Second: We do not concede that indirect wording invariably requires an intention. Rather, when accompanied by an explicit expression or a provision governing the contract, it becomes explicit. Thus, they have stated that an endowment may be established through indirect wording, such as “I have given it in charity,” “I have made it inviolable,” or “I have made it perpetual,” when accompanied by such an expression or provision.

Accordingly, if someone says, “I have made her yours,” and the other replies, “I accept this marriage”; or says, “I have given her to you as a wife,” and the other replies, “I accept”; or says, “I have made her yours in accordance with Allah’s command to retain her honourably or release her with kindness,” or something similar, he has accompanied the wording with expressions and provisions that make it explicit.

Third: Applying such wording to a free woman clarifies its meaning. If someone says concerning his daughter, “I have made her yours,” “I have given her to you,” “I have married her to you,” or something similar, the subject matter itself rules out ambiguity and multiple meanings.

Fourth: Their argument is contradicted by the prescribed practice of having witnesses when taking back a wife after a revocable divorce. This is either obligatory or recommended, and, according to one view, it is a condition for the validity of taking her back. It is also contradicted by having witnesses to sales and other contracts, for this is prescribed in all cases, whether the contract is concluded through explicit wording or indirect wording whose meaning has been clarified.

Fifth: Testimony concerning the contract is valid, and the contract can be established through it before the judge, whatever form it took. Thus, requiring witnesses to the contract does not preclude this.

Sixth: The two contracting parties can explain what they mean, and the witnesses can testify to the meaning they have explained.