It occurs, whether he intended it or not. The implication of his statement is that a non-clear pronouncement does not occur except with intention; furthermore, because this is a metonym (kinayah), its ruling is not established without intention, just like all other metonyms.

Section: Metonyms are of three categories. The first is 'manifest', which consists of six terms: 'khaliyyah' (vacant), 'bariyyah' (free), 'ba'in' (separating), 'battah' (severing), 'batlah' (cutting), and 'your command is in your hand'. The ruling regarding them is what we have explained in this section. If he says: 'You are a ba'in (separating) divorced woman,' or 'You are divorced al-battah (the severance),' the ruling is the same, except that it does not require intention, because he has described the clear pronouncement of divorce with it. If he says: 'You are divorced, there is no reconciliation for me over you,' and she is a woman with whom the marriage has been consummated, it counts as three. Ahmad said: 'If he says to his wife: "You are divorced, there is no reconciliation in it, nor any doubling," this is like "khaliyyah" and "bariyyah" [meaning] three; this is how it is according to me.' This is the position of Abu Hanifah. If he says: 'And there is no reconciliation for me over her,' using the 'wa' (conjunction), the ruling is the same. The companions of Abu Hanifah said: 'It is a revocable divorce (raj'iyyah), because he did not describe the [specific] pronouncement of divorce with it, but rather appended it with a conjunction.' Our view is that a description is valid along with a conjunction, as if he said: 'I sold it to you for ten, and it is Moroccan currency.' It is valid, and it serves as a description for the price. Allah the Almighty said: '...they were listening to it while they were playing' (Surah al-Anbiya: 2). If he says: 'You are divorced once, [and it is] ba'in (separating),' or 'once, [and it is] battah (severing),' there are three narrations regarding it. The first is that it is one revocable divorce, and what follows it is null. Ahmad said: 'I do not know of any established precedent; if he intended one, it is ba'in.' This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because he described the divorce with a quality it does not possess, so the description is null, just as if he said: 'You are divorced with a divorce that will not occur to you.' The second is that it is three. Abu Bakr stated this, and said it is the position of Ahmad, because he brought forth that which necessitates three, so it occurred, and his statement 'once' is null, just as if he said: 'You are divorced once, three times.' The third, narrated by Hanbal from