It has become clear that the spirit of marriage is a type of mutual contract and a special liaison and relationship which is established between man and woman, and the very fact becomes the cause of the application of the title of a “couple” to them. 

This interpretation is for the sake of the relationship and connection between them which brings them together like two eyes, two ears and two hands, although before their marriage they were treated to be two separate beings absolutely apart from each other. 

This mutual contract creates such a strong and deep relationship between them that a tie more sublime than this cannot be imagined. Certainly, a wording more expressive and more appropriate than that of this verse cannot be found for explaining this profound relationship:

“Women are your garments and you are their garments” (2:187).1

It has also become clear that if at the time of entering into the contract no stipulation is made regarding its duration the result and tenor thereof will be permanent marriage whose effects will remain till death and even thereafter, except when causes for its annulment become apparent.

On the other hand, it often happens that needs, conditions and special circumstances necessitate that in some cases relationship of marriage may be terminated. It is also possible that termination of such a relationship may be in mutual interests or at least it may be in the interest of one party and which may not make any difference to the other; hence ways and means for achieving this purpose have been provided in Islamic law so that the relationship may thereby be terminated. 

Now, if the permanent marriage is repulsive to the man, only he has the right to divorce his wife and if it is repulsive in the woman’s eyes, she can make use of the right of Khula. However, if both the parties are unhappy, their object is gained through Mubarat. 

In each of the three cases there exist some orders, conditions and special prerequisites in the absence of which separation cannot be accomplished. In view of the fact that Islam is a gregarious religion and is based on unity and concord and its greatest object is the establishment of love in the hearts of the people and it considers difference and discord to be the most abominable thing, it, therefore, represses divorce as far as possible. In many traditions divorce has been inhibited and declared to be abominable One such tradition is: “No permissible act is more detestable in the eyes of Allah than divorce”.

Thus, on the one hand, divorce has been permitted for making matters easy for the people and for preventing corruption which sometimes takes place as a consequence of the permanency of marriage. On the other hand, the divine wisdom and blessing necessitates that they should desist from divorce as far as possible and analyse the possible consequences of their actions politely. This is because they are usually unaware of the results of their actions and like things which are not beneficial for them and dislike those which are in their interest. Often it so happens that they take immediate and hasty decisions under the influence of different factors without taking recourse to proper study and thinking.

For the aforesaid reasons, Islam has imposed many conditions on divorce which in practice become the cause of reduction in the number of divorces, for it has been said: “Everything to which stipulations are attached becomes rarer”.

From the Shi’a point of view, one of the most important conditions is the presence of two righteous men as witnesses at the time of pronouncing divorce as laid down by the Holy Qur’an:

“Let two men of integrity from among you be the witnesses” (65:2).2

Hence, if a divorce takes place without the presence of two such people it is void from our view-point and this condition in itself is the best means of achieving reconciliation between the two spouses and removing the causes of differences and discord. This is so because it is evident that such righteous and pious people, besides possessing an effective say in the matter, would consider it their duty to bring the parties to reconciliation and advise the man and woman not to disrupt the peace of their family life. Even if their advice does not cut much ice, it is possible that it may have at least some influences, and may diminish the spiritual crisis which takes birth in man and woman on account of various factors.

Unfortunately, the Sunni brethren have deprived themselves of this great benefit because their scholars and Ulama’ do not consider the presence of two righteous witnesses to be a necessary condition of divorce. It is for this reason that the number of divorces among them is excessive and in the present times this great social calamity is spreading in their society in a very alarming proportion. 

Incidentally, many among us and in them are negligent of the philosophy underlying the sublime orders of Islam and their real purpose although if we had paid heed and acted according to them, we would have acquired blessings in all fields and would not have indulged ourselves in life of sadness and hardship mixed with all sorts of adversities. If we had done so the foundation of our family life would not have trembled as it does at present and the normalcy of marriage. life would not have become subjected to such incompatibility and disturbance.

