its taking effect and that it is effective today,” then it takes effect, because this is an admission against himself of that which is more onerous.
The correct view, however, is that it does not take effect, because the wording cannot bear such an interpretation. How can he say, “You are divorced yesterday,” and we say that this means, “You are divorced now”?! That is not valid. For this reason, they stipulated that, when interpreting an oath, the wording must be capable of bearing the interpretation. Accordingly, we say that in this case it does not take effect, due to the contradiction between what he intended and the wording.
His statement: “Or if he means a divorce previously pronounced by him, or by Zayd, and this is possible, it is accepted.” That is, if he says, “By my statement, ‘You are divorced yesterday,’ I mean that she was divorced by a divorce I had pronounced yesterday,” his statement is accepted; likewise, if it was previously pronounced by Zayd. But this is conditional upon its being possible. Possibility here means that he must previously have been married to her, or that Zayd must previously have been married to her. No divorce takes effect at the present time, because this is a report.
The practical consequence of this is that if she brings a legal claim against him and says that he intended divorce from this marriage, but merely meant to exaggerate, while he says, “I did not intend exaggeration; rather, I meant a previous divorce pronounced by Zayd, or a previous divorce pronounced by me,” the author—may Allah have mercy on him—says: “It is accepted,” because this is a report. We do not require him to swear an oath or anything else, on condition that this had actually occurred. If it had not occurred, we do not accept his statement, for he would be lying.
Even if it is assumed that circumstantial evidence belies this man—for example, he says, “I meant a previous divorce pronounced by Zayd or by me,” but the circumstances belie him because she had asked him for a divorce—we do not accept his statement, because his claim is contrary to what is apparent.