and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Some of them said: "And he must bear witness." Malik and Ishaq said: "It constitutes a return if he intended the return by it," because this is a period that leads to finality, so it is lifted by intercourse, like the period of Ila' (oath of abstinence). Furthermore, because divorce is a cause for the termination of ownership while there is an option [to revoke] attached to it, thus the act of the owner by way of intercourse prevents its execution, like the intercourse of a seller with a slave-girl sold during the option period. Abu al-Khattab mentioned that if we say: "Intercourse is permitted," the return is achieved through it, just as the appointment of an agent to divorce her is severed by it. If we say: "It is prohibited," the return is not achieved through it, because it is a prohibited act, so it cannot be a cause for lawfulness, like the intercourse of a Muhallil (one who marries a thrice-divorced woman to make her lawful for her first husband).

Section: As for if he kisses her, touches her with desire, or uncovers her private part and looks at it, the explicitly stated view from Ahmad is that it is not a return. Ibn Hamid said: "There are two opinions regarding it; one of them is that it is a return." This is the opinion of Al-Thawri and the People of Opinion, because it is an enjoyment that is made lawful by marriage, so the return is achieved by it, like intercourse. The second is that it is not a return, because it is a matter to which neither the requirement of a waiting period ('iddah) nor a dower (mahr) is attached, so the return is not achieved by it, like looking. As for being in seclusion (khalwah) with her, it is not a return, because it is not an enjoyment. This is the choice of Abu al-Khattab. It was narrated from others of our companions that the return is achieved by it, because it is a state that is prohibited with a foreign woman and permitted with a wife, so the return is achieved by it, like enjoyment. The correct view is that the return is not achieved by it, because it does not invalidate the buyer's option regarding a slave-girl, so it is not a return, like touching without desire. As for touching without desire, looking for that purpose, and the like, it is not a return, because it is permissible with other than a wife in cases of necessity, so it resembles speaking to her.

Section: As for speech, the return is achieved by it without disagreement. Its wordings are: "I have returned you (raja'tuki)," "I have taken you back (irtaja'tuki)," "I have taken you back (radadtuki)," and "I have retained you (amsaktuki)."