His statement, “Through an evident allusive expression, three divorces take effect when accompanied by an intention”: that is, by an evident allusive expression.
His statement, “even if he intended only one”: that is, in cases where divorce takes effect through an evident allusive expression, it counts as three pronouncements of divorce, and she is thereby irrevocably separated from him.
His statement, “while through a subtle allusive expression, whatever number he intended takes effect”: that is, one, two, or three divorces take effect. This is the well-known position of the school.
Thus, if he says to his wife, “You are free,” intending divorce, three divorces take effect, even though he did not intend a particular number but intended divorce only; she is thereby irrevocably separated from him. Likewise, if he says, “You are separated,” intending divorce, three divorces take effect, even if he intended only one, because these expressions are evident allusive expressions that denote irrevocable separation, and thus three divorces take effect through them.
But if he says, “Leave,” “Observe your waiting period,” “Ensure that your womb is free,” or similar words, then whatever number he intended takes effect: one, two, or three. If he did not intend a number, then one takes effect. The difference, then, between the evident and subtle allusive expressions is that when divorce takes effect through an evident allusive expression, it is three divorces, by which she becomes irrevocably separated; whereas when it takes effect through a subtle allusive expression, whatever number he intended takes effect, and if he intended nothing in particular, then it is one.
This is based on the view that three divorces may take effect at once. But it has already been explained that the correct view is that there can be no threefold divorce except through repeated divorces after taking her back in marriage, or after a new marriage contract. This was the view chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and it is correct. If repeated explicit pronouncements count as only one divorce, then allusive expressions are even more deserving of this ruling.
His statement, “even if he intended only one,” indicates that there is a difference of opinion on the matter. Some scholars—including some of our companions—say that if he intends one divorce by means of an evident allusive expression, then only one takes effect. Their evidence is the statement of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “Actions are only by intentions, and every person shall have only what he intended.”