A man divorced his wife while in a state of extreme anger, saying: “You are divorced three times, no fatwa and no taking back. You are divorced three times, no fatwa and no taking back.”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question: A man divorced his wife while in a state of extreme anger, saying: “You are divorced three times, no fatwa and no taking back. You are divorced three times, no fatwa and no taking back. You are divorced three times, no fatwa and no taking back.” This is exactly what he said. Afterwards, they took the judge’s fatwa, a new contract was established between them, and they returned to each other. After a long period, he also swore an oath of divorce against his wife if she did a certain act. What should the wife do now, given that she needs to perform that act, which he made the divorce contingent upon? If she performs it, is she divorced or not?
Answer: As for what was mentioned first, that a divorce occurred from him and he uttered the divorce several times, and that they referred to the judge who issued a fatwa for them by establishing a new contract for them, this is a matter for the judge, who knows the circumstances of the case and what surrounds it, so he is the one who looks into it.
As for his oath of divorce that she not do a specific thing, and she needs to do it, then in that case, if his intention was not to effect the divorce, but only to prevent her from that thing, then he owes the expiation for an oath. He expiates for the oath, and it is dissolved, and after that she does what he swore to prevent her from doing.
Question: What is the legal ruling for one who swore against his wife with divorce or zihar that she not do something, then he traveled away from her, and he does not know whether she violated his oath or not? And if she did it and he did not know about it, what is the ruling?
Answer: If he swore against his wife with divorce or zihar with the intention of preventing her from doing one of the things, then this takes the ruling of an oath; he expiates for the oath and it is dissolved. But if she did in his absence what he forbade her from, and he swore that she not do it, then he breaks his oath by that, even if he did not know, because he swore that she not do it, and she violated the oath. And if she violated the oath intentionally, remembering this oath, then the one who swore sins by that, and the expiation is upon him, whether he knew or did not know.
Question: In this case, of course, she observes the waiting period if she is divorced, and the waiting period begins from the time of the violation?
Answer: She is not divorced if his intention with the divorce was to prevent her from that; this is an oath, which is dissolved by the expiation.
But if his intention was to divorce her if she did it, then she is divorced from the moment this thing occurs from her, the violation, if she did it voluntarily, remembering the oath.
Question: If her waiting period ended and he did not know that she violated him?
Answer: The waiting period is not dependent on his knowledge, but rather on the occurrence of the condition upon which it was contingent. So if she did what he forbade her from and upon which he made the divorce contingent, then her divorce begins from the moment she did it, and her waiting period ends with the passage of its time, whether by menstruation or by months, whether he knew it or did not know it.
Question: Meaning, if he cohabited with her after that, it would be forbidden cohabitation, and the greater sin is upon her because she is the cause and he is ignorant of what she did?
Answer: This varies depending on the type of divorce. If the divorce is revocable, and he cohabited with her during the waiting period, there is no harm in that, and this is considered a taking back.
Question: For example, if he was absent and swore against her that she not do something, then he traveled, and she did it in his absence and the waiting period ended, and he did not know that she did it, does a taking back occur for her?
Answer: It is not permissible for him; if the waiting period has passed, she has become separated from him and is forbidden to him.
Answer: As for what was mentioned first, that a divorce occurred from him and he uttered the divorce several times, and that they referred to the judge who issued a fatwa for them by establishing a new contract for them, this is a matter for the judge, who knows the circumstances of the case and what surrounds it, so he is the one who looks into it.
As for his oath of divorce that she not do a specific thing, and she needs to do it, then in that case, if his intention was not to effect the divorce, but only to prevent her from that thing, then he owes the expiation for an oath. He expiates for the oath, and it is dissolved, and after that she does what he swore to prevent her from doing.
Question: What is the legal ruling for one who swore against his wife with divorce or zihar that she not do something, then he traveled away from her, and he does not know whether she violated his oath or not? And if she did it and he did not know about it, what is the ruling?
Answer: If he swore against his wife with divorce or zihar with the intention of preventing her from doing one of the things, then this takes the ruling of an oath; he expiates for the oath and it is dissolved. But if she did in his absence what he forbade her from, and he swore that she not do it, then he breaks his oath by that, even if he did not know, because he swore that she not do it, and she violated the oath. And if she violated the oath intentionally, remembering this oath, then the one who swore sins by that, and the expiation is upon him, whether he knew or did not know.
Question: In this case, of course, she observes the waiting period if she is divorced, and the waiting period begins from the time of the violation?
Answer: She is not divorced if his intention with the divorce was to prevent her from that; this is an oath, which is dissolved by the expiation.
But if his intention was to divorce her if she did it, then she is divorced from the moment this thing occurs from her, the violation, if she did it voluntarily, remembering the oath.
Question: If her waiting period ended and he did not know that she violated him?
Answer: The waiting period is not dependent on his knowledge, but rather on the occurrence of the condition upon which it was contingent. So if she did what he forbade her from and upon which he made the divorce contingent, then her divorce begins from the moment she did it, and her waiting period ends with the passage of its time, whether by menstruation or by months, whether he knew it or did not know it.
Question: Meaning, if he cohabited with her after that, it would be forbidden cohabitation, and the greater sin is upon her because she is the cause and he is ignorant of what she did?
Answer: This varies depending on the type of divorce. If the divorce is revocable, and he cohabited with her during the waiting period, there is no harm in that, and this is considered a taking back.
Question: For example, if he was absent and swore against her that she not do something, then he traveled, and she did it in his absence and the waiting period ended, and he did not know that she did it, does a taking back occur for her?
Answer: It is not permissible for him; if the waiting period has passed, she has become separated from him and is forbidden to him.