Furthermore, he made the first a reward for the condition and followed it up with the 'fa' (particle of consequence) which is designated for rewards, so it is not permissible to move it forward, as with all its counterparts. Moreover, if he said: 'If Zayd enters my house, give him a dirham, [then a dirham],' it would not be permissible to give it to him before his entry; thus, it is the same here. What they have mentioned is arbitrary (tahakkum), for which there is no evidence in the language, nor any basis in the Shari'ah.

Section: If he says to a woman with whom the marriage has been consummated: 'If you enter the house, you are divorced, then divorced, then divorced,' nothing occurs to her until she enters the house, at which point three occur to her. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad. [The Qadi held the view that two divorces occur] immediately, and the third remains contingent upon entering the house. This is clearly corrupt, for it makes the condition applicable to the conjoined clause rather than the one to which it is conjoined, and it attaches to it that which is remote from it rather than that which is adjacent to it. It also makes its reward that in which the 'fa'—which is used for rewarding—does not exist, rather than that in which it does exist, which is an arbitrary act [for which he knows no evidence], and we know of no parallel for it. If he said to her: 'If you enter the house, you are divorced, and divorced, and divorced,' and she enters, she is divorced three times, according to all of them.

1277- Issue: He said: (And if he divorces three times while intending one, it is three.)

The crux of this is that if a man says to his wife, 'You are divorced three times,' then it is three, even if he intended one; we know of no disagreement regarding this, because the expression is explicit (sarih) regarding three, and intent does not contradict the explicit, for intent is weaker than the expression. Therefore, we do not act upon it in isolation, whereas the explicit is powerful and one acts upon it in isolation, without intent. Thus, the powerful is not contradicted by the weak, just as a textual provision (nass) is not contradicted by analogy (qiyas). Also, intent only operates in diverting an expression to some of its possibilities, but 'three' is a text regarding that, which does not allow for 'one' under any circumstances; so if he intended one, he has intended that which it does not allow, and it is not valid, just as if he had said, 'He owes me three dirhams,' and said, 'I meant one.'

1278- Issue: He said: (And if he divorces one while intending three, it is one.)

As for if he says, 'You are divorced one time,' and intends three, nothing occurs except one, because his expression does not allow for more than that. If he intends three, he has intended what his expression does not allow. If more than that were to occur, it would occur by mere intent, and by mere intent, no divorce occurs. The companions of al-Shafi'i said, in one of the two scholarly views, that three occur, because it allows for one with two others, but this is corrupt. For his statement 'with it are two' does not derive the meaning of the word 'one,' nor does it allow for it; thus, his intent in that is mere intent, and it does not operate, just as if he intended divorce without an expression. As for when he says, 'You are divorced,' and intends three, there are two narrations regarding this. One of them is that only one occurs, which is the view of al-Hasan, 'Amr ibn Dinar, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, and the Ashab al-Ra'y (the Rationalists), because this expression does not contain a number, nor a finality (baynunah), so three do not occur through it, just as if he said, 'You are divorced one time.' The proof of this is that his statement 'You are divorced' is an informing of a state she is in, so it does not contain a number, just like his saying, 'She is standing,' 'menstruating,' or 'pure.' The second narration is that if he intends three, then three occur. This is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu 'Ubayd, and Ibn al-Mundhir, because it is an expression which, if the word 'three' were conjoined to it, would be three; so if he intends three by it, it is three, like innuendos (kinayat). Also, he intended by his expression that which it allows, so it occurred by it, like an innuendo. The proof of the expression allowing for a number is that it is valid to interpret it with it; so he says, 'You are divorced three times.' And because his statement: