Repeating the word "talaq" more than once without intending a number, but for emphasis and clarification
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Fatwa number ( 739 )
Q: Previously, he divorced his wife with one divorce in the month of Sha'ban, and she went to her brother's house. Then, two days after the divorce, she came to her husband's house, and they agreed that she would stay with him and that he would take her back. He did not have witnesses to this due to his ignorance. His wife remained with him, and he enjoyed her as he used to before the divorce. On 12/3/1394 AH, a misunderstanding and argument occurred between them, and he became very angry with her over it. He said to her: "You are divorced, divorced, divorced," meaning that he repeated the word "talaq" more than once. By repeating it, he did not intend a number, but rather intended emphasis and clarification. He asks: Does he have the right to take her back given the circumstances described?
A: If the matter is as he described, that he divorced his wife in the month of Sha'ban, and that he kept her in his house two days after the divorce with the intention of taking her back, and she remained with him and they lived as a married couple without witnesses to his taking her back—if this divorce was not the final of three divorces, then his cohabitation with her after
Divorce, and among its aspects is intercourse while she is still in the waiting period, which is considered taking her back. It is stated in *Al-Muqni'* as follows: "Taking her back is accomplished by having intercourse with her, whether he intends to take her back by it or not." It is said in *Al-Hashiyyah*: "This is the school's position absolutely, and it is the view of the majority of the companions, and it is the opinion of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib , al-Hasan , Ibn Sirin , Ata , Tawus , al-Zuhri , al-Thawri , al-Awza'i , Ibn Abi Layla , and the scholars of opinion. From him [the Imam] is also the view: taking her back is not accomplished by it except with the intention of taking her back, and this was chosen by Shaykh Taqi al-Din , and it was said by Malik and Ishaq . End of quote. It does not affect the validity of taking her back that he did not have witnesses, because the school does not consider witnessing the taking back to be obligatory. It is said in *Al-Muqni'*: "Is witnessing a condition for it? There are two narrations." It is said in *Al-Hashiyyah*: "One of them is: it is not required, and this is the school's position, as he stated it in the narration of Ibn Mansur , and it is the view of the majority of the companions, and it is the opinion of Malik and Abu Hanifa ; because it does not require acceptance, so it does not require witnessing like the other rights of the husband. And because what does not require a guardian does not require witnessing, like a sale. The commentator said: "This is more appropriate, if Allah wills." End of quote. And since it was mentioned that he divorced her on 13/3/1394 AH, by saying to her: "You are divorced, divorced, divorced," and that he repeated the number more than once with the intention of emphasis
and clarification—this is considered another divorce. If this divorce is not the final of three divorces, then he has the right to take back his divorced wife as long as she is in the waiting period. If he takes her back or marries her again with a new contract, she remains with him with one divorce. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his Companions.
Q: Previously, he divorced his wife with one divorce in the month of Sha'ban, and she went to her brother's house. Then, two days after the divorce, she came to her husband's house, and they agreed that she would stay with him and that he would take her back. He did not have witnesses to this due to his ignorance. His wife remained with him, and he enjoyed her as he used to before the divorce. On 12/3/1394 AH, a misunderstanding and argument occurred between them, and he became very angry with her over it. He said to her: "You are divorced, divorced, divorced," meaning that he repeated the word "talaq" more than once. By repeating it, he did not intend a number, but rather intended emphasis and clarification. He asks: Does he have the right to take her back given the circumstances described?
A: If the matter is as he described, that he divorced his wife in the month of Sha'ban, and that he kept her in his house two days after the divorce with the intention of taking her back, and she remained with him and they lived as a married couple without witnesses to his taking her back—if this divorce was not the final of three divorces, then his cohabitation with her after
Divorce, and among its aspects is intercourse while she is still in the waiting period, which is considered taking her back. It is stated in *Al-Muqni'* as follows: "Taking her back is accomplished by having intercourse with her, whether he intends to take her back by it or not." It is said in *Al-Hashiyyah*: "This is the school's position absolutely, and it is the view of the majority of the companions, and it is the opinion of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib , al-Hasan , Ibn Sirin , Ata , Tawus , al-Zuhri , al-Thawri , al-Awza'i , Ibn Abi Layla , and the scholars of opinion. From him [the Imam] is also the view: taking her back is not accomplished by it except with the intention of taking her back, and this was chosen by Shaykh Taqi al-Din , and it was said by Malik and Ishaq . End of quote. It does not affect the validity of taking her back that he did not have witnesses, because the school does not consider witnessing the taking back to be obligatory. It is said in *Al-Muqni'*: "Is witnessing a condition for it? There are two narrations." It is said in *Al-Hashiyyah*: "One of them is: it is not required, and this is the school's position, as he stated it in the narration of Ibn Mansur , and it is the view of the majority of the companions, and it is the opinion of Malik and Abu Hanifa ; because it does not require acceptance, so it does not require witnessing like the other rights of the husband. And because what does not require a guardian does not require witnessing, like a sale. The commentator said: "This is more appropriate, if Allah wills." End of quote. And since it was mentioned that he divorced her on 13/3/1394 AH, by saying to her: "You are divorced, divorced, divorced," and that he repeated the number more than once with the intention of emphasis
and clarification—this is considered another divorce. If this divorce is not the final of three divorces, then he has the right to take back his divorced wife as long as she is in the waiting period. If he takes her back or marries her again with a new contract, she remains with him with one divorce. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his Companions.
Source
www.alifta.gov.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.