Another most important condition of divorce is that the husband should not have resorted to this action on account of compulsion or coercion or in a state of anger or annoyance when he may have lost his intellectual equilibrium. In the same manner the woman should have got through her monthly course and the man should not have had sexual intercourse with her thereafter. As is evident, these preconditions also play a part in the reduction of the number of divorces.

Regarding The Three Divorces

The Shi’a scholars believe that three divorces (three divorces pronounced at a time in one sitting) are tantamount to one divorce only and do not make the woman unlawful for man. On the other hand, he can re-establish conjugal relations with her and does not also need a Muhallil (the woman when divorced has to marry another person and after getting divorce from him can marry her former husband). 

However, if three divorces take place in three sittings in this manner that the man pronounces divorce and thereafter resumes conjugal relations and pronounce divorce again and thereafter resumes conjugal relation once again and for the third time, they will become unlawful for each other and will not be entitled to a renewal of marriage except that the woman may marry another man and then obtain divorce from him. Only in that event would it be possible for her to remarry the first husband. In case this action is repeated i.e. the man divorce the woman for the fourth time and so on till he divorces her for the ninth time, they become permanently unlawful for each other and do not retain any right of re-marry.

However, many Sunni Ulama’ differ with us in this matter. They consider three divorces (in one sitting) lawful. Hence, if a man tells his wife: “You stand divorced thrice” the woman, according to their belief, becomes unlawful for him and they cannot remarry without going through the formality of a Muhallil. They hold this view, although according to the authentic narrations (whose authenticity they themselves admit) three divorces in one sitting are treated to be tantamount to one divorce only3.

Bukhari narrates from Ibn Abbas: “During the period of the Holy Prophet and Caliph Abu Bakr and even during the first two years of the Caliphate of Umar three divorces at one sitting were counted as one but Caliph Umar said: ‘Men on matters where they have a right to dilate make haste to do it so what this delay would really mean to them’. Thus he (Umar) gave permission that three divorces can be pronounced in one sitting”.

This was done notwithstanding the fact that if we study carefully the verses of the Holy Qur’an relating to divorce it becomes clear that it is not possible to give effect to three divorces pronounced in one sitting. Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:

“A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness” (2:229).

“So, if a husband divorces his wife irrevocably [for the third time], he cannot remarry her until she has married another husband and he has divorced her” (2:230). 4

This was the gist of the device of separation of man and woman from each other. Further discussions may be pursued in detailed books.

However, besides the different types of divorces referred to above there are also other factors which may bring about separation between man and woman. To this category belong the defects which may possibly appear in them and entitle the other party to demand annulment of marriage. For example, if the following defects are found in the man the wife has a right to terminate ‘the marriage:

Complete sexual impotence, insanity, leprosy etc5. In case the woman possesses the following defects, the man has a right to bring the marriage contract to an end: The vagina of the woman being extremely narrow or bone being congealed in the vulva so that sexual intercourse is not possible, etc6.

Furthermore, Zihar 7 and Ila’8 can also be the causes of separation of man and woman which have been explained fully in books on Jurisprudence. Similarly, detailed discussions are contained in the said books regarding ‘Iddah which a woman must observe after separation from her husband as well as about the kinds thereof namely, ‘Iddah for divorce, ‘Iddah for death, ‘Iddah for Wati bi ‘sh-Shubba etc.

It may however be stated briefly that according to the Shi’a a woman has to observe ‘Iddah after the death of her husband in all circumstances, even if she is too old for conception or too young (less than nine years of age) or the husband had not had sexual intercourse with her. Nevertheless, the ‘Iddah which is to be observed after divorce is compulsory except in the aforesaid three cases. ‘Iddah is also compulsory for Wati bi ‘sh-Shubha except in the case of a too old or too young woman as mentioned above. However, there is no ‘Iddah in the case of adultery, because an unlawful deed is not entitled to any respect.

