three, then it is three; because 'fi' (in) is used to mean 'ma'a' (with), such as His saying: {Enter among My servants}. The implication of the speech is: "You are divorced one divorce with two divorces." So, if he confesses to this against himself, it is accepted from him. If he says: "I intended one," it is also accepted, whether he was a calculator (aware of arithmetic conventions) or otherwise. The Qadi said: If he is knowledgeable about arithmetic, it is not accepted from him, and two divorces occur, because it is contrary to what the wording implies. Our position is that he interpreted his speech with what it allows, for it is not far-fetched that he intends by his speech what a layman intends. If he has no intention and is knowledgeable about arithmetic, two divorces occur. Al-Shafi'i said: If he uses it absolutely, only one occurs, because the wording of effectuation is only the wording of one, and what is added to it does not have the wording of effectuation in it, and the surplus only occurs through intention. So, if it is devoid of intention, nothing occurs except what he effectuated. Some of his followers said the same as our position. Abu Hanifah said: Only one occurs, whether he intended arithmetic by it or not, provided he did not intend by it one with two; because multiplication is only valid in what has a measure, and as for what has no measure, there is no reality in it for arithmetic, and only effectuation in one resulted from it, so it occurred without other than it. Our position is that this wording is set in their terminology for two, so when he utters it and uses it absolutely, it occurs, just as if he said: "You are divorced twice." Through this, the refutation of what al-Shafi'i said is achieved, for the set wording does not require an intention with it. As for what Abu Hanifah said, that is only regarding the establishment of arithmetic originally, then it became used in everything that has a number, so it became a reality in it. As for the one ignorant of the requirement of that in arithmetic, when he uses it absolutely, one divorce occurs, because the wording of effectuation is only [a wording of one], and it only became directed to two by the convention of those in arithmetic and their terminology, so whoever does not know their terminology is not bound by its requirement, like the Arab