Ruling on Divorcing a Woman During Her Period of Purity

Question:
This is a question from the listener (M. J. al-Harithi) from Riyadh. He says: One day, a disagreement arose between me and my wife, and I became extremely angry. I divorced her three times, each divorce pronounced separately, by saying: "You are divorced," then "You are divorced," then "You are divorced." Her monthly period came on that same day after the divorce. I consulted a scholar who told me it was permissible to take her back, so I took her back by having two witnesses. After a year had passed, I prevented her from going to any of the neighbors, but she did not stop. She came to me while I was angry, and I divorced her twice. I now want to take her back again. I have heard that I am not allowed to take her back after the first divorce. What is the correct ruling in this matter?
Please advise me, may Allah reward you.

Answer:
The first divorce involves a detailed explanation. If it occurred during a period of purity in which you had intercourse with her, the correct view is that it does not take effect. This is based on what is established from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): that he divorced his wife while she was menstruating. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: and explained to him that the lawful divorce is to divorce her during a period of purity in which no intercourse has occurred, or while she is pregnant. This is based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: [Al-Talaq: 1]. The scholars said: The meaning of this is to divorce them while they are in a state of purity, without having had intercourse with them. If the divorce occurred during a period of purity in which you did not have intercourse with her, and the anger was not severe, then the divorce has taken effect, and there is no place for taking her back. The one who issued you a ruling on this matter did so incorrectly.
However, if the divorce occurred in a state of intense anger, because there was severe quarreling between you until the anger became dominant and intense, and you could not control yourself in that state, then the divorce does not take effect at that time. In this case, the questioner has retained his wife, and it is not called taking her back (raj'ah); rather, she was returned to him because the divorce did not take effect.
In summary: The questioner mentioned has two possible situations:
The first is that he divorced her during a period of purity in which he had intercourse with her. In this case, the divorce does not take effect according to the correct view, even though the majority hold the opposite view. However, this is the opinion of a group of the Salaf that it does not take effect, based on the hadith of Ibn 'Umar, because he divorced her outside the waiting period, so it does not take effect.
The second situation is that he divorced her during a period of purity in which he did not have intercourse with her, but his anger became clearly intense, not ordinary anger, but severe anger, because the dispute between them lasted a long time, or involved insults and mutual cursing, until the anger became dominant and intense, approaching a state of unconsciousness due to the severity of the anger. In this case, the divorce also does not take effect according to the correct view, because intense anger makes a person like a madman or an insane person who cannot distinguish between what harms him and what benefits him, and he becomes like one who is coerced and forced by strength until he pronounces the divorce. In these two situations, this divorce does not take effect.
However, if the anger was not severe, but ordinary, and he divorced her during a period of purity in which he did not have intercourse with her, then the divorce is valid, and he must separate from her and stay away from her. The last divorce does not take effect because it occurred when she was not his wife. Even if he had intercourse with her, that intercourse was not in its proper place, and the last divorce occurred when she was not in a valid marriage, so it does not take effect. She has become divorced by the first divorce.
And you, O questioner, must repent for taking her back and having intercourse with her after the divorce. This is the answer to this question. I hope the questioner understood it, as this question is important, and the answer is important.
And I repeat it once more:
O questioner! You have two situations:
The first is that you divorced her during a period of purity in which you had intercourse with her.
Or in a second situation: which is intense, severe anger that is close to losing consciousness due to the severity of the anger, caused by a long dispute, or beating, or mutual cursing. In these two situations, the divorce does not take effect, and your wife is with you, and the last divorce is considered.
However, if you divorced her during a period of purity in which you did not have intercourse with her, and the anger was not severe, then the divorce has taken effect, and she is not your wife. You must release her, and the last divorce does not take effect on her if it occurred when she was not your wife.
As for the second divorce, if it occurred when she was your wife, and the first divorce did not take effect due to intense anger, or because the woman was divorced during a period of purity in which her husband had intercourse with her, or for both reasons, the divorce occurred during a period of purity in which he had intercourse with her, along with intense anger, then this does not take effect. The second divorce takes effect if you divorced her twice with words indicating that, by saying: "You are divorced, then you are divorced," or "You are divorced and you are divorced," or if you said: "You are divorced, you are divorced" and intended the two divorces, then the two divorces take effect.
However, if you said: "You are divorced, you are divorced," and did not intend the two divorces, saying "You are divorced, you are divorced" with your words in anger or something similar, but did not intend the two divorces, then the second divorce is a confirmation of the first divorce, and only one divorce takes effect. If you said: "You are divorced, you are divorced" without "and" (wa) and without "then" (thumma) and without anything else; "You are divorced, you are divorced," this is considered by the scholars as the ruling of a single divorce, and the second phrase confirms the first phrase, and a second divorce does not take effect. However, if you said: "You are divorced and you are divorced," or "You are divorced, then you are divorced," or "You are divorced, you are divorced," or "I divorce you, I divorce you," and did not intend confirmation in your saying "I divorce you, I divorce you," and did not intend to inform her, and similarly if you said: "You are divorced, you are divorced" and intended the two, then this takes effect, and the two divorces take effect: "You are divorced and you are divorced," "You are divorced, then you are divorced," "You are divorced, you are divorced," "I divorce you, I divorce you," two divorces take effect, unless you intended confirmation or informing in the second of your saying "You are divorced, you are divorced," or you did not intend anything in your saying "You are divorced, you are divorced," then only one takes effect. And similarly, if you said: "You are divorced, you are divorced," or "I divorce you, I divorce you," and intended confirmation or informing with the second, then only one takes effect. Otherwise, the default is that the two take effect. Yes.

The presenter: May Allah reward you.