In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Prayers and salutations be upon the Master of the Messengers ﷺ, and upon his family and Companions. There is no power nor strength except through Allah, the Mighty, the Wise.
Among the principles established by the ʿulamāʾ, derived from the texts of the Noble Qurʾān and the Prophetic Sunna, are the following: “Ignorance of a legal ruling [ḥukm] in the land of Islam (i.e., that place where knowledge of Islam is accessible) is not an excuse,” and “Every form of ignorance that the legally responsible person [mukallaf] is able to remove cannot serve as a proof in favour of the ignorant person.”
The evidences for this are the following:
- The general import of the statement of Allah, Exalted is He: ﴾And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge﴿ [Qurʾān 17:36]. Allah, Most High, forbade following that which is not known. Thus, it is not permissible to embark upon a matter until one knows its ruling. Whoever proceeds to do something while ignorant of its ruling is accountable for his action and is not excused.
- On the authority of our Master, al-Barāʾ b. ʿĀzib (Allah be pleased with them both) who said: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ addressed us on the Day of Sacrifice [yawm al-naḥr] after the prayer and said,‘Whoever prayed our prayer and performed our sacrifice has attained the sacrifice; and whoever sacrificed before the prayer, then it is merely a sheep for meat.’ Abū Burda b. Niyār stood up and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, by Allah, I had sacrificed before I went out to the prayer, and I knew that today was a day of eating and drinking, so I hastened, ate, and fed my family and neighbours.’ The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘That is merely a sheep for meat.’” Narrated by al-Bukhārī §983 and Muslim §1961.
Imām Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd (Allah have mercy upon him) said:
“In this lies the evidence that commanded acts, when performed contrary to the requirement of the command, are not excused on account of ignorance.”
On this basis, the jurists agreed that there is no excuse for ignorance of a ḥukm where learning is possible, and that every form of ignorance that the mukallaf is able to remove cannot serve as a proof in favour of the ignorant person.
Imām al-Shāfiʿī (Allah be pleased with him) said:
“Were the ignorant person to be excused on account of his ignorance, ignorance would be better than knowledge, since it would remove from the servant the burdens of taklīf and relieve himself of forms of reproach. Thus, the servant has no proof in his ignorance of the ruling after being notified (of one’s ignorance) and having the ability to learn, lest people have an argument against Allah after the messengers (have delivered the Message).”
It is for this reason that the fuqahāʾ established these principles, since the mukallaf is able to acquire knowledge in such matters.
Among the rulings in which ignorance is not an excuse is the utterance of the expressions of divorce with the intention of divorce. Whoever utters an explicit expression of divorce, or an allusive expression accompanied by the intention of divorce, then divorce takes effect. If divorce is repeated three times, there is no right of return for him. He is not excused by his ignorance if, for example, he says: “I did not know that divorce is limited to three,” or “I did not know that divorce would take effect,” because this is among the matters that the mukallaf is obliged to learn, especially if he intends to marry, since it is something he may need at any time. Among the explicit statements of the Book of Allah, the Exalted, is: ﴾Divorce can be pronounced two times; in which case wives may be retained with correctness and courtesy or released with good will﴿ [Qurʾān 2:229].
Imām Ibn Qudāma (Allah have mercy upon him) said:
“Ignorance of the rulings of the Sacred Sharīʿa, while one is able to acquire knowledge, does not suspend their legal effects.”
Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (Allah have mercy upon him) said:
“More than one scholar stated: the imāms have explicitly affirmed that ignorance of the ruling has no legal effect.”
The ʿulamāʾ therefore stipulated only legal accountability [taklīf] as a condition for divorce to take effect, even if the person was joking; thus, he is not excused by his ignorance of this.
Imām Ibn al-Mundhir (Allah have mercy upon him) said: “[…] All those from the people of knowledge from whom we have preserved statements are in unanimous agreement that seriousness and joking in divorce are the same.” On the authority of our Master, Abū Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “There are three matters whose seriousness is serious and whose joking is serious: marriage, divorce, and taking back.” Narrated by Abū Dāwūd §2194, al-Tirmidhī §1184, and Ibn Māja §2039.
This also applies to expressions of unbelief [kufr], by which separation between the spouses also occurs according to the agreement of the jurists.
The erudite scholar Ibn ʿĀbidīn (Allah have mercy upon him) said:
“As for the ignorant person, if he speaks a word of disbelief while not knowing that it is kufr, some said that it is not kufr and that he is excused on account of ignorance, while others said that he becomes a kāfir thereby.
Whoever utters an expression of kufr while not knowing that it is kufr, but does so by choice, is deemed to have unbelieved according to the majority of scholars, contrary to some, and he is not excused on account of ignorance.
As for one who intends to speak but a word of kufr—Allah’s refuge is sought—slips from his tongue without intent, he does not unbelieve.”
