Musannaf 'Abd al-Razzaq 11840
✧ Divorce after the ransom
Show the chain
عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ قَالَ:
سَأَلْتُ عَطَاءً، عَنْ رَجُلٍ طَلَّقَ بَعْدَ الْفِدَاءِ، قَالَ: لَا يُحْسَبُ شَيْئًا مِنْ أَجْلِ أَنَّهُ طَلَّقَ امْرَأَةً لَا يَمْلِكُ مِنْهَا شَيْئًا، فَرَدَّهُ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ مُوسَى، فَقَالَ عَطَاءٌ: اتَّفَقَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ، وَابْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ فِي رَجُلٍ اخْتَلَعَ امْرَأَتَهُ ثُمَّ طَلَّقَهَا بَعْدَ الْخُلْعِ، فَاتَّفَقَا عَلَى أَنَّهُ مَا طَلَّقَ بَعْدَ الْخُلْعِ، فَلَا يُحْسَبُ شَيْئًا، قَالَا: مَا طَلَّقَ امْرَأَتَهُ، إِنَّمَا طَلَّقَ مَا لَا يَمْلِكُ
Translation
Chain of narrators
machine translationʿAbd al-Razzāq, from Ibn Jurayj, who said:
Machine translation, not reviewed
I asked 'Ata' about a man who divorced after the ransom. He said: It is not counted at all, because he divorced a woman over whom he has no control. Sulayman ibn Musa rejected this, so 'Ata' said: Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn al-Zubayr agreed on this concerning a man who did khul' with his wife and then divorced her after the khul', so they agreed that he had not divorced after the khul', and so it is not counted. They both said: He did not divorce his wife; he divorced what he does not own.
No source translates this, so this English was written by a computer model. It can be wrong; rely on the Arabic. Report a problem below.
Grades by grader
No grade is recorded for this wording. Ask what scholars say about its grade