without intent, so the powerful is not contradicted by the weak, just as a textual provision (nass) is not contradicted by analogy (qiyas). Moreover, intent only operates in diverting an expression to some of its possibilities, while 'three' is a text regarding that, which does not allow for 'one' under any circumstances. So if he intended one, he has intended that which it does not allow, and it is not valid, just as if he had said, 'He owes me three dirhams,' and said, 'I meant one.'

1278- Issue: He said: (And if he divorces one while intending three, it is one.)

As for if he says, 'You are divorced one time,' and intends three, nothing occurs except one, because his expression does not allow for more than that. If he intends three, he has intended what his expression does not allow. If more than that were to occur, it would occur by mere intent, and by mere intent, no divorce occurs. The companions of al-Shafi'i said, in one of the two scholarly views, that three occur, because it allows for one with two others. But this is corrupt; for his statement 'with it are two' does not derive the meaning of the word 'one,' nor does it allow for it. Thus, his intent in that is mere intent, and it does not operate, just as if he intended divorce without an expression. As for when he says, 'You are divorced,' and intends three, there are two narrations regarding this. One of them is that only one occurs, which is the view of al-Hasan, 'Amr ibn Dinar, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, and the Ashab al-Ra'y; because this expression does not contain a number, nor a finality (baynunah), so three do not occur through it, just as if he said, 'You are divorced one time.' The proof of this is that his statement 'You are divorced' is an informing of a state she is in, so it does not contain a number, just like his saying, 'She is standing,' 'menstruating,' or 'pure.' The second narration is that if he intends three, then three occur. This is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu 'Ubayd, and Ibn al-Mundhir, because it is an expression which, if the word 'three' were conjoined to it, would be three; so if he intends three by it, it is three, like innuendos (kinayat). Also, he intended by his expression that which it allows, so it occurred by it, like an innuendo. The proof of the expression allowing for a number is that it is valid to interpret it with it; so he says, 'You are divorced three times.' And because his statement: