to them during his illness: "If you are emancipated, or if you convert to Islam, you are both divorced." The slave woman was emancipated and the Dhimmi woman converted to Islam, and he died; they both inherit from him because he was an evader. If he said to them: "You are both divorced tomorrow," and the slave woman was emancipated and the Dhimmi woman converted, they do not inherit from him because he was not an evader. If the master of the slave woman said: "You are free tomorrow," and the husband said: "You are divorced tomorrow," while he knew of the master's statement, she inherits from him because he was an evader. If he did not know, she does not inherit from him due to the absence of evasion. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and his companions, and al-Shafi'i, and I do not know of any dissenter among them.

Section: If he said to his wife during his health: "If I become ill, then you are divorced," its ruling is exactly the same as the ruling of divorce during illness. If he acknowledged during his illness that he had divorced her three times during his health, his acknowledgment against her is not accepted, and its ruling is the same as the ruling of his divorce during his illness. This is the opinion of Malik and Abu Hanifah. Al-Shafi'i said: His acknowledgment is accepted. Our view is that it is an acknowledgment by which the right of another is invalidated, so it is not accepted, just as if he were to acknowledge her wealth.

Section: If she asked him for a divorce during his illness, and he complied, the judge said: There are two reports; one of them is that she does not inherit from him because he is not an evader. The second is that she does inherit from him because he divorced her during his illness. This is the opinion of Malik. The same ruling applies if he granted her khul' (divorce for compensation), or suspended the divorce upon her wish and she wished for it, or upon an action on her part that she could have avoided and she performed it, or he gave her the choice and she chose herself. The correct view in all of this is that she does not inherit from him because there is no evasion on his part. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i. If she did not know about the suspension of her divorce and performed what it was suspended upon, she inherits from him because she is excused in that regard. If she asked him for one divorce and he divorced her three times, she inherits from him because he made her irrevocably divorced by something she did not request from him. If he suspended her divorce upon an act she must perform, such as an obligatory prayer or an obligatory fast during its time, and she performed it, its ruling is the same as the ruling of divorcing her initially, according to all of them. Likewise, if he suspended it upon her speaking to her parents or either one of them. If he said during his illness: "You are divorced if Zayd arrives," and similar matters that are neither her action nor his, and the condition was met and she was divorced by it, she inherits from him.

Section: If he suspended her divorce during his health upon a condition that was met during his illness, such as the arrival of Zayd,