‘Iddah for death in the case of a woman who is not pregnant is four months and ten days. However, if she is pregnant the following orders will apply to her:

If she gives birth to a child earlier than the expiry of the said period of four months and ten days her ‘Iddah will be limited to that period only. If, however, delivery does not take place within that period her ‘Iddah will come to an end only after the birth of the child.

‘Iddah for divorce in the case of women who do not have monthly course (although according to their age they should have it) is three complete months. In regards to those who have the monthly course, it is necessary that they should have it thrice and then be purified of it.

‘Iddah for divorce for a pregnant woman is up to the date of delivery (whether it takes more time or less).

The Shi’a believe that if the divorce is neither the third one nor a Khula’ divorce, the husband has a right to resume conjugal relations throughout the period of ‘Iddah and if he does so the divorce becomes ineffective and they revert to the former position of conjugal relations. If, however, he does not resume such relations till the expiry of the period of ‘Iddah he has no further right left to do so. In case, they are inclined to renew their marital relations at this stage a new marriage will have to be performed with the agreement of the parties on other conditions.

The Shi’a do not consider necessary the presence of two righteous people as witnesses for resumption of conjugal relations as it is in the case of divorce, although their presence is recommended9.

Similarly, use of no special words is necessary in this case. On the other hand, every word, action or even hint which indicates the inclination of the husband to continue the marriage is considered to be sufficient and occasions their reversion to the former position.

Two Interesting Letters

The respected author has reproduced in the footnote the text of two letters exchanged between him and an Egyptian scholar relating to the discussion regarding the presence of two witnesses for the purpose of resumption of conjugal relations not being essential. However, on account of these letters being very lengthy, we have placed them in the text of the book under the discussion regarding divorce. He says: During this year the erudite scholar Professor Ahmad Muhammad Shakir (Religious Magistrate of Egypt) sent me his fine book entitled Nizam at-Talaq fi ‘l-Islam. This book fascinated me a lot. I found it to be one of the epoch-making books and on receipt thereof I wrote a letter to the respected author, who published it in the 157th issue of the valuable Magazine Risala with the following introduction:

“One of the best and most excellent communications which I have received was the valuable letter written by my respectable friend and magnanimous teacher, the Chief of the Shi’a Mujtahids in Najaf al-Ashraf, Allama Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Kashif Al-Ghita’. He has discussed and commented upon one of my views expressed in the discourses contained in the book on the subject of the condition of evidence for the correctness of the resumption of conjugal relations by a husband with his divorced wife.

I believe that the presence of two righteous witnesses is necessary at the time of the pronouncement of divorce and if it takes place without the presence of two such witnesses it is void. Although this statement is opposed to the four well-known schools of thought of Sunni, still it is supported by the religious arguments available with us and also conforms to the religion of the members of the Holy Prophet’s Progeny and the Shi’a.

Furthermore, I believe that in the matter of reconciliation of a husband with his divorced wife also two righteous witnesses are necessary. This belief accords with one of the two decrees of Imam Shafi’i but is at variance with the school of Ahl Al-Bayt, the progeny of Holy Prophet and the Shi’a.

I pondered over the Shi’a belief in this regard and could not appreciate how they had differentiated between divorce and reconciliation when the same reasoning is applicable in both the cases. The Allama (Kashif Al-Ghita’) has, therefore, condescended to explain the difference between the two cases from the Shi’a point of view and has written about it in this letter. The letter is reproduced below.

From: Najaf Ashraf

8th Safar 1355 A.H.

In the name of Allah, the most Kind, the most Merciful, to whom belongs all praise and honour.

The Magnanimous Allama

Shaykh Ahmad Muhammad Shakir,

Peace be on you! I have received your valuable gift, namely the book Nizam at-Talaq fi ‘l-Islam and have studied it twice with great admiration. The deep insight and intellectual freedom employed and the correct views expressed therein deserve full attention. In this book you have extracted the very spirit of the meaning of tradition, torn the veil of superstitions from the sacred face of religion, disconnected the claim of following the old trend of thought and broken the idols of stagnation with logical arguments.

