does not admit, then it is not [valid]. If we were to act upon it in a case it does not admit, it would be acting upon mere intention, and mere intention has no effect in marriage, divorce, or sale. If he said: 'My four wives are divorced,' or said to them: 'You four are divorced,' and excepted some of them by intention, it would not be accepted, based on the analogy of what we mentioned, nor would he be believed regarding it; because he meant by the wording what it does not admit.

The third category is that which is valid in terms of speech, and if he intends it, he is believed [by Allah] between him and Allah Almighty. This is like specifying a general word, or using a word in its metaphorical sense, such as his statement: 'My wives are divorced,' while intending some of them, or intending by his statement: 'Taliq (divorced),' i.e., 'released from a bond.' This is accepted if it is [stated] in words, by a single view; because he connected his speech with what clarified his intended meaning. And if it was by his intention [alone], it is accepted between him and Allah Almighty; because he intended to specify the general word and use it in a specific sense, and this is permissible in language and common in speech, so he is not prevented from using it and speaking it. The wording, by his intention, becomes diverted to what he intended, rather than what he did not intend. Is this accepted in legal judgment? This is derived from two narrations: One of them is that it is accepted; because he interpreted his speech with what it admits, so it is valid, just as if he said: 'You are divorced, you are divorced,' and intended by the second to make her understand. The second is that it is not accepted; because it is contrary to the apparent meaning, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i. Among the conditions for this is that the intention must be contemporaneous with the wording, which is to say: 'My wives are divorced,' while intending by this wording some of them. As for if the intention is delayed after the wording, such as if he said: 'My wives are divorced,' then after finishing he intended in his heart some of them, the intention would not benefit him, and the divorce would occur for all of them. Likewise, if he divorced his wives and intended after divorcing them [the meaning of] 'released from a bond,' the divorce would be binding upon him; because it is the implication of the wording, and the latter intention is a mere intention with no wording accompanying it, so it has no effect.

From this category is specifying one state over another, such as if he says: 'You are divorced,' then connects it with a condition or a quality, such as his saying: 'If you enter the house,' or 'after a month,' or he says: 'If you enter the house after a month.' This is valid if it is spoken, without disagreement. And if he intended it but did not speak it, is he believed? Is it accepted in legal judgment? There are two narrations. He said, in the narration of Ishaq ibn Ibrahim, regarding one who swore not to...