or 'You are released' (anti musarraha). So, whoever deems it explicit causes divorce to take effect through it without intention, and whoever does not deem it explicit does not cause it to take effect through it unless he intends it. If he says: 'I meant by my statement: I have separated from you, meaning with my body, or with my heart, or with my madhhab (school/approach), or I have released you from my hand, or my occupation, or my confinement, or that I have combed/released (sarrahtu) your hair,' his statement is accepted. If he says: 'I meant by my statement: You are divorced, meaning from my bond,' or says: 'I intended to say: I sought you (talabtu-ki), but my tongue slipped, so I said: I have divorced you (tallaqtu-ki),' and the like, he is entrusted [to God] between him and Allah the Almighty. Whenever he knows that from himself, it does not take effect between him and his Lord. Abu Bakr said: There is no disagreement from Abu ‘Abd Allah [Ahmad ibn Hanbal] that if he intended to say to his wife: 'Give me a drink of water,' but his tongue slipped and he said: 'You are divorced,' or 'You are free,' that no divorce takes place therein. Ibn Mansur reported from him that he was asked about a man who swore, and something other than what was in his heart ran upon his tongue, and he said: 'I hope that the matter is broad regarding it.'

Is his claim accepted in legal judgment? It is examined: if it is in a state of anger, or she requested divorce, it is not accepted in legal judgment, because his wording is apparent in [conveying] divorce, and his state of affairs contextually indicates it. Thus, his claim contradicts the apparent [meaning] from two aspects, so it is not accepted. If he was not in this state, then the apparent view from Ahmad, in the narration of Ibn Mansur and Abu al-Harith, is that his statement is accepted. This is the opinion of Jabir ibn Zayd, al-Sha‘bi, and al-Hakam, as reported from them by Abu Hafs, because he interpreted his speech with something it could reasonably bear without being a remote possibility. It was said: [It is] as if he said: 'You are divorced, you are divorced,' and said: 'I intended by the second one to make her understand.' The Qadi said: There are two narrations regarding it, this one which we have mentioned, and he said: 'It is the apparent view of Ahmad's speech.' The second [narration]: It is not accepted. This is the madhhab of al-Shafi‘i, because it contradicts what the apparent [meaning] necessitates in custom, so it is not accepted in legal judgment, just as if he confessed to ten [dirhams], then said: 'They are counterfeit,' or 'small ones,' or 'due after a month.' As for if he clarifies that in the wording, by saying: 'I divorced you from my bond,' or 'I separated from you with my body,' or 'I released you from my hand,' then there is no doubt that divorce does not take effect; because that which is connected to the speech diverts it from its primary implication.