An example of what may bear either interpretation is for a man to say to his wife, “If you leave the house, then you are divorced.” It is possible that he intended this as a condition: that if his wife leaves, he would be content to part from her and his divorce would take effect upon her. In that case, he intends divorce; thus, if she leaves the house, she is divorced. It is as though he were saying, “If you leave the house, you will become a woman whom I no longer desire; I will dislike you.” Divorce therefore takes effect, because this is a purely conditional statement.

The second possibility is that he did not intend to effect divorce. Rather, he desires his wife even if she leaves, and does not want to divorce her; he only intended thereby to prevent her from leaving, making her divorce contingent upon it as a threat. If she leaves in this case, she is not divorced, because this is intended as an oath. The Prophet said, “Actions are judged only by intentions, and every person will have only what he intended.” (1) Allah has also treated making something unlawful as an oath, because the person who declares something unlawful intends to prevent himself from it or refrain from it. This shows that whatever is intended as a means of refraining, even if it is not expressed in the form of an oath, carries the ruling of an oath.

Know that nothing has been reported from the Companions concerning the ruling on swearing by divorce, because it did not exist in their time. What has, however, been reported from them is swearing by a vow: for example, a person saying, “I owe Allah a vow not to wear this garment,” or, “If I wear this garment, then I owe Allah a vow to fast for a year.” The Companions regarded such a vow as carrying the ruling of an oath. Thus, if they regarded a vow intended to prevent something as carrying the ruling of an oath, despite the fact that fulfilling a vow is obligatory, then it is all the more appropriate that they should regard divorce, which is disliked,