metaphorically. The second view is that it is a direct (explicit) expression of divorce, thus it does not require an intention, just like the derived form from it; furthermore, it is used in their convention. The poet said:
You have exalted my name among the worlds... and you have consumed my life year after year.
So you are the divorce, and you are the divorce... and you are the divorce, three full times.
Regarding their saying that it is metaphorical, we reply: Yes, [however,] it is necessitated to interpret it as literal (haqiqa), and there is no other interpretation for it that appears, so it is determined as such.
Section: The explicit wording of divorce in the Persian language is "bahashtam". If a non-Arab says it, divorce takes effect from him without intention. Al-Nakha'i and Abu Hanifa said: It is a metonym (kinaya) and divorce does not take effect through it except with intention, because its meaning is "I have released you (khallaytuki)," and this word is a metonym. Our evidence is that this word is established in their language for divorce and they use it for that purpose, so it resembles the word for divorce in Arabic. If this were not explicit, there would be no explicit expression for divorce in the Persian language, and this is far-fetched. It does not matter that it is synonymous with "I have released you," for the meaning of "tallaqtuki" (I have divorced you) is also "I have released you (khallaytuki)," yet because it was coined for it and is used for it, it is explicit; likewise for this. There is no disagreement that if he intends divorce by it, it is a divorce, and this was stated by al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, al-Hasan, Malik, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa, Zufar, and al-Shafi'i.
1258 - Issue: He said: (And if he says to her in anger: "You are free," or he slaps her and says: "This is your divorce," the divorce has taken effect.)
The discussion regarding this issue is in two sections:
One of them: That this wording is a metonym in divorce; if he intends it, it takes effect, and it does not take effect without intention,
(21) Ibn Qutaybah attributed both verses to a Bedouin who said them about his wife. 'Uyun al-Akhbar 4/127. (22) In B and M: "nawwahti". (23) Omitted from B and M. (24) In B and M: "ya'tadhar". (25) In B and M: "kawnuhuma".
مَجازًا. والثَّانى، أَنَّ الطَّلاقَ لفظٌ صريحٌ، فلم يَفْتَقِرْ إلى نِيَّةٍ، كالمُتَصَرِّفِ منه، وهو مُستَعْمَلٌ فى عُرفِهم، قال الشَّاعرُ (٢١):
أنَوَّهْتِ باسْمِىَ فى العالَمِينَ ... وأفْنَيْتِ عُمْرِىَ عامًا فعامَا (٢٢)
فأنتِ الطَّلاقُ وأنتِ الطَّلاقُ ... وأنتِ الطَّلاقُ ثلاثًا تَمامَا
وقولهم: إنه مجازٌ. قُلْنا: نعم، [إلَّا أنَّه] (٢٣) يتعيّنُ (٢٤) حملُه على الحقيقةِ، ولا مَحْمَلَ له يَظهرُ سِوَى هذا المحملِ، فتَعَيَّنَ فيه.
فصل: وصريحُ الطَّلاقِ بالعَجَمِيَّةِ بهشتم، فإذا أتى بها العَجمِىُّ، وقعَ الطَّلاقُ منه بغيرِ نِيَّةٍ. وقال النَّخَعِىُّ، وأبو حنيفةَ: هو كنايةٌ، لا يُطلّقُ به إلا بِنِيَّةٍ؛ لأنَّ معناه خَلَّيْتُك، وهذه اللَّفظةُ كنايةٌ. ولَنا، أَنَّ هذه اللَّفظةَ بلسانِهم موضوعةٌ للطَّلاقِ، يَسْتعملونَها فيه، فأشبهَتْ لفظَ الطَّلاقِ بالعربيَّةِ، ولو لم تكُنْ هذه صريحةً، لم يكُنْ فى العجميَّةِ صريحٌ للطَّلاقِ، وهذا بعيدٌ، ولا يَضُرُّ كونُها (٢٥) بمعنى خَلَّيْتُكِ، فإنَّ معنى طلَّقتُك خَلَّيْتُك أيضًا، إلّا أنَّه لمَّا كان موضوعًا له، يُسْتعمَلُ فيه، كان صَرِيحًا، كذا هذه. ولا خلافَ فى أنَّه إذا نَوَى بها الطَّلاقَ، كانت طلاقًا، كذلك قال الشَّعْبِىُّ، والنَّخَعِىُّ، والحَسَنُ، ومالكٌ، والثَّوْرِىُّ، وأبو حنيفةَ، وزُفَرُ، والشَّافعىُّ.
١٢٥٨ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَإِذَا قَالَ لَهَا فِى الْغَضَبِ: أَنْتِ حُرَّةٌ، أَوْ لَطَمَهَا، فَقَالَ: هَذَا طَلَاقُكِ. فَقَدْ وَقَعَ الطَّلَاقُ)
الكلامُ فى هذه المسألةِ فى فصلينِ:
أحدُهما: فى أَنَّ هذا اللَّفظَ كنايةٌ فى الطَّلاقِ، إذا نَواه به وقعَ، ولا يَقعُ مِن غيرِ نِيَّةٍ،
(٢١) نسبهما ابن قتيبة إلى أعرابى قالهما فى امرأته. عيون الأخبار ٤/ ١٢٧.(٢٢) فى ب، م: "نوهت".(٢٣) سقط من: ب، م.(٢٤) فى ب، م: "يعتذر".(٢٥) فى ب، م: "كونهما".
