one of them spoke to one man, there are two opinions on this: one is that he commits a breach, because speaking to them occurred from them, so he commits a breach, just as if he had said: "If you both menstruate, you are both divorced," and each one menstruates one period. The same applies if he said: "If you both ride your two animals, you are both divorced," and each one rides her animal. The second opinion is that he does not commit a breach until each one of them speaks to the two men together, because he suspended their divorce on their speaking to them, so one does not divorce by the speech of the other alone. This is the clearer of the two opinions for the companions of al-Shafi'i. The same applies if (59) he said: "If you both enter these two houses," the ruling on it is the same as the first. This is for matters in which it is not customary for a single person to act alone, but as for that where custom dictates the singularity of one person with one matter, such as: they both rode their two animals, they both put on their two garments, they both girt their two swords, they both took their two spears, and they both entered with their two wives, and similar to this, he commits a breach when it is found that they are both separated. As for that in which custom does not dictate that, it is subject to the two opinions. [And Allah knows best] (60). If he said: "If you both eat these two loaves," and each one of them eats one loaf, he commits a breach (61); because it is impossible for each one of them to eat both loaves, unlike the two men and the two houses.

Section: If he said: "You are divorced if you speak to Zayd, and Muhammad is with Khalid," she is not divorced until she speaks to Zayd while [Muhammad] (62) is with Khalid. The Qadi mentioned that he commits a breach by the speech of Zayd alone; because his statement "Muhammad is with Khalid" is a resumption of speech, proven by the fact that it is in the nominative case (marfu'). The correct view is what we have said (63); because whenever it is possible to make the speech connected, it is better than severing it, and the nominative case does not negate its being a circumstantial clause (hal), for the sentence composed of the subject (mubtada') and the predicate (khabar) can be a circumstantial clause, as in His, the Exalted's, saying: "The reckoning for mankind has drawn near, while they are in heedlessness turning away" (64). And He said: "Except they listen to it while they are playing" (65). "And I fear that the wolf will eat him..."