and he pays it to the claimant, he has broken the oath. The Qadi said: He does not break the oath. However, the analogical reasoning (qiyas) of the school is that he does break the oath, because he caused it to reach him voluntarily, so it is similar to if he had paid it to his agent and he then gave it to him. Furthermore, oaths are based on the causes, not on the names, according to what we have mentioned previously.

Section: If he says, "If you see your father, you are divorced," and she sees him dead, asleep, unconscious, or sees him from behind glass or a transparent object, she is divorced, because she has seen him. But if she sees his reflection in water or a mirror, or his image on a wall or elsewhere, she is not divorced, because she has not seen him. If she is coerced into seeing him, it is classified under the two views.

1275 - Issue: He said: (If he says to a woman with whom the marriage has been consummated: "You are divorced, you are divorced," two divorces are binding upon him, unless he intended by the second to make her understand that the first one had already taken effect upon her, in which case one is binding. If she is one with whom the marriage has not been consummated, she becomes irrevocably divorced by the first, and what follows it is not binding upon her, because it is the beginning of a new speech.)

The entirety of this matter is that if he says to his wife, with whom the marriage has been consummated, "You are divorced," twice, and he intends by the second to initiate a second divorce, two divorces take effect without disagreement. If he intends by it to make her understand that the first has already taken effect upon her, or for emphasis, only one divorce takes effect. If he has no intention, two divorces take effect. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and Malik, and it is the correct view from the two narrations of al-Shafi'i. He said in the other: Only one takes effect, because repetition is for emphasis and comprehension, and it also permits initiation, so a divorce should not be effected based on doubt. Our argument is that this wording is for initiation and requires the effect, as evidenced by when there is no preceding statement like it. It only deviates from that by the intention of emphasis or comprehension; so if that is not found, its requirement takes effect, just as one is obliged to act upon the general (al-'umum) when no specifier (mukhassis) is found, and upon the absolute (al-mutlaq) when no qualifier (muqayyad) is found.