And if his writing were removed by erasing or otherwise, and the paper arrived, she is not divorced because it is not a letter. Likewise, if what is in it is obscured by sweat or otherwise, because a letter is an expression for that which contains writing. If its margins are gone or a piece of it is torn, it does not exclude it from being a letter, and if the remainder arrives, she is divorced because the remainder is a letter. If part of what is in it of writing is torn, other than the part that mentions the divorce, and it arrives, she is divorced because the intended meaning remains, so the designation applies to it. If the part that mentions the divorce is torn and gone, and the remainder arrives, she is not divorced because the intended meaning is gone. If he says to her: "If my divorce comes to you, you are divorced," then he writes to her: "If my letter comes to you, you are divorced," and the letter comes to her, she is divorced twice because of the existence of the two conditions in the arrival of the letter. If he says: "I intended, when my letter comes to you, you are divorced by that divorce which I suspended," he is considered honest regarding his relationship with Allah. Is this accepted in a legal judgment? It is derived from two reports.

Section: A letter does not establish divorce except through two just witnesses that this is his letter. Ahmad said, in the report of Harb, regarding a woman who received a letter from her husband in his handwriting and with his seal [stating] a divorce: "She may not remarry until just witnesses testify before her." It was said to him: "What if the bearer of the letter testifies?" He said: "No, unless there are two witnesses." He did not accept the testimony of the letter's bearer alone until someone else testified with him, because documents proving rights are only established by two witnesses, like the letter of a past [judge]. The outward appearance of Ahmad's speech is that the letter is established with her by their testimony before her, even if they do not testify to it before the judge, because its effect concerns her waiting period and the permissibility of remarriage after its expiration, and this is a matter that concerns her and no right over others is established by it, so her hearing the testimony is sufficient for it. Even if two witnesses testify that this is the handwriting