How can we reconcile the immediate occurrence of divorce through explicit wording with the consideration of intent as an essential pillar of divorce that must be present, especially if the explicit wording was for the purpose of threatening and not for effecting divorce?

There is no contradiction between the Maliki school's requirement of intent for divorce to occur and their established principle that divorce occurs by explicit wording without the need for intention. The intention that is not required is the intention to effectuate the divorce. As for the required intent, it is the intent to utter the explicit formula, not the intent to effectuate the divorce. Intent is required to guard against the explicit wording being uttered erroneously.