Ahmad said, regarding a man who married a woman, then said to her mother: "Your daughter is divorced," and said: "I meant your other daughter, who is not my wife," that he violates [his oath/claim] and it is not accepted from him. He also said, in a narration by Abu Dawud, regarding a man who had two wives, both named Fatimah, and one of them died. He said: "Fatimah is divorced," intending the deceased one. He said: "The deceased is divorced!" Abu Dawud said: "It is as if he does not believe him in the [legal] judgment." The Qadi said, regarding the case where he looked at his wife and a stranger, then said: "One of you is divorced," and claimed: "I meant the stranger," whether this is accepted is a matter of two narrations. Al-Shafii said: It is accepted in this case, but it is not accepted if he said: "Zaynab is divorced," and said: "I meant a stranger whose name is Zaynab," because "Zaynab" does not encompass the stranger by its explicit meaning, but rather by way of [logical] indication. Furthermore, it is countered by another indication—which is that he does not divorce other than his wife—which is more apparent, so the wording became more apparent regarding his wife, and therefore his contradiction is not accepted. However, when he says: "One of you," it encompasses the stranger by its explicit meaning. The scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y) and Abu Thawr said: It is accepted in all cases because he interpreted his speech with something it could bear. Our view is that it cannot correctly bear anyone other than his wife, so his interpretation of it [as someone else] is not accepted, just as if he interpreted his speech with something it could not bear, and as if he had said: "Zaynab is divorced," according to al-Shafii. The distinction they mentioned is not valid; for "one of you" is not explicit for one of them specifically, but rather it encompasses one of them who is not specified. Likewise, "Zaynab" encompasses one [of the Zaynab-named women] not specified, then the wife becomes specified because she is the object of divorce, and addressing anyone else with it is idle talk, just as if he said: "One of you is divorced." Even if it encompassed her by its explicit meaning, an indication diverted it away from her, so it became apparent regarding someone else. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to the two who were performing li'an (imprecation): "One of you is a liar," it did not refer to anyone but the liar among them alone. And when Hassan said, meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and Abu Sufyan: "The worst of you is the ransom for the best of you," the evil did not refer to anyone but Abu Sufyan alone, and the best of them was the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) alone. This is regarding the [legal] judgment. As for what is between him and Allah the Almighty, he is bound by it; so whenever he knows within himself that he intended the stranger, his wife is not divorced, because the phrasing is susceptible to it, even if it is not restricted. If there were circumstantial evidence indicating his intent for the stranger, such as defending himself from oppression or freeing himself from something detestable by it, his statement is accepted in the [legal] judgment because of the presence of the diversionary indication. If he did not intend his wife nor the stranger, his wife is divorced, because she is the object of divorce, and the phrasing is susceptible to her and suitable for her, and he did not divert it away from her, so it occurred by it, as if he had intended her.

Section: If he had two wives, Hafsah and Amrah, and he said: "O Hafsah," and Amrah answered him, then he said: "You are divorced." If he had no intention, or intended the one who answered alone, she alone is divorced because she is the one divorced rather than anyone else. If he said: "I did not address anyone with my saying 'You are divorced' except Hafsah," and she was present, she alone is divorced. If he said: "I knew the one answering was Amrah, so I addressed her with the divorce, but I intended the divorce of Hafsah," both are divorced according to all of them. If he said: "I thought the one answering was Hafsah, so I divorced her," then Hafsah is divorced, according to a single narration, and regarding Amrah there are two narrations: one of them is that she is also divorced. This is the opinion of al-Nakha'i, Qatadah, al-Awza'i, and the scholars of opinion, and it was chosen by Ibn Hamid, because he addressed her with the divorce and she is an object for it, so she is divorced, as if he had intended her. The second is that she is not divorced, which is the opinion of al-Hasan, al-Zuhri, and Abu Ubayd. Ahmad said, in a narration by Muhanna, regarding a man who had two wives, and he said: "So-and-so, you are divorced," and she turned, and it was someone other than the one he swore upon. He said: Ibrahim said: "Both are divorced." And al-Hasan says: "The one he intended is divorced." It was said to him: "What do you say?" He said: "The one he intended is divorced." Its reasoning is that he did not intend her with the divorce, so she is not divorced, as if he intended to say: "You are pure," but his tongue slipped and he said: "You are divorced."