Similarly, if it is another impossibility, she is not divorced. Conversely, she is divorced immediately in the reverse case: namely, when an impossibility is negated, as in, “I will surely kill the dead,” or, “I will surely ascend to the sky,” and the like of these two, ............

His statement, “Similarly, if it is another impossibility, she is not divorced”: It says in al-Rawd (1): For example, if he says, “If you were to return yesterday,” or, “if you were to combine two opposites,” or, “if a dead person were to will,” or, “if an animal were to will.” His words, “if you were to combine two opposites,” are like combining blackness and whiteness. It is not possible to combine blackness and whiteness, because they are two opposites that cannot coexist. Or he may say, “You are divorced if you combine movement and stillness.” These are two contradictories, so divorce cannot take effect. The point is that if he makes divorce contingent upon something impossible, the divorce does not take effect. The reason is that what is contingent upon an impossibility is itself impossible.

His statement, “Conversely, she is divorced immediately in the reverse case: namely, when an impossibility is negated”: For example, if he says, “You are divorced if you do not fly,” she is divorced at once, because flying is impossible. When negation is applied to an impossibility, she is divorced immediately, because the nonexistence of an impossibility is necessary: an impossibility cannot occur, so its nonoccurrence is certain. Or he may say, “You are divorced if you do not turn a stone into gold,” in which case she is divorced at once; or, “You are divorced if you do not ascend to the sky,” in which case she is divorced immediately, because she will never ascend to the sky.

Regarding his statement, “namely, when an impossibility is negated,” the author gave an example that may be open to objection, saying: “Like, ‘I will surely kill the dead.’” In reality, this is an oath, which is why it is expressed with the lām (particle of emphasis) and the emphatic nūn, indicating that the clause is the response to an oath—that is: “You