrimah, who did not meet Umar (Ibn Abi Shaybah 5/73, no 18497 ; Sa'id ibn Mansur 1/229, no 1701 ; ad-Daraqutni 5/73 ; al-Bayhaqi 7/350); that of Ibn Mas'ud has in its chain Ash'ath ibn Siwar, weak (Sa'id ibn Mansur 1/229, no 1698 ; al-Umm 7/157 ; at-Tabarani, al-Kabir 9/327 ; al-Bayhaqi 7/350).
The fourteenth: it is an aggravated oath whose expiation necessarily requires the freeing of a slave: established also from Ibn Abbas, Abu Bakr, Umar, Ibn Mas'ud and a group of the Successors. The proof: it is an aggravated oath, its expiation is therefore aggravated by the requirement of freeing; its aggravation lies in its containing the forbidding of what Allah has made lawful, which does not belong to the servant, and in the rejected speech and falsehood if he meant the report: he is a liar in his report and a transgressor in his oath, his expiation is therefore aggravated by freeing like the zihar expiation, or by fasting two months or feeding sixty poor persons.
The fifteenth: it is a repudiation; if she has not been consummated, what he intends of it, one or more; if she has been consummated, the three even if he intends less: this is one of the two narrations from Malik. The proof: the formula having demanded forbidding, its ruling must follow from it; the wife with whom it has not been consummated is forbidden through one, the consummated only through three. In Malik's doctrine five views exist: this is one of them, the most famous; the second: three in every state, whether he intends three or not, chosen by Abd al-Malik in his Mabsut; the third: a single irrevocable repudiation absolutely, reported by Ibn Khuzayz Mandad from Malik; the fourth: a single revocable repudiation, the view of Abd al-Aziz ibn Abi Salamah; the fifth: whatever he intends of it absolutely, before or after consummation; the orientation of these views is already known.
There is in the question a doctrine beyond all that, that of Ibn Taymiyyah: if he brings the forbidding into effect, it is a zihar even if he intends repudiation by it, and if he makes it an oath, it is an expiated oath. If he brings it into effect, he has uttered the rejected speech and falsehood and deserves the zihar expiation more than one who compared his wife to the forbidden; if he makes it an oath, it is an oath among the oaths, like the oath to free, to perform the pilgrimage or to give charity: it is pure analogy and fiqh. "Upon me, for Allah, is the freeing, the pilgrimage or the fasting": it binds him; "if I speak to so-and-so, that is for Allah upon me" as an oath: it is an oath; "he is a Jew" or "a Christian": he disbelieves through that; "if he does this, he is a Jew or a Christian": it is an oath. The exact parallel: "you are to me like the back of my mother" is a zihar; "if you do this, you are to me like the back of my mother" is an oath; "you are repudiated" is a repudiation; "if you do this, you are repudiated" is an oath: such are the sound, continuous principles drawn from the Book, the Sunnah and the Balance, and success is from Allah (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 3/66, 73 ; Ibn al-Mundhir also mentioned it in al-Awsat 9/188, 195 ; al-Ishraf 5/200, 202).
Most of the scholars hold that the formulas that are not among the formulas of repudiation and do not serve as allusion to it produce no repudiation, even with intention. Ibn Battal (may Allah have mercy on him) said: most of the scholars produce no repudiation through them even if the speaker intends it. Malik said: whoever intends repudiation through any formula whatsoever, repudiation binds him, even by saying "eat, drink, stand up, sit down" and the like. His proof is that Allah established that the symbol, that is, the gesture, equals speech in alluding to what one intends: "to speak to no one for three days, except by gesture" (Surah Al Imran, 3:41); likewise the separation of the two spouses who cursed one another (li'an) was a repudiation without their articulating it, and it is likewise reported of the couple in mutual imprecation (mukhali'ah) that when she returned his garden to him and he took it back, it was a repudiation (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 7/389).
Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: concerning the formulas that are not among the formulas of repudiation nor an allusion to separation, most of the scholars produce nothing of repudiation through them even if the speaker intends it. Malik said that whoever intends repudiation through any formula whatsoever, repudiation binds him, even by "eat, drink, stand up, sit down" and the like; Malik was followed in this only by his companions. The principle is that the defined bond is not lifted except by a certainty of intention and design and of unanimity on Allah's design through it; this is, in my view, the mufti's precaution, and success is from Allah (al-Istidhkar 6/24).
Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: what does not resemble repudiation and does not indicate separation, such as "sit down", "stand up", "eat", "drink", "draw near", "feed me", "give me to drink", "may Allah bless you", "may Allah forgive you", "how beautiful you are" and the like, is not an allusion and produces no repudiation even with intention: the formula does not bear repudiation, and had repudiation occurred through it, it would occur through mere intention, which is already excluded. Abu Hanifah said the same.
The companions of ash-Shafi'i differed over "eat and drink": some follow our view (no effect); others say it is an allusion, for it bears "taste the pain of repudiation" and "drink the cup of separation", repudiation occurring through it, like "taste" and "swallow". Our answer: this formula, alone, is employed only in what is not painful, like "Eat and drink with relish for what you used to do" (Surah at-Tur, 52:19) and "So eat it with pleasure and ease" (Surah an-Nisa, 4:4): it is not an allusion, unlike "feed me"; it differs from "taste" and "swallow", which are employed in the painful: "Taste, you are the Mighty, the Noble" (Surah ad-Dukhan, 44:49), "Taste the punishment of the burning" (Surah Al Imran, 3:181), "Taste the touch of Saqar" (Surah al-Qamar, 54:48); likewise swallowing: "He will swallow it but will hardly be able to" (Surah Ibrahim, 14:17): what does not resemble them therefore cannot be attached to them (al-Mughni 7/302).
The question of the man who says to his wife with whom the marriage has been consummated "you are repudiated, you are repudiated, you are repudiated" has several forms. The first: he intends three by it. The jurists of the four schools agree that when the man says to his wife "you are repudiated, you are repudiated" intending two repudiations, two occur without disagreement among the schools; and if he says "you are repudiated, you are repudiated, you are repudiated" intending three, the three occur, even within a single sitting.
Imam Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: no disagreement exists among the scholars that when she is a wife with whom the marriage has been consummated and he says to her "you are repudiated, you are repudiated, you are repudiated", whether he remains silent or not between them, three repudiations occur, unless he intends the repetition of the speech through his second and third utterance, and Allah knows best (Ikhtilaf al-'ulama' p. 134 ; see al-Mabsut 6/99 ; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 3/102 ; al-Muhit al-Burhani 3/444 ; al-Jawharah an-Nayyirah 4/403 ; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 3/293 ; Tanqih al-Fatawa al-Hamidiyyah 1/264 ; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya p. 152 ; at-Taj wal-Iklil 3/71-72 ; Mawahib al-Jalil 5/278-279 ; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 4/50 ; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 3/168-169 ; ash-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 3/278 ; al-Hawi al-Kabir 10/219 ; al-Muhadhdhab 2/85 ; al-Bayan 10/116 ; Rawdat at-Talibin 5/378 ; Asna al-Matalib 3/288 ; an-Najm al-Wahhaj 7/520 ; Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/480 ; al-Ifsah 2/177-178 ; al-Mughni 7/367 ; al-Mubdi' 7/301 ; al-Insaf 9/22 ; Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/305 ; Matalib Uli an-Nuha 5/370).