Amr Does Not Demand Repetition, Nor Encompass It

The difference between موجب and محتمل is that if it is موجب then the amr demands repetition, and this can be established without a qarīnah (external factor), whilst if it is محتمل then it is only established with a qarīnah. Therefore, if repetition is موجب then the default for an amr is that it should be repeated.

The proponents of the view that amr demands repetition point to the ḥadīth where the command for Ḥajj was revealed: al-Aqraʿ b. Ḥābis stood up and asked the Prophet ﷺ, "Is this for every year?" This indicates that al-Aqraʿ b. Ḥābis, who was a native Arab, understood the command for Ḥajj to encompass the meaning of repetition, and therefore sought further clarification in this matter as he felt it might be difficult to implement the command for Ḥajj every year.

A practical application of this can be demonstrated by the following example. Zayd went to Bakr's house and Bakr had a sweet jar. Bakr commanded Zayd to eat from the sweet jar. Now does Zayd have permission to eat from the sweet jar every time he comes to Bakr's house, or does he need to get permission again? If repetition is موجب الأمر then Zayd does not need to seek permission again to eat from the sweet jar. Those who hold that an amr may encompass the meaning of repetition, like the Shawāfiʿ, will need to find a qarīnah (external factor) which shows that Zayd may eat from the sweet jar. The Aḥnāf will say that he does not have permission to eat from the sweet jar, and this command (or permission) must be established again.

Another example, as found in Nūr al-Anwār, is the command صلوا (pray): according to the Shawāfiʿ this would mean establish your ṣalāh many times. The Aḥnāf hold that this command does not indicate repetition in and of itself; rather the reason they repeat ṣalāh is because its sabab (cause) is found, i.e. the time for prayer. So whenever the sabab is found the amr will be repeated, i.e. whenever it is time for prayer, they pray ṣalāh.

Some of the Shawāfiʿ hold the view that if there is a condition or attribute attached to a command then the command is repeated every time the condition or attribute is found.

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

This example shows the effect of an amr with a condition. Zayd says to his wife, "If you leave the house then you are divorced." Here the condition is leaving the house. Therefore, according to some, if she left the house once she would be divorced, and then every time she leaves she would be divorced again as the condition of leaving is found. The Aḥnāf hold the view that she would only be divorced the first time the condition of leaving is found, and not thereafter.

ʿAllāmah al-Nasafī alludes to an objection one may make: that if the Aḥnāf say that an amr does not encompass the meaning of repetition then why do they allow it in certain cases, such as the case where a man says to his wife "Divorce yourself"? In this case the Aḥnāf say that it is possible for the wife to divorce herself three times. Although this looks like a case where the amr is being repeated, ʿAllāmah al-Nasafī brings this point to show that it is not a case of repetition; rather, as the minimum of divorce is one (farḍ ḥaqīqī) and the maximum is three (farḍ ḥukmī), the Aḥnāf say that the amr by default will mean one, but it may encompass the meaning of three due to it being the maximum of the genus, i.e. the wife by default can only divorce herself once, unless the husband intended three.

The Aḥnāf say that amr does not allow for repetition; however it may be repeated in certain cases, such as when a husband says to his wife "Divorce yourself". In this case it encompasses the meaning of one divorce by default, and three if the husband intends so. It does not encompass the meaning of two, except in the case of a slave-girl.

The reason it does not encompass two is because two is neither farḍ ḥaqīqī (the default, which is one) nor farḍ ḥukmī (the complete genus). However, in the case of a slave-girl the maximum divorce which she can receive is two, therefore it is possible for the amr to be repeated twice if the husband intended it. This is because, in this case, two divorces is farḍ ḥukmī, so the slave-girl may divorce herself twice as this is the maximum of the genus in this case.

Furthermore, in the Arabic language, all verbs (and therefore commands) are derived from their root word (maṣdar). For example, when one says إضرب they are actually saying أطلب منك الضرب. As the root word is specified for singular, it does not encompass more than one, and therefore it is not possible that an amr which is derived from it can encompass the meaning of more than one by default.

If one said to his wife "Divorce yourself" this can be applied as fardiyyah, so she can give herself one divorce and this will be the default. It can also apply to the total genus, so in this case the maximum number of ṭalāq which can be given is three, therefore there is a possibility for three divorces to occur if the husband intended it. The wife will not be able to divorce herself twice as this is not considered; it can only apply to the minimum of the genus (which is one) by default, or to the maximum, which is three.

A question may arise against the Aḥnāf: if amr does not obligate repetition nor does it encompass it, then what is the reason for repeating acts of worship such as ṣalāh, zakāh, etc.? The Aḥnāf say that an amr is not repeated due to the command in itself; rather it is repeated when the sabab (cause) is found. For the repetition of a sabab (cause) indicates the repetition of the musabbab (effect), therefore whenever the time for ṣalāh is found it is made wājib, whenever Ramaḍān comes fasting becomes obligatory, and whenever a person reaches the level of niṣāb, zakāh is due.

For example, the command صلوا does not obligate a repetition of the command in itself; rather it is repeated due to its sabab, which is the occurrence of the time for prayer. Therefore, every time the sabab occurs, i.e. every time the time for prayer comes in, it is as if a new command has come to establish the prayer.

This is a clarification on the differing view of Imām al-Shāfiʿī: as amr encompasses the meaning of repetition, then if the husband says to the wife "Divorce yourself" then she may divorce herself twice, if the husband intended so. This is in contrast to the Aḥnāf, who say that the meaning of two is not even considered, and therefore the husband cannot intend it.