Does an accompanying clause negate the effect of an explicit divorce statement?
Chapter on Explicit Divorce and Others
Al-Mughni
Book of Divorce
Primary text
If the husband attaches a clause to his utterance, such as saying, 'I intended by my saying 'Faraqtuk' separation of my body, or my heart, or my belief system,' or 'I set you free from my hand, or my work, or my confinement,' or 'I set your hair free,' his utterance is nullified before its statement takes effect. Similarly, if he says, 'I intended by saying 'Anti Taliqu' to mean 'free from my bonds,' or 'I intended to say 'Talabtuki' (I sought you) but my tongue slipped and I said 'Talaktuki' (I divorced you),' this is deemed sincere between him and God, and the divorce is not established between them when he knows this was his intent.
Supporting text
Abu Bakr reports consensus from Abu 'Abd Allah (Ahmad) that if a man intended to ask his wife for water ('Isqini ma'an') but his tongue slipped and he said, 'Anti Taliqu' or 'Anti Hurra' (you are free), there is no divorce. Regarding whether his subsequent claim of mispronunciation is accepted in court, if he was angry or the wife requested divorce, it is not accepted because the wording is outwardly indicative of divorce, and his claim contradicts two apparent aspects (the wording and the situation). If he was not in such a state, the apparent view from Ahmad's narrations is that his statement is accepted, as it involves explaining his speech with a plausible interpretation.