maintenance for her and her prevention from marrying someone else on account of the uncertainty regarding her identity. Once we identify her, either by his designation or by lots, her waiting period begins from the time he divorced her, not from the time he identified her. Abu Hanifa and some of the Shafi'i scholars mentioned that her waiting period is from the time of identification, but this is flawed. For the divorce occurred at the moment he issued it, and its ruling was established regarding the prohibition of sexual intercourse, the deprivation of inheritance from the husband, and his deprivation of her before identification; thus, the same applies to the waiting period. Identification is merely a clarification of what had already occurred. If the husband dies before clarification, all of them must observe the waiting period of bereavement, according to the statement of al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, and 'Ata' al-Khurasani. Abu 'Ubayd said: This is the view of the people of the Hijaz and Iraq; because it is possible for each one of them to still be in the state of marriage, and the fundamental principle is its persistence, so the waiting period of his death is binding upon her. The correct view is that the longer of the two periods—the waiting period of bereavement and the waiting period of divorce—is binding upon each one. However, the waiting period of divorce is from the time he divorced her, and the waiting period of bereavement is from the time of his death, because for each one of them, it is possible that the waiting period of bereavement is upon her, and it is possible that she is the divorced one, so she must observe the waiting period of divorce; thus, she is not certainly absolved except by the longer of the two. This applies to an irrevocable divorce. As for a revocable divorce, she must observe the waiting period of bereavement in any case, because the revocably divorced woman is still a wife.

Section: If a woman claims that her husband divorced her and he denies it, his statement is accepted, because the fundamental principle is the persistence of marriage and the absence of divorce, unless she has evidence for what she claims. In this case, nothing is accepted except two just witnesses. Ibn Mansur reported from Ahmad that he was asked: Is the testimony of one man and two women valid in a case of divorce? He said: No, by Allah. It is only like this because divorce is not wealth, nor is the objective of it wealth, and it is witnessed by men in the majority of circumstances, so nothing is accepted in it except two just witnesses, just like in penal sentences and retaliation. If there is no evidence, is he to be put to an oath? There are two narrations regarding this. [Abu Talib] reported that he is to be put to an oath, and this is the correct view, based on the saying of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "But the oath is upon the one who denies the claim," and his saying: "The oath is upon the one