Oath of divorce to threaten one's wife: What is the ruling?

This is a letter from the sender (Mahmoud T. S.), an Egyptian working in the Kingdom. He says in his letter: I swore to my wife that she would be divorced if she did such-and-such, and my intention was to threaten her. I know that this happened from me three times, and in all three cases, I had intercourse with her after the oath without asking about it, because I did not intend it to be a valid oath or a divorce oath, but rather an oath with the intention of threatening. Then a fourth oath occurred from me, and this one was with the intention of divorce. I want you to issue a ruling on this?
Answer: As for the first three oaths, which were with the intention of threatening and not with the intention of effecting the divorce, but rather to frighten and threaten her, the correct ruling for these three is that they are in the category of an oath. The questioner owes the expiation for an oath for each one, which is feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, or freeing a slave. Clothing means an undergarment and an overgarment, or a shirt. As for feeding, it is half a sa' of dates, or rice, or other staple food of the country. This is the feeding. If he provides them breakfast or dinner, that suffices. The divorce does not take place by this in the most correct of the scholars' opinions. The majority held that the divorce takes place with this oath if he says, "If you speak to so-and-so, you are divorced," or "If you go to your parents' house, you are divorced," or "If you do another thing, you are divorced," with the intention of threatening. Most scholars are of the opinion that it takes place and this intention does not benefit him. However, the correct view, which is the position of the meticulous scholars of knowledge, is that this is in the category of an oath and does not constitute a divorce, but rather he owes the expiation for an oath. This is what we issue as a ruling, and it is the most correct. It is what the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) and the scholar Ibn al-Qayyim issued as a ruling. It is the apparent meaning of what was transmitted from a group of the righteous Salaf from the Tabi'un. It is the apparent meaning of what was transmitted from Ibn 'Umar and his wife Safiyyah, the daughter of Abu 'Ubayd, and from a group regarding a woman who swore to free a slave and give charity with her money and free her slaves that he would not do such-and-such, but he did not do it. They said to her: You owe the expiation for an oath; because she only intended to compel him, she did not intend freeing or charity, but she wanted to compel this person to divorce his wife... So they said: You owe the expiation for an oath for this, and it is not obligatory for you to make your money charity or free slaves; because she did not intend that, but she wanted to compel him and emphasize it. If this is the case with what is beloved to Allah, namely charity and freeing slaves, which are beloved to Allah, then divorce, which is hated by Allah, is even more so that it does not take place with threatening and the intention of emphasizing and strengthening and frightening, not with the intention of effecting the divorce. This is the correct view.
As for the fourth one, which she conditioned on a condition intending to effect the divorce, it takes place. So if he says, "If you go out without my permission, you are divorced," and his intention is to effect the divorce, it takes place if she goes out. Or if he says, "If you speak to so-and-so," and his intention is to effect the divorce, it takes place according to his intention. Actions are by intentions. Yes.
The presenter: May Allah reward you with good, may Allah bless you.