then he dislikes these consequences even if the condition is fulfilled. He made them conditional only to deter himself from fulfilling the condition, not with the intention of bringing them about. When the condition is fulfilled, a conditional pronouncement intended to bring about its consequence falls under the rulings governing such pronouncements, whereas one intended as an oath falls under the rulings governing oaths. Allah has explained in His Book the rulings governing divorce and those governing oaths.

If he says:

“If you steal or commit adultery, you are divorced,”

he may intend this as an oath: he would prefer her to remain with him despite this conduct rather than divorce her. His sole intention is to deter and frighten her so that she does not do it. This is an oath and does not cause divorce to take effect. Alternatively, he may intend to effect divorce: he would prefer to separate from her rather than remain with her despite such conduct, and therefore chooses that she should be divorced from him if she does it. In this case, divorce takes effect. And Allah knows best.

He was asked:

About someone who swore not to speak to his brother’s relative by marriage, and swore by triple divorce that this man would not enter his house, but the man then entered without his consent.

He replied:

If the person swearing believed that the man whose conduct was the subject of the oath would obey him and honour his oath by not entering once he had sworn, but matters turned out otherwise, and he would not have sworn had he known this, then the scholars disagree as to whether he has broken his oath. The stronger view is that he has not broken it. And Allah knows best.