Is the intention to specify a subset of women when using a plural term legally enforceable?
Chapter on Explicit Divorce and Others
Al-Mughni
Book of Divorce
Primary text
When a general term like 'My women are divorced' is used, and the intention is to specify only some of them, the statement is valid verbally. If the intention accompanies the wording, it is accepted privately before God because the intention seeks to specify the general term, which is linguistically sound. Whether this intention is accepted in a legal ruling is subject to two narrations: one accepting it because the speaker interpreted the words within their possible meaning, and another rejecting it because it contradicts the apparent meaning, which is the position of Al-Shafi'i.
Supporting text
For the private acceptance of specifying a subset to be valid, the intention must coincide with the utterance. If the intention to specify only some follows the completion of the full statement (e.g., 'My women are divorced,' then mentally intending only some), the intention is ineffective, and the divorce takes effect upon all. Similarly, if one divorces his women and afterwards intends to mean 'released from restraint' (*min wathāq*), the divorce stands because the subsequent intention lacks accompanying wording. This principle also applies when specifying a condition after the pronouncement, such as saying, 'You are divorced,' followed by 'if you enter the house,' or 'after a month.' This is valid if stated verbally without dispute.