His statement, “except in when there is no intention of immediate effect or contextual indication”: it indicates deferment even when used with lam.

An example is his saying, “If you do not get up, you are divorced.” We say: “What did you intend—now or later?” If he says, “I had no intention, and there is no contextual indication,” then it indicates deferment.

Another example: “Whichever of you women does not get up is divorced.” We consider the matter: if he has no intention, what is meant is now, due to the presence of lam.

Likewise: “Whenever you do not get up, you are divorced.” This takes immediate effect because of the presence of lam. Without lam, it indicates deferment. Thus, if he says to her, “If you get up, you are divorced,” and he has neither an intention nor a contextual indication, then it indicates deferment; whenever she gets up, she is divorced.

But if he says, “If you do not get up, you are divorced,” then it indicates deferment, because in is not affected by lam: it is the primary conditional particle. Since it is the primary one, it must be given something by which it is distinguished from the other particles; hence lam does not affect it.

In summary, these particles involve two discussions:

The first: do they indicate repetition, or is a single occurrence of the act sufficient for them to apply?

The answer: kullamā indicates repetition, while the rest do not. Repetition means that if he says, “Whenever you get up, you are divorced,” and she gets up once, she is divorced; then if she gets up a second time, she is divorced; and if she gets up a third time, she is divorced. But if he says, “If you get up, you are divorced,” and she gets up once, she is divorced; then if she gets up a second time, she is not divorced.

The second: do they indicate immediate effect or deferment? That is, if he says, for example, “If you get up, you are divorced,” does he mean, “If you get up now,” or does he mean it without restriction? We say: we refer back to two things: intention and contextual indication. If he intends immediate effect, then it indicates immediate effect; and if there is a contextual indication pointing to immediate effect, then it indicates immediate effect. If that is not the case, and he intends deferment, or there is a contextual indication pointing to deferment, then it indicates deferment. If there is nothing at all—no intention of immediate effect, no contextual indication, no intention of deferment, and no contextual indication—then it indicates deferment, except when used with lam, in which case it indicates immediate effect, apart from in.