(may Allah be pleased with both of them), and they have no dissenter among the Companions. Because it is the termination of ownership built upon dominance and extension, so the drawing of lots enters into it, like emancipation, and the basis has been established by the fact that the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) drew lots between the six slaves. And because the right belongs to one, unspecified person, so it is necessary to specify her by drawing lots, like freedom among slaves if he emancipates them during his terminal illness and they do not all fall within the one-third, and like traveling with one of his wives, and starting with one of them in marital turn-taking, and like two partners when they divide [their property]. And because he divorced one of his wives, without her identity being known, he does not possess the power to specify her by his choice, like the forgotten one. As for the evidence that they do not all become divorced: it is that he ascribed the divorce to one, so not all of them are divorced, just as if he had specified her. Regarding their statement: "He possessed the power to initiate and specify," we say: his possession of the power to specify through initiation does not necessitate that he continues to possess it after that, just as if he divorced one [wife] by implication and forgot who she was. As for if he intended a specific one, she alone is divorced, because he specified her by his intention, so it resembles what it would be if he had specified her by his speech. And if he says: "I only meant so-and-so," it is accepted from him, because it is possible for what he said to be true. And if he dies before the drawing of lots and the specification, the heirs draw lots between them; then whoever the lot of divorce falls upon, her judgment regarding inheritance is the same as if he had specified her by divorce.

Section: And if he says to his wives: "One of you is divorced tomorrow." When tomorrow comes, one of them is divorced, and she is brought out by the drawing of lots. If he dies before tomorrow, all of them inherit from him. And if one of them dies, he inherits from her, because she died before the occurrence of the divorce; then when tomorrow comes, lots are drawn between the deceased and the living. If the lot falls on the deceased, none of the living are divorced, and she becomes like the one specified by his saying: "You are divorced tomorrow." Al-Qadi said: The analogy of the school is that the divorce becomes specified among the living; so if there were two, and one of them died, the other is divorced, just as if he said to his wife and a stranger: "One of you is divorced." And this is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. The distinction between the two is clear, for the stranger is not a subject for divorce at the time of his statement, so his statement does not extend to her, whereas this [wife] was a subject for divorce, and intending her for divorce is possible.