The Ruling on Conditional Divorce

Question:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Peace be upon you, and Allah’s mercy and blessings. I am one of the admirers of your program, and we thank those responsible for it for the great benefit it contains. I humbly and gratefully ask that my letter be presented to His Eminence Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abdullah ibn Baz.
The question is as follows: My husband and I had a disagreement, and he pronounced a divorce on the condition that he would not complete the education of my daughters; that is, at a certain grade level, he would withdraw them from school. At that time, one of my daughters was a small child, newly born. Now this small child has reached that same grade level. Does the divorce take effect when this small child completes her education? Or is she not included in the scope of the divorce? Please note that the subject of our disagreement was not about education or schools. Please answer us, and may you be rewarded. The author of the letter is Sister (L.A.R.) from al-Qassim—Buraydah?

Answer:
This issue and its like depend on the intention of the one who pronounces the divorce and the one who swears the oath. If the one who pronounces the divorce intended by this only to prevent them and did not intend to effect the divorce, but rather intended to emphasize, warn, and threaten, and to prevent himself from granting them permission, and his aim was not to effect the divorce upon his family if the condition he divorced upon occurred, then this case has the ruling of an oath. The one who pronounces the divorce owes the expiation for an oath if he permits them to study; because he did not intend to effect the divorce, but rather intended to prevent them and bound himself with the divorce. This is like if he said: “The divorce is upon me if I do not speak to so-and-so,” or “The divorce is upon me if I do not visit so-and-so,” or if he said: “The divorce is upon me regarding my wife if she does not visit so-and-so,” or “Do not go to so-and-so,” or “Do not go to so-and-so (female),” and his intention is prevention and intimidation, and urging the abandonment of that thing. Then its ruling is the ruling of an oath, and it does not have the ruling of divorce. He owes the expiation for an oath according to the most correct of the scholars’ opinions. This is unlike if he intended the divorce, in which case the divorce takes effect. As if he said: “The divorce is upon me if Ramadan enters,” or “If Ramadan exits,” or the like of that. Then the divorce takes effect; because it is a divorce conditioned with a complete, perfect condition, in which there is no intention of urging or prevention... or the like of that.
So the result is that conditioning is of two types: conditioning that necessitates the effecting of the divorce, such as conditioning it on the entry of Ramadan and the like of that.
And conditioning that involves detail, such as this divorce which he conditioned on studying. If he intended to effect the divorce, the divorce takes effect if they study. And if he intended only to prevent them and did not intend to effect the divorce, but rather intended to frighten them and to bind himself to prevent them, then its ruling is the ruling of an oath, and he owes its expiation, the expiation for an oath, according to the most correct of the scholars’ opinions. Yes.

The presenter: May Allah reward you with good. So, does this small child study?

The Shaykh: Yes, she enters, she enters. Yes.

The presenter: She studies.

The Shaykh: She is included in the ruling.

The presenter: She is included in the oath.

The Shaykh: In the oath. Yes.

The presenter: In the oath.

The Shaykh: Because his intention was his daughters in general.

The presenter: Whether the one who was present or the one who was absent?

The Shaykh: As for if he said: “Specifically so-and-so and so-and-so,” then she is not included. But if he said: “My daughters,” then the small one and the older one are included. Yes.

The presenter: May Allah bless you.