he says, “I intended the woman who is not my wife”—meaning the woman who is not his wife—in his statement, “One of you is divorced,” or, “Hind is divorced,” when both are named Hind, then his statement is not accepted judicially. That is, if he and his wife bring their dispute before a judge, the judge will not accept his claim, because it is contrary to what is outwardly apparent: a person only divorces one whose divorce he has the authority to effect. Likewise, whenever you encounter the jurists’ statement, “It is not accepted judicially,” it means that it is accepted between him and Allah.

If someone were to ask: Does the author’s statement imply that, if the wife remains silent, she continues to be his wife? The answer is yes; this is what it implies.

His statement: “If he says to a woman whom he believes to be his wife, ‘You are divorced,’ the wife is divorced.” That is, he sees a woman resembling his wife in her clothing, build, and manner of walking, and supposes her to be his wife. He then says, “You are divorced,” only to discover that she is not his wife. The author says that the wife is divorced, because he pronounced the formula by which divorce takes effect, even though it became clear that the woman he addressed was a stranger and not his wife. We say, however, that what matters is intention: this man intended to divorce his wife, in the person whom he believed to be his wife.

His statement: “And likewise the reverse applies.” If he divorces his wife while believing her to be a woman who is not his wife, the author holds that the wife is divorced. The correct view, however, is that she is not divorced, because he did not intend to divorce his wife. This is like a man who sees a silhouette and does not think it is his wife, nor does he intend to divorce his wife, so he says, “You are divorced,” and then it becomes clear that it was his wife. The author holds that she is divorced because he addressed her with an explicit pronouncement of divorce. But did he believe that she was his wife?