This view is more consistent with their legal principles than the preceding one. For when an expression explicitly denotes something in one legal context and is used again in that context, it cannot serve as an indirect expression for something else. Thus, according to the great majority of scholars, intending divorce through the wording of zihār (likening one’s wife to one’s mother in prohibition) does not effect divorce. This is what the Quran and Sunnah indicate.

Likewise, according to Ahmad, intending divorce through the word “unlawful” does not effect divorce, because it explicitly denotes zihār. This is especially so according to Ahmad’s principles. The terms “khulʿ,” “annulment,” and “ransom,” when accompanied by compensation, explicitly denote khulʿ. They therefore cannot serve as indirect expressions of divorce and cannot effect divorce under any circumstances. Moreover, the terms “khulʿ,” “release in return for compensation,” “annulment,” and “compensation” must either explicitly denote khulʿ, explicitly denote divorce, or indirectly denote both. If the first is maintained—and this is the correct view—these expressions do not effect divorce, even if divorce is intended.

If the second is maintained, it necessarily follows that “khulʿ,” “annulment,” and “release in return for compensation” are explicit expressions of divorce. They would therefore effect divorce when used on their own, just as the word “divorce” does. Yet no one has maintained this, nor has anyone counted them among the explicit expressions of divorce.

If it is said, “They explicitly denote divorce when accompanied by compensation,” the response is: This is invalid according to al-Shāfiʿī’s principles, since an expression that is not explicit, in his view, does not become explicit through the inclusion of compensation.

For this reason, al-Shāfiʿī and those scholars of Ahmad’s school who agree with him hold that a marriage cannot be contracted using expressions other than “giving in marriage” and “joining in marriage.” Other expressions are indirect; indirect expressions require intention, and intention requires attestation by witnesses, while marriage necessarily requires witnesses.

Thus, if someone says, “I have made her yours for a thousand,” “I have given her to you for a thousand,” or something similar, or “I have gifted her to you,” the inclusion of compensation is not treated as an indication that this constitutes marriage, since the words may mean transferring ownership of her person. Likewise, the expression “release in return for compensation” may mean ransoming someone from captivity. And if the term “annulment” constitutes divorce when accompanied by