He replied:
If he intended the condition in his heart and did not intend divorce, he has not broken his oath. This is the position of al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad and others: as between him and Allah, divorce is not binding upon him. And Allah knows best.
He was asked about a man who said to his wife, “If you enter the house, you are divorced,” and she then entered forgetfully.
He replied:
Praise be to Allah. If he says, “If you enter the house, you are divorced,” and she enters forgetfully, the divorce does not take effect according to the stronger of the scholars’ two opinions. This is the position of the scholars of Mecca, such as ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, Ibn Jurayj and others, and it is one of the two views reported from Ahmad. And Allah knows best.
Shaykh al-Islām—the brave and intrepid, the lion of battles and lion of the Sunnah, who patiently endured tribulation for Allah’s sake, the eminent scholar and authoritative proof, Ahmad ibn ʿAbd al-Halīm ibn ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah, Lord of all creation, have mercy on him—was asked:
A man swore, on pain of threefold divorce, that the Quran is sound and letters and that the Most Merciful rose over the Throne, in accordance with what the apparent wording conveys and what people understand from its apparent meaning. Has he thereby broken his oath or not? (*)
(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (p. 240):
Two points should be noted here:
First: This fatwa is called al-Futyā al-Dimashqiyya (the Damascus Fatwa). The Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, included it in al-Tis‘īniyya, 2:547–573.
Second: There are minor textual corruptions between the two passages, which become apparent upon comparison. The most important are:
1 – 33:172: “Likewise, al-Shahrastānī mentioned”; the correct reading is “Therefore, al-Shahrastānī mentioned,” as in al-Tis‘īniyya, 2:551.
2 – 33:181: “The discussion that determines one of the expression’s possible meanings will follow”; the correct reading is “The context of the discussion determines one of the expression’s possible meanings,” as in al-Tis‘īniyya, 2:566.
3 – 33:185: “The Arabs did not use the word ‘knowledge’ specifically for the ‘urf (custom) subsisting in the human heart”; the correct reading is “… specifically for the ‘arad (accident) subsisting in the human heart,” as in al-Tis‘īniyya, 2:572.
4 – 33:186: “Not merely on the basis of the wording [so distinguish—may Allah set you right—between what the wording alone indicates], namely the wording of the verb, and what it indicates through its specific attribution to a particular agent.” The text in square brackets was omitted because the copyist’s eye skipped ahead; it appears in al-Tis‘īniyya, 2:573.