And the “second” explanation is that the grammarians of Kufa call prepositions and similar particles “particles of qualification.” Since this divorce is made conditional through particles that may be called “particles of qualification,” it is termed “divorce subject to a qualification,” as when a man says, “You are divorced in return for a thousand.” The “first explanation” is the fundamental one, for this explanation ultimately comes back to it: grammarians call prepositions “particles of qualification” only because a preposition and its object together qualify, in meaning, that to which they relate.

Thus, if al-Shāfiʿī and others based their treatment of qualified divorce solely on divorce in return for compensation, and drew an analogy between it and every divorce subject to a qualification, then this becomes … (1)

Similarly, a vow made conditional upon something is mentioned in the words of the Most High:

“And among them are those who pledged to Allah, ‘If He gives us of His bounty, we will surely give in charity and be among the righteous.’”

It is well known that a conditional vow is a vow subject to a qualification. Yet they distinguished between a vow whose condition one wishes to be fulfilled and a vow whose condition one wishes not to be fulfilled, the latter serving as an oath. Accordingly, a distinction should be drawn between a divorce whose qualification one wishes to be fulfilled—such as divorce in return for compensation, where the compensation is what is sought—and a divorce invoked in an oath, where neither the divorce nor its condition is intended to occur. For an analogy with what is found in the Book and the Sunnah may be drawn only where there is a relevant resemblance. The distinction between a qualification whose fulfilment is desired and one invoked in an oath whose fulfilment is not desired is well established, exactly as the distinction between the two is made in the case of vows.

The evidence for this position is the Book, the Sunnah, transmitted reports, and reasoning.