An exception to this is ignorance of the meaning of the expression, such as when a person pronounces a word of divorce in a foreign language, or according to the custom of a land other than his own, without knowing its meaning. For this reason, the principle states: “Ignorance of the meaning of an expression prevents its legal effect.” Also attached to this exception is the speaker’s ignorance of the meaning of the expression he uses due to its subtlety in itself or relative to the speaker. Examples include expressions used by specialists within their fields that are scarcely known by others, such as certain expressions particular to specialists in arithmetic.
Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī (Allah have mercy upon him) said:
“If one says: ‘You are divorced by one divorce in two divorces,’ and by ‘in two divorces’ he intends accompaniment, then three divorces take effect, due to what has preceded regarding his statement: ‘one divorce in one divorce.’
[…] If he consciously intends arithmetic by it, then two divorces take effect, because that is its implication according to the people of arithmetic. If he is ignorant of arithmetic but intends its meaning according to its specialists, then, according to the sounder view, one divorce takes effect, because that which is not known cannot be validly intended. It has also been said that two divorces take effect, because that is its implication according to the people of arithmetic, as has preceded, and he intended it. The first view responds with what has already been mentioned.
If he states it absolutely, intending nothing, then one divorce takes effect according to the more apparent view, whether he knows arithmetic or is ignorant of it, because it is capable of bearing the meaning of arithmetic and of containment, so nothing is added beyond what is certain, namely one divorce; anything beyond that is doubtful. According to another view, two divorces take effect if he knows arithmetic, by carrying the statement upon that meaning.”
In conclusion, Imām Ibn Rushd al-Qurṭubī (Allah have mercy upon him), the grandfather, said:
“The foundational principle in this matter is that anything to which the right of another is attached, the ignorant person is not excused therein by his ignorance. As for that to which the right of another is not attached: if it is among that which he may leave learning (i.e., it is not necessary to learn), he is excused by his ignorance; but if it is among that which he may not leave learning (i.e., obligatory knowledge which must be known by every Muslim), he is not excused therein by his ignorance. This is a sufficient general principle to which exceptional cases may be referred. And success is from Allah.”
Under these principles fall innumerable subsidiary rulings in the books of the fuqahāʾ.
Accordingly, the occurrence of divorce does not depend upon the knowledge of the legally accountable person, and ignorance of the ruling has no legal effect except in those intricate subsidiary matters whose knowledge is difficult and which are particular to the people of knowledge.
Proper Conduct & Etiquette
Every Muslim who is concerned for his Dīn and mindful of Allah ﷻ in all that proceeds from him should learn the rulings of the Sacred Sharīʿa concerning any matter he intends to undertake, such as marriage, divorce, what relates to them, and the legal consequences that follow from them. Likewise, if he intends to engage in trade, he must learn the rulings of buying, selling, usury, currency exchange, and other matters that he needs and that may arise in every field of activity he enters into. Neglecting this indicates a lack of concern and a negligent attitude toward religion.
Imām al-Nawawī (Allah have mercy upon him) said:
“Among the sciences are those whose pursuit and learning are individually obligatory [farḍ al-ʿayn], and among them are those that are communally obligatory [farḍ kifāya].
Among that which is farḍ al-ʿayn is what one needs in order to establish the obligatory duties of the Dīn, such as wuḍūʾ, ṣalāh, fasting, and the like. For one who does not know the pillars and conditions of ṣalāh cannot establish it. However, what is farḍ al-ʿayn is the learning of the apparent rulings, not the subtle details and issues that do not commonly arise. If a person possesses wealth subject to zakāt, he is required to learn the apparent rulings of zakāt.
Whoever buys, sells, and engages in trade is individually required to know the rulings of commercial transactions. Similarly, whatever the practitioner of each profession needs is individually obligatory for him to learn. What is intended here are the apparent and commonly occurring rulings, not rare subsidiary issues or intricate legal details.”
A Muslim should also guard his tongue from uttering expressions of divorce except after careful deliberation and reflection upon the need for it and its consequences. As for frequently swearing by divorce and repeating such words at every incident or disagreement, this is not the habit of a believer who observes the limits set by Allah ﷻ. Some ʿulamāʾ have said: “A man would live for fifty years without the word of divorce ever passing over his tongue, no matter what occurred with him, because they knew that this was not from manliness or honourable conduct.”
It has been reported: “No believer swears by divorce, and none demands an oath by it except a hypocrite.” Narrated by Ḥāfiẓ Ibn ʿAsākir in ‘Tārīkh Dimashq’, v. 57 p. 393.
Imām Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī (Allah have mercy upon him) said:
“Whoever takes oath to divorce is to be disciplined.”
Ibn al-Qāsim mentioned that the disciplinary measure is more severe for one who has no wife, because, in addition to the prohibition, he has added falsehood to it.
