Section

If we adopt the view that he may have intercourse until he is able to perform the act, and he then refrains from intercourse once he becomes able to perform it, but the opportunity subsequently passes, there are three opinions. The first is that he may never resume intercourse with her. The second is that divorce is imposed upon him. The third is that he may resume intercourse until he is again able to perform the act. We have explained these views more fully in the Book of Oaths of Abstention from Marital Relations.

If, however, the act is something altogether beyond his ability—for example, if he says, “My wife is divorced if I do not touch the sky,” or “if I do not pass through the eye of a needle,” and the like—or something forbidden by Islamic law—for example, if he says, “My wife is divorced if I do not kill so-and-so,” or “if I do not drink wine,” and the like—then divorce is imposed upon him immediately. The exception is if he dares to commit the forbidden act before divorce is imposed upon him: he thereby fulfils his oath, but sins by his action. There is no disagreement concerning this case.

Section

The second category, swearing an oath by divorce concerning another person’s conduct, likewise has two forms. The first is to swear that the other person will not perform an act; the second is to swear that he will perform it. If he swears that the other person will not perform an act—for example, by saying, “My wife is divorced if so-and-so does such-and-such”—his case is exactly the same in every respect as that of someone who swears concerning his own conduct. This has already been explained.

If he swears that the other person will perform an act—for example, by saying, “My wife is divorced if so-and-so does not do such-and-such”—Ibn al-Qāsim has three opinions on the matter. The first is that he is like someone who swears that he himself will perform an act: he is prohibited from having intercourse and is subject to the rules governing abstention from marital relations, as a general rule without distinction.

The second is that he is granted a respite commensurate with what he is judged to have intended by his oath. There are two opinions as to whether he may have intercourse during this respite, corresponding to the disagreement concerning a fixed deadline, since granting a respite is equivalent to setting a deadline. According to the view that prohibits him from having intercourse, if the respite exceeds four months, he becomes subject to the rules governing abstention from marital relations.

The third distinguishes between swearing concerning someone who is present and someone who is absent. This accords with what appears in Yahyā’s transmitted reports in the Book of Oaths by Divorce.