[Cyclical Divorce (al-Dawr) and Imprisoning Divorce (al-Taḥbīs)]

Answer—and Allah is the One who grants success and aid: The scholars of the madhhab have said: no divorce takes effect by taḥbīs itself. So if a man says to his wife, “Whenever my divorce falls upon you, you are divorced three before it,” that is not a divorce.
They then said: that taḥbīs does not prevent divorce from occurring after it. Whoever divorces his wife after taḥbīs, his divorce is valid. That is because taḥbīs is invalid due to its construction: the answer in it precedes the condition—which is an impossibility that sound minds do not accept; and when it is invalid rationally, no legal rulings attach to it. Hence in al-Azhār it is stated: “Taḥbīs is not valid …”
As for al-dawr (the circular arrangement), the scholars of the madhhab said: it introduces divorce … The preferred view—as held by many jurists of the madhhab and many Imāms of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)—is that al-dawr is invalid and does not prevent an immediate (nājiz) divorce.
We departed to this view for several reasons:
1. Cyclical divorce is an innovated practice in Islam. In the ḥadīth: “The worst of matters are the newly invented ones; every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire.”
2. Allah Most High commanded separation when there is harm and ill-conduct between spouses. He—Exalted is He—said: “Then [there must be] retention in kindness or release with good treatment.” [Al-Baqarah:229], “So retain them in kindness or separate from them in kindness.” [At-Ṭalāq:2], and “Do not keep them, injuring them, so that you transgress; and whoever does that has certainly wronged himself.” [Al-Baqarah:231].
And Allah legislated for the wife to ransom herself from the husband’s bond if she dislikes his companionship and cohabitation. If al-dawr stands as a barrier preventing what Allah Most High has legislated and conflicts with it, then it must be rejected, invalidated, and removed from obstructing what Allah has legislated.
3. Allah Most High says: “And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people; if they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them.” [Al-Nisāʾ:35]. With al-dawr, acting upon the purport of this verse does not come about.
Yes: there may be a case in which al-dawr has a legally justified face for its validity—namely, when someone employs it, for example, out of fear of outbursts of anger, to serve as a barrier preventing divorce in a state of rage. In such a case, even though it is an innovation, it may be a dispensation for the rash and quick-tempered; in that state they may be akin to one compelled to avert separation and divorce by that stratagem—and “necessities permit the prohibited.”
Moreover, the stratagem of al-dawr in such a case does not conflict with Allah’s rulings nor does it obstruct them; rather, it helps preserve the marriage that Allah loves and intends, and it averts the divorce that Allah dislikes.
If al-dawr is of this description, we hope it is good. The evidence for our stating a dislike of al-dawr in one circumstance but not in another is that it is disapproved in the first case because of the harmful consequences it entails; it is not intrinsically repugnant—neither rationally nor legally. If none of those harms ensue, then one should not rule it repugnant; and if it is not repugnant in that case, it is valid to rule it permissible.
Source : Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.1