and separated," and says, "I intended emphasis." It is possible that this is accepted from him, because a differing word can have its parts conjoined for emphasis, as in his saying (23):

He found her statement to be lies and falsehood.

It is also possible that it is not accepted, because the 'wa' (and) necessitates distinction; thus, it is similar to if it were in a single wording.

1276 - Issue: He said: "And if he says to a woman who has not been consummated with: 'You are divorced and divorced and divorced,' the three become binding upon her; because it is a sequence (nasaq), and it is like his saying: 'You are divorced three times.'"

Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Layth, Rabi'ah, and Ibn Abi Layla held this view. It was narrated from al-Shafi'i in the 'qadim' (old school) what points to it. Al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr said: Only one occurs, because he made the first occur before the second, so nothing else could fall upon her, just as if he had separated them. Our proof is that the 'wa' necessitates accumulation and does not contain ordering; therefore, he is causing all three to occur simultaneously, so they all fall upon her, as in his saying: "You are divorced three times" or "One divorce with which there are two divorces." This differs from when he separates them, for they do not all occur [at once]; likewise, if he conjoins some of them to others with a particle that necessitates ordering, the first occurs before the second by the requirement of his statement. Here, the first does not occur at the moment he speaks it until he completes his speech, evidenced by the fact that if he appended an exception, a condition, or a description to it, it would attach to it, and the first would not occur unconditionally. If it were to occur at the moment he spoke it, none of that could attach to it. Once it is established that its occurrence is paused pending the completion of the speech, then it occurs upon the completion of his speech in the manner his wording necessitates. His wording necessitates the occurrence of all three divorces collectively, which is the meaning of al-Khiraqi's statement: "Because it is a sequence," meaning