or anything else. If we declare the occurrence of the three, the perspective is that he described the conditional divorce with what is impossible to describe it with, so the description becomes void, and the divorce occurs, just as if he said: "You are divorced with one divorce that does not reduce the number of your divorces," or "It is not binding upon you." Or if he said to a woman who has reached menopause: "You are divorced according to the Sunnah," or "according to the Bid'ah (innovation)." The explanation of its impossibility is that linking it with a condition requires its occurrence after it, because the condition precedes that which is conditioned; for this reason, if he had stated it absolutely, it would have occurred after it, and connecting it with the particle "fa" in his saying: "fa-anti taliqun" (then you are divorced) requires it to be immediately following it. That the conditional divorce would be after it yet before it is impossible; the description is not valid, so the description becomes void and the divorce occurs, as if he said: "If I divorce you, then you are divorced three times that are not binding upon you." Furthermore, what they mentioned is invalidated by his saying: "If your marriage is dissolved, you are divorced three times before it." Then that which causes the dissolution of her marriage is found, such as breastfeeding, apostasy, or having sexual intercourse with her mother or daughter by suspicion (shubha). Indeed, what they mentioned applies to this, yet there is no disagreement regarding the dissolution of the marriage. The Qadi said: "What they mentioned is a pretext toward the divorce not occurring upon her at all." If he said: "You are divorced three times just before my divorce of you by one occurs," or he said: "You are divorced today three times if I divorce you tomorrow by one," then the discussion regarding these is from another aspect, and it applies to both issues. This is because the occurring divorce necessitates the occurrence of what its occurrence cannot be conceived with, so one must decree the occurrence of [the occurring divorce] rather than that which is linked to it; because that which is linked to it is subordinate, and it is not permitted to invalidate the primary for the sake of the impossibility of the subordinate's fulfillment, so the subordinate alone is invalidated, as if he said during his illness: "If I free Salim, then Ghanim is free." If only one of them could be freed from his third, then Salim is freed alone, and there is no drawing of lots between them, because that might lead to the freeing of the conditioned without the condition, and that is not