Praise be to you and to your enlightened intellect and extensive knowledge!

The basic questions which you have discussed in this treatise are three:

(i) Three divorces (pronounced at one time in one sitting)

(ii) Oath for divorce and freeing (of a slave or slave-girl), and

(iii) Evidence regarding divorce10.

In each of these cases you have done justice to the· matter under consideration and opened the door of Ijtihad according to the principles of this branch of knowledge and of deduction of authentic evidence from the Holy Book and Sunnah. This firm basis and correct method have led you to the facts of the propositions, the spirit of Divine commands, and the sacred laws of Islam. Your firm opinions in these matters conform with the unanimous decrees of Shi’a ‘Ulama and scholars and have been treated to be a part of the essential and indisputable articles of their faith from the early days of Islam to the present day.

There is, however, one exception viz. that the Shi’a ‘Ulama are unanimous in the case of reconciliation (resumption of conjugal relations) the presence of two righteous witnesses is not necessary, notwithstanding the fact that they consider such witnesses to be essential for purpose of divorce, failing which it is treated by them to be void.

However, you have preferred the view of those who consider the presence of two witnesses to be essential in both the cases and have said: “The Shi’a consider presence of witnesses to be necessary in the event of divorce and believe it to be one of the main elements of divorce as stated in the book Shara’i al-Islam. However, they do not consider it (presence of two witnesses) to be necessary in the matter of reconciliation. Differentiation between these two is strange and is not supported by proof”.

I have an objection to this statement and would seek your permission to mention it. It is strange that you have sought proof from a person who is the denier as this does not conform to the principles and rules which we have in hand. For a denier it should suffice that his statement conforms to the basis (basis of non­existence). It is for the claimant to furnish proof.

It is possible that you may say that apparently the Qur’anic verse:

“When their waiting period [‘Iddah] is about to end, either keep them or separate from them lawfully. Let two just people witness the divorce and let them witness for the sake of Allah” (65:2).

Testifies to your statement, as you have said: “On the face of it the context of the two verses is such that the phrase “two witnesses’’ applies to divorce as well as to reconciliation and on this account the presence of two witnesses is necessary in both the cases.” However, it appears that you have not pondered deeply over these verses. If you had thought over this matter as you have done in others, the reality of the proposition would not have remained unknown to a person like yourself. The reason for my saying this is that this sacred verse is concerned with orders relating to divorce and it is because of this that the relevant surah has been named Surah al-Talaq. In this surah the subject matter commences with the verse:

“O Prophet! [Say to the believers] that when you do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count [accurately] their prescribed periods and fear Allah your Lord and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they [themselves] leave, except in case they are guilty of some indecency. These are limits set by Allah and anyone who transgresses the limits of Allah does injustice to his [own] soul. You never know, perhaps Allah will bring about some new situation” (65:1).

And then regarding necessity of enforcement of divorce in the beginning of ‘Iddah is introduced i.e. divorce should take place, neither during the monthly course of the woman or at the time of ceremonial purity of the woman during which sexual intercourse has taken place (on the other hand it should take place after ceremonial purity and before sexual intercourse is resorted to). Thereafter, the necessity of observance of the prescribed period of ‘Iddah by the women and about their not being turned out of the house during the period is mentioned.

Then, a reference has been made to the proposition of resumption of conjugal relations. However, this reference is certainly not a part of the real purport of the verses but only incidental to the discussion of divorce. The statement is dragged into the question of reconciliation where it is said:

“When their waiting period [‘Iddah], is about to end, either keep them or separate from them lawfully [by means of resumption of conjugal relations] or part with them on equitable terms [wait till the period of mensturations comes to an end]” (2:238).

