without intending to repel the coercion, it takes effect, because he intended and chose it. It is also possible that it would not take effect, because the speech is lifted from him, and nothing remains but the mere intention, and divorce does not take effect by that alone. If he divorces, and in his heart intends other than his wife, or uses an esoteric interpretation (ta'wil) in his oath, then his interpretation is valid, and his statement regarding his intention is accepted, because the coercion is evidence for him in favor of his interpretation. If he does not interpret it that way and intends her with the divorce, it does not take effect, because he is excused. The followers of al-Shafi'i mentioned a view that it does take effect, because there is no one coercing him regarding his intention. Our position is that he is coerced into it, so it does not take effect, due to the generality of the evidence we mentioned, and because he might not be able to formulate an interpretation at that time, and thus the concession (rukhsa) is missed.
دونَ دَفْعِ الإِكْراهِ، وقعَ؛ لأنَّه قصَدَه واختارَه، ويَحتمِلُ أن لا يَقَعَ؛ لأنَّ اللَّفظَ مَرْفوعٌ عنه، فلا يَبْقَى إلَّا مُجرّدُ النِّيَّةِ، فلا يَقعُ بها طلاقٌ. وإن طلَّقَ، ونَوَى بقلبِه غيرَ امرأتِه، أو تَأوَّلَ فى يمينِه، فله تأْويلهُ، ويُقبَلُ قولُه فى نِيَّتِه؛ لأنَّ الإِكْراهَ دليلٌ له على تَأْويلِه. وإن لم يتَأوَّلْ وقصدَها بالطَّلاقِ، لم يَقعْ؛ لأنَّه معذورٌ. وذكرَ أصحابُ الشَّافعىِّ وجهًا أنَّه يَقعُ؛ لأنَّه لا مُكْرِهَ له على نِيَّتِه. ولَنا، أنَّه مُكْرهٌ عليه، فلم يَقَعْ؛ لعُمومِ ما ذكَرْنا مِنَ الأدِلَّةِ، ولأنَّه قد لا يَحْضُرُه التَّأويلُ فى تلك الحالِ، فتفُوتُ الرُّخْصةُ.
