Then his word is accepted, and there are two views regarding having him take an oath. In every instance where we stated: "He is required to take an oath," if he refrains from taking the oath, the judgment is rendered against him due to his refusal. If he says, "I do not know what the bird is," then the analogy of the school is that lots are drawn between them; if the lot falls on the crow, the wives are divorced and the slaves remain in servitude, and if it falls on the slaves, they are freed and the wives are not divorced. This is the opinion of Abu Thawr. The companions of Al-Shafi'i said: If the lot falls on the slaves, they are freed, and if it falls on the wives, they are not divorced, and the slaves are not freed; this is because the drawing of lots has a place in emancipation, due to the fact that the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) drew lots between the six slaves, while it has no place in divorce because no such thing has been transmitted regarding it, and it is impossible to draw an analogy between it and emancipation, because divorce is the dissolution of the marriage bond, and the drawing of lots does not enter into marriage, whereas emancipation is the dissolution of ownership, and the drawing of lots enters into the distinction of properties. They said: Lots are not drawn between them except after his death. It is possible to say in response to this: That which is not fit for specification regarding the inherited, is not fit for specification regarding the heir, just as if the oath were regarding two wives; and because the slave-women are prohibited to the one who inherited them by a prohibition that is not removed by the drawing of lots, so it is not executed for the heir by means of it, just as if the emancipation were specified among them.

1283 - Issue: He said: "And if he says to his wives: 'One of you is divorced,' and he does not intend any specific one of them, lots are drawn between them, and the divorced one among them is brought out by the drawing of lots."

Its general meaning is that if he divorces one of his wives without specifying her, she is brought out by drawing lots. He stated this explicitly in a narration reported by a group, and Al-Hasan and Abu Thawr held this view. Qatadah and Malik said: All of them become divorced. Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, and Al-Shafi'i said: He has the right to choose whomever he wishes and pronounce the divorce upon her, because he possesses the power to initiate it and specify it initially; thus, if he initiates it without specifying it, he possesses the power to specify it, as this is the fulfillment of what he possesses. We argue that what we have mentioned is reported from Ali and Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), and they have no dissenter among the Companions; and because it is the termination of ownership built upon dominance and extension, so the drawing of lots enters into it, like emancipation, and the basis has been established by the fact that the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) drew lots between the six slaves; and because the right belongs to one, unspecified person, so it is necessary to specify her by drawing lots, like freedom among slaves if he emancipates them during his terminal illness and they do not all fall within the one-third, and like traveling with one of his wives, and starting with one of them in marital turn-taking, and like two partners when they divide [their property]. And because he divorced one of his wives, without her identity being known, he does not possess the power to specify her by his choice, like the forgotten one. As for the evidence that they do not all become divorced: it is that he ascribed the divorce to one, so not all of them are divorced, just as if he had specified her. Regarding their statement: "He possessed the power to initiate and specify," we say: his possession of the power to specify through initiation does not necessitate that he continues to possess it after that, just as if he divorced one [wife] by implication and forgot who she was. As for if he intended a specific one, she alone is divorced, because he specified her by his intention, so it resembles what it would be if he had specified her by his speech. And if he says: "I only meant so-and-so," it is accepted from him, because it is possible for what he said to be true. And if he dies before the drawing of lots and the specification, the heirs draw lots between them; then whoever the lot of divorce falls upon, her judgment regarding inheritance is the same as if he had specified her by divorce.