Thereafter discussion about divorce is pursued and it is said, “Take two just [‘Adil] men as witnesses” i.e. in the matter of divorce which is the real subject under discussion and not in the matter of reconciliation because application of this condition to reconciliation which has been mentioned only incidentally, would appear to be disagreeable and inappropriate from the point of view of context.

For example, if a person tells the other: “When a learned man comes to see you, receive him with due respect, whether he comes alone or accompanied by a servant or a companion, and take care to accompany and escort him properly at the time of departure”. In that event it is probable that the question of escort should have reference to the servant and companion of the learned man, besides himself, notwithstanding the fact that ‘and take care to accompany and escort’ has occurred immediately after the mention of the servant and companion.

In any case I feel that this matter is quite clear from the point of view of Arabic grammar and literary taste and is not a thing which should remain concealed from a scholar of Arabic literature like yourself except on account of lack of care. However, it is not very surprising because at times a learned man and research scholar also falls a prey to lack of care11.

So much was with regard to the wordings of the verse, proof and the context of the sacred verse. However, there is another more subtle and interesting point also regarding the philosophy which Islam observes in various matters. There is no doubt about the fact that divorce is one of the most abominable of the things which are permissible and Islam, as we know, is a perfect social law and is not at all inclined to permit any kind of differences and discord in Islamic society, especially in a family and still more particularly in the matter of marriage. It is on this account that the law-giver of Islam makes persistent efforts that divorces and separations should be reduced as much as possible. To achieve this objective, he has made the requisites and conditions of divorce very difficult so that divorces may become very few in accordance with the well-known maxim that the larger the number of conditions attached to a thing the scarcer it will become.

Besides other conditions the presence of two just witnesses has been considered necessary so that firstly this very fact (procurement of two righteous witnesses) may cause delay in the matter; of divorce and secondly it may become possible that on account of the presence of two righteous witnesses and as a consequence of their advice, the man and wife, or anyone of them may regret his/her decision to separate and the relationship of union and the tie of friendship and love may once again be cemented between them, as has beery said in the Holy Qur’an:

“You never know, perhaps Allah will bring about some new situation” (65:1).

This is one of the benefits of the necessity of two just witnesses in the matter of divorce which Islam had definitely in view while giving this order. It is, however, clear that the position is quite different in the matter of reconciliation, because Islam desires that the conjugal relations should become strong as early as possible and without any avoidable delay. This is so, because often it so happens that misfortunes and obstacles crop up due to delay!

Hence there is no condition or pre-requisite in the matter of reconciliation. According to Shi’a resumption of conjugal relations becomes effective by mere word, action or hint and does not necessitate special formalities. This is so because Allah, the Merciful, wishes to provide all facilities to establish love and sincerity and to prevent separation and discord.

Why should it not be so? And why should a hint which shows the husband’s inclination for continuance of marriage or touching the woman’s body with the intention of reconciliation not suffice? Why should it not be so when according to the belief of Shi’a such a woman (a woman who is observing ‘Iddah of a revocable divorce), although divorced, does not cease to be a spouse? Hence if one of the parties dies in these circumstances (i.e. before the expiry of ‘Iddah) the other inherits from him /her.

They also continue to be close relatives (Mahram) even after death and one of them can wash the dead body of the other. So long as the woman observes ‘Iddah she is also entitled to subsistence. The man cannot marry her sister and if he already has three wives, is not entitled to select the fourth one because the woman in question (who is observing ‘Iddah) continues to enjoy the position of his fourth wife.

In any case can all these arguments convince you of the correctness of the Shi’a belief regarding the presence of two witnesses being essential at the time of divorce but unnecessary at the time of reconciliation? If our arguments on the point at issue meet your acceptance and approval, we shall thank Allah and shall also be grateful to you. Otherwise, we shall be whole-heartedly ready to study your views in this regard. Our object is to understand the reality and follow the truth wherever it may be found and to cast away blind imitation and prejudice. May Allah protect us and you from such things and save us from going astray while traversing the path of truth.

We pray to Almighty Allah to enable you to leave behind such similar monumental works.

“Deeds which continually produce virtue, one can obtain better rewards from Allah and are the best assets of human hope” (18:46).

It may also be pointed out that one of the matters which you have discussed very thoroughly is the question of divorcing a woman who is having her monthly course. You have screened the traditions of Abdullah Ibn Umar very properly12.

This is also one of the issues on which all the Shi’a Ulama’ are unanimous and consider divorcing of a woman having monthly course to be void except in a few exceptional cases13.

Muhammad Husayn Kashif Al-Ghita’

After reproducing this letter, the said scholar makes the following addition:

“This is a copy of the letter of Allama Kashif Al-Ghita’, a great personality of Islam which has been reproduced word for word. I have deleted only one sentence which was not relevant to the subject under discussion and that related to the gift of some books which he sent to me”.

Then he adds further, “I shall soon pronounce my views on the contents of this letter in the next issue of the magazine and shall mention, according to my capacity, the objections which I have in my view to what has been said by him.

Qazi Ahmad Muhammad Shakir Shar’i

This.was the entire discussion which the respectable Qazi published in the magazine. Later, he pursued the discussion in two comparatively more detailed articles published in the 159th and 160th issues which speak of the vastness of his knowledge. In these two articles he endeavoured to put forward different arguments to justify his former view-point. We also replied thereto point by point.

As, however, it is our intention, that this book should be brief and laconic we ignore the remaining objections and replies thereto. Those.interested in studying them may refer to the said copies of the magazine. In all these discussions. many useful points and rules which are important in Jurisprudence have been dealt with. In any case our real object is to throw light on the truth.

Khul’a And Mubarat

There is no doubt that the reason for divorce and termination of conjugal relations is hatred and lack of inclination of the two parties for each other or lack of inclination of anyone of them for the other.

If lack of inclination is only on the part of the husband, he has the remedy of divorce in his hand and can achieve his objective by resorting to it. In case, however, non-inclination is on the part of the wife, she can get divorce from her husband and become free by paying him a sum equal to or exceeding her dower. This type of divorce is called Khul’a and is enforced in the following manner

Fulanatun Taliqun ‘ala ma bazalat fahiya Mukhtala’h (For fulanatun the name of the woman is inserted).

In his type of divorce, all the conditions of ordinary divorce are necessary and there is one additional condition also namely, the woman should possess hatred, rather severe harred for the husband in her mind, as the Holy Qur’an says:

“If you [judges] do indeed fear that they [the two spouses] would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if the woman gives something [ransom] for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah; so, do not transgress them” (2:229).

While commenting on this verse it has been said in the tradition and narrations of the members of the Holy Prophet’s progeny that this payment of ransom and separation takes place in this manner that the woman says to her husband: “I do not give effect to your oath and am not prepared to enforce Divine limitations and regulations in your case and also am not ready to wash ceremonially for your sake. I am not going to share your bed and shall bring into your house people whom you hate”.

Evidently it is not meant that all these words should be uttered. What is meant is that the woman should have severe abhorrence for her husband and there should be no possibility of their conciliation.

In case both the parties hate each other, the consequent divorce is called Talaq ul-Mubarat. This type of divorce is also governed by all the conditions necessary in the case of an ordinary divorce. However, the man is not entitled to claim from the woman any sum exceeding the dower which he has given her. While pronouncing divorce he says: Bara’tuki ‘ala kaza fa anti Taliqun (I divorce you in lieu of....). And for the word kaza he should mention the amount which the woman has given him.

In Khul’a and Mubarat divorces there is no possibility of Ruju’ (restoration of conjugal relations) and it is, therefore, called Ba’in divorce (because it causes separation of husband and wife from each other, and this kind of divorce in which the man cannot return to the woman whether or not the woman is in an ‘Iddah period). However, if the woman insists on the return of something given by her the man also acquires the right of resumption of conjugal relations, provided the period of ‘Iddah has not expired.

