The ruling on one who swears by divorce in different cases

Question:
This is a letter from the listener Mustafa Ramadan Ali Ramadan, from the Yemen Arab Republic. He says: I wanted to do something with my wife, and I swore an oath to her. The text of it is: "I am divorced if you do not bring this thing; so that you become divorced." She did not bring the thing I wanted.

Then I swore an oath by divorce, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Abu Hanifa, between me and my partner in a piece of land. My wife was sitting in this gathering, where I said in this oath: "I am divorced, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Abu Hanifa, that I will sell this land after this crop." The crop passed and the next one, and the land was not sold. While I was in the middle of the oath, I was pointing my hand at my wife.

Then I swore an oath by divorce to my wife that she should respond to my call by saying: "Yes," every time I call her. The text of it is: "I am divorced if you do not say: 'Yes' every time I call you, so that you become divorced." Sometimes she says it, and sometimes she does not. Please inform us, may Allah reward you, about the solution to these oaths, with my intention to repent from these words?
May Allah reward you with the best reward.

Answer:
This is a mistake on your part. Using divorce in this way is a plaything and there is no good in it. It is a mistake on your part, O questioner, and it is not befitting for you to use this divorce. The most disliked of lawful things to Allah is divorce, so it is not befitting for a believer to use divorce in this way. Rather, he should address her with something other than divorce, with an oath by Allah, with certainty, without an oath. As for this action, it is an action that is not befitting for you, and it is not befitting for you to return to it.
As for the ruling, if you intended the ruling of an oath, meaning: you intended to emphasize that she should respond to you with "yes," and to emphasize that you will sell the land, and to emphasize that she should bring the need, and you did not intend to effect the divorce, but only intended to emphasize this matter and to be strict with yourself, and did not intend to effect the divorce, but to emphasize to yourself that you will sell, or to emphasize to your wife that she will bring the need or say: "Yes," and you did not intend to effect the divorce upon her and part from her, then its ruling is the ruling of an oath. So upon you is an expiation of an oath for each one: for the need, for saying: "Yes," and for selling the land. Upon you is an expiation of an oath, which is feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, or freeing a slave. The feeding is half a sa' of the staple food of the land, its amount is one and a half kilograms of dates, or rice, or corn, if that is the staple food of the land, or barley if that is the staple food of the land, or wheat. Or you clothe ten poor people, each one is given a shirt, or a lower garment, and a cloak. Or you free a believing slave. If you are unable to do all of this, you fast three days for each oath.
So your divorce regarding her bringing the need, and she did not bring it; this is an oath. And the divorce regarding her saying: "Yes" is an oath. And the divorce regarding selling the land is an oath. This is if you did not intend anything but emphasis and being strict with yourself that you will sell the land, and being strict with her that she says: "Yes," and emphasizing that she brings the need, and you did not intend to part from her, and effect the divorce upon her in these matters. In this, there is an expiation of an oath, three expiations.
But if you intended to effect the divorce in them, or in one of them, the divorce takes effect. You intended the divorce in the matter of the land, you did not sell it, so the wife is divorced, the divorce takes effect upon her, the divorce takes effect upon her. And so with the matter of saying: "Yes" and the matter of the need, if you intended to effect the divorce, the divorce takes effect, and according to the case.
The first divorce has a right of taking back, the second divorce has a right of taking back, and the third is the final one, there is no right of taking back in it, it ends. She becomes separated from you until she marries a husband other than you in the final third divorce. If you intended to effect the divorce in these matters, then at the last one, if the last one is the land, or saying: "Yes," or the first matter, the need, the last one of these three is the end. So she is not lawful for you again except after another husband, if you intended to effect the divorce in the three matters. Yes.

The presenter: May Allah bless you.