Amr Does Not Demand Repetition, Nor Encompass It

The difference between موجب and محتمل is that a موجب established without a qarīnah (external factor) demands repetition, while a محتمل is established only with one. If repetition were موجب of amr, the default for any command would be that it should be repeated.

The proponents of the view that amr demands repetition adduce the ḥadīth in which the command for Ḥajj was revealed: al-Aqraʿ b. Ḥābis stood up and asked the Prophet ﷺ, "Is this for every year?" The question shows that al-Aqraʿ, a native Arab, took the command to encompass repetition; he sought clarification because he sensed the difficulty of performing Ḥajj annually.

A practical illustration: Zayd visits Bakr's house, where Bakr keeps a sweet jar, and Bakr tells Zayd to eat from it. Does Zayd thereafter have standing permission to eat from the jar on every visit, or must he ask again? If repetition is موجب الأمر, no fresh permission is needed. The Shawāfiʿ, who hold that an amr may encompass repetition, will look for a qarīnah that licenses Zayd's continuing access. The Aḥnāf hold that he has no such permission; the command must be reissued.

A further example, drawn from Nūr al-Anwār, is the command صلوا (pray): the Shawāfiʿ read it as "establish prayer many times". The Aḥnāf hold that the command does not in itself indicate repetition; ṣalāh recurs because its sabab (cause), the entry of each prayer-time, is found again. Whenever the sabab is found, the amr is renewed: each prayer-time brings its own obligation.

Some of the Shawāfiʿ hold that a command attached to a condition or attribute is repeated each time the condition or attribute recurs.

Take the āyah ﴿وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا﴾¹. The Aḥnāf hold that the command is not repeated whenever the condition recurs; rather, when the condition recurs the obligation is supplied by the renewed sabab (cause), not by a fresh repetition of the original amr.

The same logic plays out in conditional divorce. A man says to his wife, "If you leave the house, you are divorced." The condition is leaving the house. On one view, she would be divorced upon leaving the first time, and then again on every subsequent departure as the condition recurs. The Aḥnāf hold that she is divorced only on the first occurrence, not thereafter.

ʿAllāmah al-Nasafī here takes up an objection: if the Aḥnāf say that amr does not encompass repetition, why do they allow it in cases like a husband telling his wife "Divorce yourself", where the wife may divorce herself three times? Although this looks like amr being repeated, ʿAllāmah al-Nasafī shows that it is not. Since the minimum of divorce is one (farḍ ḥaqīqī) and the maximum is three (farḍ ḥukmī), the Aḥnāf hold that amr defaults to one but may encompass three as the maximum of the genus: the wife divorces herself once by default, unless the husband intended three.

The Aḥnāf hold that amr does not allow for repetition, but admits it in particular cases such as "Divorce yourself": the formula carries one divorce by default and three if the husband intends three. It does not encompass two, except in the case of a slave-girl.

Two is excluded because it is neither farḍ ḥaqīqī (the default, one) nor farḍ ḥukmī (the complete genus). For a slave-girl, however, the maximum number of divorces possible is two, and so two is for her farḍ ḥukmī. Amr may then be repeated twice on the husband's intent: she may divorce herself twice as the maximum of the genus in her case.

In Arabic, all verbs (and so all commands) are derived from the root word (maṣdar). To say إضرب is to say أطلب منك الضرب. Since the maṣdar is specified for the singular, it does not encompass more than one, and the amr derived from it cannot by default encompass more than one either.

If a man says to his wife "Divorce yourself", the formula admits two readings: as fardiyyah, where she gives herself one divorce, the default; or as the total genus, where, since the maximum number of ṭalāq is three, three divorces may occur if the husband intended them. The wife cannot divorce herself twice; the dual is not considered. The reading is either to the minimum of the genus, which is one, or to its maximum, which is three.

A question may be put to the Aḥnāf: if amr neither obligates repetition nor encompasses it, what accounts for the repetition of acts of worship like ṣalāh and zakāh? The Aḥnāf reply that the amr is not repeated of itself; it is repeated whenever the sabab (cause) recurs. The recurrence of a sabab entails the recurrence of the musabbab (effect): the time of ṣalāh comes in and prayer becomes wājib; Ramaḍān arrives and fasting becomes obligatory; a person reaches the level of niṣāb and zakāh falls due.

The command صلوا, then, does not obligate repetition of itself; it is repeated through its sabab, the arrival of each prayer-time. Each new prayer-time functions as if a fresh command had come to establish the prayer.

This sets out the position of Imām al-Shāfiʿī. Since on his view amr encompasses repetition, when the husband says "Divorce yourself" the wife may divorce herself twice, if that is what he intended. The Aḥnāf, by contrast, hold that the dual is not even within consideration, so the husband cannot intend it.