Is a person believed when they claim they did not intend divorce upon using ambiguous divorce terminology?

Primary text

A person is believed when they claim they did not intend divorce in the context of using ambiguous terms, provided there was no preceding anger or request for divorce. This is supported by the narration concerning a man who stated, 'I have divorced three times' to secure a marriage, but later claimed he meant the divorces from previous, context-specific marriages. Uthman accepted his intention. Furthermore, an issue where intention is considered requires accepting the speaker's statement if it is plausible, similar to when someone repeats a phrase and claims they intended emphasis (tawkeed) instead of a new legal consequence.