Book of Divorce
Legal competence (taklīf) is a prerequisite for a divorce to take effect, except in the case of one who is drunk: his pronouncement counts even though he is not legally competent. An explicit formula brings the divorce into force without any accompanying intention, whereas an implicit expression (kināyah) is effective only when coupled with the intention to divorce.

The explicit wording is the term talāq (divorce) itself, and—according to the predominant view—so are the words firāq (separation) and sarāḥ (release). Typical examples are: “ṭallaqtuki” (I have divorced you), “anti ṭāliq” (you are divorced), “muṭallaqa” (divorced), “yā ṭāliq” (O divorced woman), the statement “lā, anti talāq” (No, you are divorced), or simply uttering “al-talāq” (divorce); the last is deemed explicit in the soundest opinion. Rendering the word talāq into any foreign language is likewise considered an explicit formula in the school. By contrast, phrases such as “aṭlaqtuki” (I have set you free) or “anti muṭallaqa” (you are a divorced woman) are treated as kināyah.

If a certain expression becomes popularly recognised as a formula of divorce—such as saying “al-ḥalāl” or “ḥalālullāh ʿalayya ḥarām” (what God has made lawful for me is hereby forbidden)—then, according to the stronger view, it ranks as an explicit utterance. I say: the sounder position is that it is still only a kināyah, and Allah knows best.

Implicit expressions include: “anti khalīyah” (you are free), “barīyah” (released), “batta/batlah” (completely severed), “bāʾin” (separated), “iʿtaddī” (observe your waiting-period), “istabriʾī raḥimaki” (ensure your womb is clear), “ilḥaqī bi-ahliki” (return to your family), “ḥabluki ʿalā ghāribiki” (your reins are on your own neck), “lā andah,” “sirī biki,” “iʿzabī,” “ighrabī,” “daʿīnī,” and similar phrases.

Using the language of ʿitq (manumission) is a kināyah for divorce, and the converse is likewise true; however, divorce is not a kināyah for ẓihār, nor is ẓihār for divorce. If a man says, “You are forbidden to me” (anti ʿalayya ḥarām) or “ḥarramtuki” and means by it either divorce or ẓihār, whichever of the two he intends takes effect; and if he intends both, he may choose which ruling to apply, whereupon that choice becomes operative. Another opinion holds that the statement constitutes divorce; a third that it constitutes ẓihār.

Should he intend by those words to render her very person unlawful, she does not in fact become unlawful, but he must pay the expiation for breaking an oath. The same applies, in the more widely held view, when no intention at all accompanies the words. A second view declares the utterance legally ineffectual.