so mentioning it and excepting it is void. Every exception whose validation leads to the ultimate goal and the cancellation of that from which the exception is made is void, just like the exception of the whole. This is because cancelling it alone is more appropriate than cancelling it along with cancelling other things, and because the exception refers to the final phrase in one of the two views, thus constituting an exception of the whole. The second view is that the exception is valid, and two divorces occur; because conjunction with 'wa' (and) makes the two phrases like a single phrase, so he becomes one who excepts one from three. For this reason, if he said to him: 'I owe you one hundred and twenty dirhams except fifty,' it is valid. The first is more correct, and it is the school of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. If he says: 'You are divorced one [time] and two [times] except one,' then according to the second view, the exception is valid. According to the first view, there are two views regarding its validity, based on [the rule concerning] the exception of the half. If he says: 'You are divorced, and divorced, and divorced, except one divorce,' or says: 'Divorced two times and a half except one divorce,' then the ruling regarding that is the same as the ruling in the first issue. If the conjunction is without 'wa', such as his saying: 'You are divorced, then divorced, then divorced,' or 'You are divorced, then divorced, then divorced, except one divorce,' the exception is not valid; because this particle implies sequence and that the final divorce is separate from what preceded it, so the exception refers to it alone, thus it is not valid. If he says: 'You are divorced two [times] and two [times] except two,' the exception is not valid; because if it refers to the phrase following it, it is a removal of the whole of it, and if it refers to the three that he owns, it is a removal of the majority of it; both are invalid. It is possible that it is valid, based on the fact that conjunction with 'wa' makes the two phrases one phrase, and that the exception of the half is valid; so it is as if he said: 'Four except two.' If he says: 'You are divorced two [times] and two [times] except one,' it is possible that it is valid; because he excepted one from three. It is also possible that it is not valid; because if it refers to the fourth, then three remain after it, and if it refers to the one remaining from the two, it is an exception of the whole.

Section: If he says: 'You are divorced three [times] except one divorce, and one divorce, and one divorce,' there are two views regarding it: