one of them, then he mentions the one he divorced and says: "This one." She returns to him, and the divorce falls upon the one he mentioned. If she has already married, then this is something that has passed. If the judge had caused them to draw lots, I would not like for her to return to him, because the judge's authority in that matter is greater than his. Abu Bakr and Ibn Hamid said: Whenever he draws lots, and then says afterwards: "The divorcee is someone other than her," the divorce falls upon both of them, and neither of them returns to him, except that the one he specified as divorced becomes unlawful to him, inherits from him if he dies, but he does not inherit from her. It follows from the logic of their opinion that he is obligated to provide her maintenance, and that sexual intercourse with her is not permissible for him.

Section: If he says: "This is the divorcee," his statement is accepted. If he says: "This is the divorcee, rather this one," both are divorced, because he confessed to the divorce of the first, so his confession was accepted, then his confession regarding the divorce of the second was accepted, and his retraction of what he had confessed regarding the divorce of the first was not accepted. Similarly, if they were three and he said: "This one, rather this one, [rather this one]," they are all divorced. If he said: "This one, or this one, rather this one," the third is divorced, as well as one of the first two. If he said: "I divorced this one, rather this one or this one," the first is divorced, and one of the latter two. If he said: "You are divorced, and this one or this one," the Qadi said: "It is as he said," and he mentioned that it is the opinion of al-Kisa'i. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: The second is divorced, and doubt remains regarding the first and the third. The basis for the first opinion is that he conjoined the second to the first without uncertainty, then separated between the second and the third with a particle of doubt, so the doubt applies to those two. If he said: "I divorced this one or this one and this one," the third is divorced, and there is doubt regarding the first two. It is possible in these two issues that the doubt applies to all of them, because in the first [case], he brought the particle of doubt after them, so it returns to them both, and in the second issue, he conjoined the third to the doubt. Based on this, if he said: "I divorced this one and this one or this one," he is requested to clarify.