1. The first opinion: the divorce does not take effect; this is the position of al-Shafiʿi and Ahmad.

2. The second opinion: the conditional formula is valid in every case; this is the view of Abu Hanifah.

3. The third opinion draws a distinction: if he singles out a particular woman, the divorce takes effect, but if he generalises and says, “Every woman I marry is divorced,” nothing happens. This is the view of Malik.

The weightier opinion is the first.

Ibn Rushd remarked: “The difference between specification and generalisation is a juristic preference (istihsan) based on perceived benefit.”

5. Imam Abu Hanifah—may Allah have mercy on him—distinguished, in conditional statements, between divorce and manumission: he deemed it invalid in divorce yet permissible in manumission. This is also one narration from Ahmad and was favoured by Ibn al-Qayyim, because manumission possesses intrinsic strength and transmissibility, and because ownership can legitimately be made the cause for emancipation as a devotional act, whereas marriage is intended to last, divorce is not an act of worship, and in fact it is disliked.

6. Hadith no. 940 indicates that a vow is neither valid nor binding regarding something the one making the vow does not own at the moment of vowing. Even if he later acquires it, he is not obliged to fulfil the vow, nor must he offer expiation.

Decision of the Council of Senior Scholars concerning conditional divorce: Resolution no. 16, dated 12/11/1393 AH

All praise is due to Allah alone, and blessings and peace be upon the one after whom there is no prophet.

Proceeding: In accordance with Resolution no. 14 of the Council of Senior Scholars, issued in its third session held between 1/4/1393 AH and 17/4/1393 AH, which postponed examination of the issue of conditional divorce to the fourth session, the matter was placed on the agenda of the Council’s fourth session, convened between 29/10/1393 AH and 12/11/1393 AH, and in this session