Zihar, Ila’ And Li’an

According to Shi’a Faith these three are also the concise causes of the separation of man and woman and consequently become unlawful for each other.

The details of this subject and the relevant conditions may be studied in the books on Jurisprudence.

As these matters arise very seldom, we have decided to ignore their discussion here.

• 1. Perhaps the reason for giving a simile of garments of each other to men and women is this that the garment conceals one’s private parts, is a means of decoration and protection against vagaries of nature and, being attached to the body, is fully aware of its secrets. The relationship between the two spouses should, therefore, be like this.
• 2. It is not yet clear to us why the Sunni scholars have ignored this verse which gives a clear direction that two righteous witnesses should be present at the time of divorce and why they do not consider the fulfilment of this condition to be necessary and treat it to be of the nature of a recommendation only or as related to Ruju’ (resumption of conjugal relations) although the difficulties involved in adopting both the views are well-known.
• 3. It was perhaps for this reason that the respected scholar Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut, the former Grand Mufti of Sunni, recently gave reference to the Shi’a view regarding invalidity of three divorces in one sitting and passed verdicts accordingly.
• 4. To explain the matter further, it may be stated that the first verse clearly tells that the divorce which make the resumption of conjugal rights possible are two divorces (at-talaq marratan). After each of these divorces, it is up to each spouse whether to resume the conjugal re1ations or not. And the second verse tells that in the case of the “third” divorce, resumption of conjugal relations is not permissible. Hence when the two verses are read in conjunction with each other the propriety of pronouncement of three divorces in three sittings can very well be realised.
• 5. There are five defects in man which make dissolution of marriage permissible: insanity, leprosy, impotence, being a eunuch and the male organ being cut off.
• 6. There are nine things which are considered to be defects in a woman making dissolution of marriage permissible. Their details are contained in books on Jurisprudence.
• 7. Zihar is tantamount to a man saying to his wife, “Your back seems to me like the back of my mother”. During the Age of Ignorance (before the advent of Islam) Arabs used to say these words to their wives and considered it to be a permanent and irrevocab1e divorce. Islam declared this custom to be void and prescribed expiation in its stead.
• 8. Ila’ is tantamount to a person swearing that he will never have conjugal relations with his wife. This too carries expiation and some special orders apply to it.
• 9. Presence of two righteous witnesses being not necessary in the case of reunion, is a son of facility for cementing the conjugal relations as will be explained soon in the words of late Kashif Al-Ghita’.
• 10. The meaning of Three Divorces and evidence regarding divorce (presence of two righteous witnesses) is quite clear. In regards to oath for divorce and freedom, it means that a person may swear that if he does a particular thing his wife would stand divorced and his slaves would become free. Many Sunnis consider this type of oath to be effective and sufficient, in the event of differences, for the separation of wife and freedom of slaves, and in such a case the ceremonies regarding pronouncement of divorce are not necessary. However, according to the Shi’a such an oath is ineffective.
• 11. Another point which confirms the: Shi’a view-point in this behalf is this: Suppose we concentrate on the first part of the verse and ignore the analogies put forward by the learned author even then it will be necessary to consider the condition of two righteous witnesses as applicable to divorce only because this verse occurs immediately after the phrase “part them” and according to rules this condition refers to the recent phrase except when there is proof against it. For this reason, the condition of two witnesses is confined to separation which is the same thing as divorce.
• 12. The reference is to a tradition quoted from Abdullah Ibn Umar to the effect that once the Holy Prophet divorced one of his wives who was having monthly course. From our point of view this tradition is not authentic.
• 13. Divorcing a woman having her menstruations has been considered permissible in three cases:
  (i) If she is pregnant (because it is possible that pregnancy may be linked with menstruations).
  (ii) When the woman is absent.
  (iii) When sexual intercourse has not taken place.