it is according to what he intended. And similarly: 'I have no path over you.' If he specified in these two that he returns to his intention, then the same applies to all other metonyms. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: Two [divorces] do not occur; even if he intended them, only one occurs. Mention of this has preceded. If he said: 'You are one,' it is an obscure metonym, but only one occurs through it, even if he intended three, because it does not admit of anything other than one. If he said: 'May Allah make you independent,' it is an obscure metonym, because it admits the meaning: 'May Allah make you independent through divorce,' according to the statement of Allah Almighty: {But if they separate [by divorce], Allah will enrich each [of them] from His abundance} (33).

Section: The divorce that occurs through metonyms is revocable, as long as three have not occurred, according to the apparent [view] of the school. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: All of them are final (bainunah), except: 'Observe your waiting period,' 'Seek to clear your womb,' and 'You are one,' because they necessitate separation, so separation occurs, like his statement: 'You are divorced three times.' To us, it is a divorce that befalls a woman with whom the marriage has been consummated, without compensation and without the completion of a number, so it must be revocable, like explicit divorce and those metonyms they have accepted. Regarding their argument that 'they necessitate separation,' we say: Then it ought to be that she is separated by three, because the one with whom marriage has been consummated is not separated except by three or by compensation.

Section: As for that which does not resemble divorce and does not point to separation, such as his statement: 'Sit,' 'Stand,' 'Eat,' 'Drink,' 'Come near,' 'Feed me,' 'Give me a drink,' 'May Allah bless you,' 'May Allah forgive you,' 'How beautiful you are,' and the likes of these, it is not a metonym, and divorce does not occur through it, even if he intended it, because the expression does not admit of divorce. If divorce were to occur through it, it would have occurred (34) by mere intention, and we have already mentioned that it does not occur through that. Abu Hanifah said the same. The companions of al-Shafi'i differed regarding his statement: 'Eat' and 'Drink.' Some of them said as we said, and some said: It is a metonym, because it admits the meaning: 'Eat the pain of divorce' and 'Drink the cup of separation,' so divorce occurs through it, like our statement (35): 'Taste' and 'Swallow.' To us, this expression