Malik said: If she is not one with whom the marriage has been consummated, it is accepted from him if he intends one or two. Their argument is that this necessitates the removal of his authority over her, and that does not occur except with three. In Malik's opinion, for a woman whose marriage has not been consummated, his authority over her is removed by one, so that is sufficient. Our argument is that she did not divorce with the wording of three, nor did she intend it, so she is not divorced by three, just as if the husband had used an ambiguous metaphor (kinayah khafiyah).

Section: This applies if she does not intend more than one. If she intends more than one, what she intended occurs; because she possesses the right to three through explicit expression, so she possesses it through metaphor, like the husband. Likewise, if she uses any metaphor, her ruling in it is the ruling of the husband: if it is from the types where three would occur from the husband, then three occur when she uses it; and if it is from the ambiguous metaphors, such as her saying: "May he not enter upon me," and the like, then what she intended occurs. Ahmad said: If he says to her: "Your affair is in your hand," and she says: "May he not enter upon me," she intends by that; if she says: "I meant one," then it is one. And if she says: "I intended to anger him," it is accepted from her; meaning nothing occurs. Similarly, if he places her affair in the hand of a stranger and he uses these metaphors, nothing occurs until the agent intends divorce. Then, if he divorces with an explicit expression for three, or with a clear metaphor, she is divorced three times; and if it is with an ambiguous metaphor, what he intended occurs.

Section: His saying: "Your affair is in your hand" and his saying: "Choose yourself" is a metaphor in the husband's right, which requires intention or contextual evidence, as with all other metaphors. If this is missing, no divorce occurs because it is not explicit; it is merely a metaphor, so it requires what all other metaphors require. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. Malik said: It does not require intention because it is from the clear metaphors. The discussion with him regarding this has already passed. It is also a metaphor in the wife's right if she accepts it using metaphorical language. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: The occurrence of divorce does not require her intention if the husband intended it, because the husband conditioned the divorce upon an action from her side, so it does not require her intention, just as if he said: "If you speak, you are divorced." So she spoke, and he said: It does not occur except as a single irrevocable divorce. And if she intends three, it is still one, because that is a matter of giving a choice, and the giving of a choice is not subject to number, like the choice of an emancipated woman. Our argument is that she is an agent of the divorce using a metaphorical expression, so it requires her intention, like the husband. Furthermore, regarding the fact that three occur if she intends it, the wording allows for