because liability for breaking the oath arises only at the moment of death, and once a man has died no divorce can attach to him.

According to Mālik, if a person swears that he will not do a particular act and then performs part of it, he has violated his oath. The same applies, in Mālik’s judgment, to one who swears that he will do an act but ends up doing only part of it. A different report from him—adopted by the majority of scholars—states that in neither case is the oath broken. The first view, however, is the authoritative formulation of his school, and we have already explained the ramifications of this question in the Book of Oaths.

If a man makes the divorce of his wife conditional upon her doing a specified deed, then pronounces one or two divorces against her, later reconciles with her, and afterward she performs that deed, the original oath returns against him and the divorce takes effect. But if he had divorced her with one, two, or even three pronouncements, after which she married another husband and was later remarried by her first husband, and only then performed the deed, the oath does not revert to him and no divorce is incurred.