A change in a mufti's independent legal reasoning on a specific issue does not invalidate the fatwa he issued to a specific individual.

The questioner : And from another perspective, this questioner who follows a scholar without independent reasoning adopted the first opinion and did not think it through; rather, he is seeking this religious requirement from a scholar.

The Shaykh : Excuse me, you say he adopted it, while I say he embraced it. Do you see a difference between the two?

The questioner : Do you mean he acted upon it, or more than that?

The Shaykh : I mean, as I said earlier, when a scholar sees a hadith and embraces it and issues a fatwa based on it, the scholar's statement regarding this layperson is like the hadith regarding that scholar.

The questioner : Yes, that is correct.

The Shaykh : So I am saying, you are saying now that, hypothetically, regarding the scholar, he adopted the hadith, and you say there is no objection to this statement. But I say that if we say he embraced it, first, it does not contradict your statement that he adopted it; rather, it may be more precise in expression.

The questioner : It is a strong adoption, meaning he made it like his permission...

The Shaykh : Very good. So, when you changed the word "embraced" regarding the layperson to "adopted," do you mean he did not embrace it, or what?

The questioner : No, he embraced it.

The Shaykh : Then proceed with what you wanted to say.

The questioner : He embraced this opinion.

The Shaykh : Fine.

The questioner : Then he acted upon it for a period, and then it reached him that the first opinion was incorrect and the second is the most correct, and he has strong and established evidence for it. What prevents him from retracting it, when we have been commanded to retract an incorrect fatwa?

The Shaykh : The answer to this has already been given, Professor.

The questioner : Meaning that there is a harm involved.

The Shaykh : No, the answer has already been given that there is another issue involved.

The questioner : And that is

The Shaykh : We mentioned it regarding 'Umar ibn al-Khattab.

The questioner : Well, that was in a matter that had been executed and concluded. But here, there is still room in the matter, meaning they have separated and a final divorce has occurred between them.

The Shaykh : Yes, the ruling has been executed.

The questioner : Well, if a man divorces his wife with a revocable divorce and then the waiting period expires, can they return to each other with a new contract?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Yes. So here, what prevents considering that divorce as revocable and concluded, and then them returning with a new contract?

The Shaykh : Was the embrace based on it being a revocable divorce, or a major final divorce?

The questioner : A triple divorce.

The Shaykh : So if

The questioner : Well, it became clear to him that he was mistaken, meaning it contradicts the Sunnah. Is not returning to the truth a virtue?

The Shaykh : No, this is rhetorical language. "Returning to the truth" is not applicable here now. Suppose he issued a fatwa that he divorced with one pronouncement, meaning he said, "You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced," and you considered these pronouncements as a triple divorce with a single phrase. But then a legal obstacle, a legal proof, was found indicating that this divorce does not take effect at all.

The questioner : And it has been said.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : And some scholars have said that this is an innovative divorce.

The Shaykh : Do not expand the topic, may Allah be pleased with you. Do not branch out the topic until we reach the important goal. He divorced his wife with the phrase "three," and he ruled that this is one pronouncement. But the correct legal ruling is that even one pronouncement is not ruled as valid for one reason or another. For example, we say that a divorce in anger does not take effect, and if this man was angry, but the questioner or the mufti did not consider this a divorce in anger, so he recorded one pronouncement for him, okay? Or, for example, he held the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, as you know, that his wife was menstruating, and that was a reason preventing the divorce from taking effect. But I, for example, say that a divorce during menstruation does take effect, so I issued a fatwa that this divorce took effect, but only as one pronouncement. You issued a fatwa that this is not considered a divorce, okay, that is the example.

The questioner: Okay

The Shaykh : Now, a man named Zayd divorced his wife while she was menstruating three times. Someone like me issued a fatwa that it was one pronouncement. He came to someone like you or like another person. What did he say to him? "This is not considered a divorce because it is a divorce during menstruation, an innovative divorce." But he had embraced the first divorce, okay?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Good, and the situation proceeded, and the wife completed her waiting period.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : If the waiting period expires, or if we do not assume it has expired, and she is still in the waiting period, and she hears the opinion that this divorce does not take effect for one of the two reasons we mentioned, is she permitted to enjoy his company? Here the effect of the difference between embracing and not embracing appears. Since he embraced that this is a divorce, he is not permitted to consider that this divorce is void because he heard another opinion that this divorce did not take effect. He enjoys her company as if he had pronounced that divorce. This is the effect of the difference between "embraced" and "did not embrace." If you change the example to say that he issued a fatwa that it is a major final divorce, and between that and one pronouncement, take this scenario: it is one pronouncement, but according to the stronger opinion of the second mufti, it is not a divorce at all. Is he permitted to enjoy her company based on the second opinion, having previously embraced that she is divorced, and consequently, if he wants to enjoy her company, he must take her back into his marriage as long as the waiting period has not ended? And the first scenario I presented and then finished with, I return to it: Is he permitted, after the waiting period has ended, to take her back as if she were still in the waiting period, without a new contract and without a new bridal gift, based on the new second opinion? He is not permitted to do so because he embraced the first opinion.

The questioner : Well, does it change anything if the mufti himself retracted his opinion?

The Shaykh : The answer has already been given, may Allah reward you.
Al-Halabi : Meaning in the future, in new fatwas, not in the specific case.

The Shaykh : Yes, meaning this is 'Umar, as I mentioned earlier, he did not come to the first questioner and say, "The division you made based on my first fatwa, you must recalculate this and that and this and that." No, "That is based on what we issued as a fatwa, and this is based on..." This is what you pointed out would cause disorder in the rulings and overlap in them, meaning it would become a very big problem.

The questioner : Meaning this is the reason, the fear, and 'Umar's fatwa is the evidence.

The Shaykh : Yes, this is sufficient because there is nothing that contradicts this. There is no god but Allah.