three [divorces] until he intends it, regardless of whether the definite article 'al' is present in it or not; because the definite article 'al' is used for non-totality in most generic nouns. If he says: 'I intend a divorce by it,' it is one; because he mentioned it indefinitely, so it is a single divorce. Ahmad stated this explicitly. In a narration by Hanbal, he said: If he says 'I intend a divorce,' it is one or two, if it does not contain the definite article 'al'.

Section: If he says: 'You are to me like the back of my mother,' and he intends divorce by it, it is not a divorce; because it is explicit in zihar, so it is not suitable as a metaphor (kinayah) for divorce, just as divorce cannot be a metaphor for zihar. Furthermore, zihar is a comparison to someone who is forbidden permanently, while divorce provides a non-permanent prohibition, so metaphor in one is not suitable for the other. If he clarifies it by saying: 'I intend divorce by it,' it does not become a divorce, because it is not suitable as a metaphor for it.

Section: If he says: 'You are to me like carrion and blood,' and intends divorce by it, it is a divorce; because it is suitable as a metaphor for it, so when the intention is coupled with it, the divorce occurs by it. It counts as the number of divorces he intended. If he did not intend anything, one occurs; because it is among the hidden metaphors (kinayat al-khafiyyah), and this is their rule. If he intends zihar by it—meaning he aims to forbid her to himself while keeping her marriage—it is possible that it is zihar, as we said regarding his saying: 'You are to me forbidden.' It is also possible that it is not zihar, as if he said: 'You are to me like the back of a beast, or the back of my mother.' If he intends an oath, meaning he wants by that to avoid having intercourse with her, not to forbid her or divorce her, then it is an oath. If he did not intend anything, it is not a divorce; because it is not explicit in divorce, nor did he intend it by it. Is it a zihar or an oath? There are two views. One of them is that it is zihar; because its meaning is 'you are forbidden to me like carrion and blood,' for comparing her to them necessitates the comparison in the matter for which they are famous, which is prohibition, based on Allah the Almighty’s statement regarding them: 'Forbidden to you is carrion and blood' (44). The second view is that it is an oath; because the principle is the innocence of liability (bara'at al-dhimmah), so when he brings an ambiguous phrase, the lesser of the two rulings is established; because it is the certainty, and what is beyond that is doubtful, so we do not establish it through doubt, and we do not depart from the principle except with certainty. According to al-Shafi'i, it is the same as his statement: 'You are to me forbidden,' they are identical.