He said: "One of you is divorced." And because it is the removal of one of the two ownerships based on predominance (taghlib) and extension (sirayah), it resembles manumission (itq). The correct view, God willing, is that the drawing of lots does not apply here, for the reasons we have presented. It differs from what they drew an analogy with, for the right was not established for one specific individual, so the Lawgiver (al-shar') made the lot a means of specification, as it is suitable for specification. However, in our issue, the divorce has occurred upon a specific woman without a doubt, and the lot neither removes it from her, nor causes it to fall upon another. Furthermore, there is no immunity from the lot falling upon someone other than her, and the possibility of the lot falling upon another is as likely as the possibility of it falling upon her; indeed, it is more apparent in the case of another. For if they are four, the probability of it having occurred upon one of them specifically is rarer than the probability of it having occurred upon one of three. Therefore, if his sister were confused with a stranger, or a dead animal with a slaughtered one, or his wife with a stranger, or he swore by divorce not to eat a date and it fell into a pile of dates, and similar instances too numerous to mention, lots do not apply. Thus, it is the same here. As for the narration of Ali, it concerns inheritance, not the permissibility of relations (al-hill), and we do not know of any Companion who holds the opinion of applying it to the issue of relations.

Section: According to the view of our companions, if he remembers that the divorcee is other than the one upon whom the lot fell, it becomes evident that she had been unlawful to him, and the occurrence of the divorce is from the time he divorced, not from the time he remembered. His statement regarding this is accepted because he is making a confession against himself. The one upon whom the lot fell is returned to him because we have determined that she is not the divorcee, and the lot is not a divorce—neither explicit nor implicit. If she has not married, she is returned to him, and his word is accepted in this regard because it is a matter concerning his own affair, known only by him, unless she has married or it is by a judge's ruling. For when she has married, the right of the second husband becomes attached to her, so his word is not accepted in annulling his marriage. As for the lot from the judge regarding the separation, the husband cannot reverse it, so the separation between the two spouses remains. Ahmad said in the narration of al-Maymuni: If he has four wives and divorces one of them but does not know which one he divorced, he draws lots between them. If he draws lots between them and the lot falls upon...