has some basis for consideration, though we do not issue legal verdicts accordingly. But if it is a purely conditional stipulation—for example, if he says, “When Eid arrives, you are divorced”—then he has no right to retract it, annul it, or cancel the contingency.

If he says, “My tongue inadvertently added the condition, and I did not intend it,” the divorce takes effect immediately. And if he says, “You are divorced,” then says, “I intended: ‘if you stand up,’” this is not accepted judicially. ………..

His statement: “If he says, ‘My tongue inadvertently added the condition, and I did not intend it,’ the divorce takes effect immediately.” That is, if he says, “You are divorced if you stand up,” then says, “My tongue inadvertently added the condition; I did not intend it”—and this happens constantly. A person may see someone doing something and then utter the very words describing what that person is doing. Words often slip from the tongue. Indeed, a person may even write something, and when someone speaks to him, he writes the words that person is saying without intending to do so. Thus, slips of the tongue and slips of the pen are real occurrences.

So if he says, “By my words, ‘You are divorced if you stand up,’ I intended that you are divorced now, but my tongue inadvertently added the condition, so I said, ‘if you stand up,’” the divorce takes effect immediately. What is the difference between this and the earlier case, where, if he says, “I have brought this condition forward,” it does not take immediate effect, whereas here we say that she is divorced immediately? The difference is clear: there, he intended the condition, whereas here he did not intend it. Here he says, “I did not intend the condition; rather, my tongue inadvertently added it.” Therefore, we say: she is divorced immediately. The reason is that he has acknowledged against himself what is more stringent, so he is held to it.

His statement: “And if he says, ‘You are divorced,’ then says, ‘I intended: if you stand up,’ this is not accepted judicially.” This is an important issue. If he says, “You are divorced,” then says, “I intended: if you stand up,” or, “if you speak to Zayd,” claiming that he intended the condition inwardly, the author says: “This is not accepted judicially.” From this it is understood that he is held accountable for it in the matter between himself and Allah,