and divorced," and she entered the house, she is divorced three times. This is the opinion of Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and the companions of al-Shafi'i in one of the two scholarly views. Abu Haniifah said: Only one occurs, because when a conditional divorce has its condition met, it is as if he had issued it at that moment with its condition, and had he issued it as such, only one would have occurred. Our argument is that the condition for the occurrence of three divorces was met, without them being ordered, so the three occurred, just like the one preceding it. If he says: "If you enter the house, you are divorced one divorce, with which there are two divorces," and she enters, she is divorced three times. Some of the companions of al-Shafi'i mentioned the same, and did not report any disagreement among them regarding it.

Section: If he says to a woman with whom the marriage has not been consummated: "You are divorced, then divorced, then divorced, if you enter the house," or: "If you enter the house, you are divorced, then divorced, then divorced," or: "If you enter, you are divorced, and divorced, and divorced," and she enters, she is divorced once, and she becomes irrevocable by it, and nothing else occurs. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. The Qadi held the view that she is divorced immediately once, by which she becomes irrevocable. This is the position of Abu Haniifah in the first scenario, because "thumma" (then) separates the first from what follows it, as it indicates a delay; thus, the first is issued, and the second is contingent upon the condition. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: Nothing occurs until she enters the house, at which point three occur, because entering the house is a condition for the three, so they occur, just as if he had said: "If you enter the house, you are divorced, and divorced, and divorced." Our argument is that "thumma" is for conjunction and contains sequencing, so all the divorces were contingent upon the entry, because conjunction does not prevent the attachment of a condition to what is conjoined, and sequencing is mandatory in it, just as it is mandatory if it were not made conditional. In this, there is a refutation of what they mentioned. Furthermore, the first follows the condition, so its occurrence is not necessitated without it, just as if he had not conjoined it to her.