If she was in a state of the Sunnah, he is believed in that which is between him and Allah, the Exalted. And is it accepted in terms of legal ruling? There are two views, as previously mentioned.

Section: If he reverses it, saying: 'You are divorced the ugliest of divorces,' or 'the most repulsive,' or 'the most lewd,' or 'the foulest,' or 'the most inferior,' it is construed as a divorce of innovation (bid'ah). If she is in the time of innovation, it occurs; otherwise, it is suspended until the time of innovation arrives. It has been narrated from Abu Bakr that it occurs as three, if we say that gathering the three is an innovation. It is appropriate that the three occur in the time of innovation so that it combines the two innovations of divorce, thereby being the 'ugliest of divorces.' If he intended by that something other than a divorce of innovation—for example, by saying: 'I only meant that your divorce is the ugliest of divorces because you do not deserve it due to your good company and beautiful conduct'—it occurs immediately. If he says: 'I meant by that a Sunnah-compliant divorce, so that the divorce is delayed from itself until the time of the Sunnah,' it is not accepted, because his wording does not bear that meaning. If he says: 'You are divorced one divorce that is good, ugly, lewd, beautiful, complete, and incomplete,' it occurs immediately, because he described it with two contradictory attributes, so they are voided, and the mere divorce remains. If he says: 'I intended that it is good because it is in the time of the Sunnah, and ugly (12) because it is harmful to you,' or he says: 'I intended that it is good because of my deliverance from your evil and bad [company and] (13) character, and ugly because it is in the time of innovation,' and that would delay the occurrence of the divorce from him, he is believed. And is it accepted in legal ruling? It is derived from two views.

Section: If he says: 'You are divorced the divorce of hardship (haraj),' the Qadi said: 'Its meaning is the divorce of innovation,' because al-haraj is tightness and sin, so it is as if he said: 'the divorce of sin,' and the divorce of innovation is a divorce of sin. Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, that it occurs as three, because al-haraj is the tightness, and that which tightens for him, prevents him from returning to her, and prevents her from returning to him, is the three; and it is, along with that, a divorce of innovation, and it contains sin, so the two matters combine upon it: tightness and sin. And if he says: 'the divorce of

1252- Issue: He said: (And the divorce of one whose intellect is absent without intoxication does not (1) occur)

The scholars have reached a consensus that the divorce of one whose intellect is absent for a reason other than (2) intoxication, or that which is equivalent to it, does not occur. This was stated by Uthman, Ali, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan, al-Nakha'i, al-Sha'bi, Abu Qilabah, Qatadah, al-Zuhri, Yahya al-Ansari, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y). They reached a consensus that if a man divorces while in a state of sleep, there is no divorce for him. It has been established that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "The pen is lifted from three: from the sleeper until he wakes up, from the child until he reaches puberty, and from the insane person until he regains his intellect (3)" (4). It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah, from the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) that he said: "Every divorce is permissible, except the divorce of the mentally deficient whose intellect is overcome." Al-Najjad narrated it (5). Al-Tirmidhi said: "We do not know it except from the hadith of 'Ata ibn 'Ajlan, and his hadith is discarded." He also narrated with his chain of transmission from Ali something similar (6). And because it is a statement that removes ownership, intellect is required for it, like a sale. It is the same whether his intellect departed due to insanity, fainting, sleep, drinking medicine, being coerced into drinking wine, or drinking that which removes [his intellect] (7), and he does not know that it removes the intellect; all of this prevents the occurrence of the divorce, based on a single narration, and we know of no disagreement regarding it. As for if he drank