What is the ruling on the oath of a man who swore to his wife by al-haram that he would not eat food prepared by her hands, without specifying a time limit, and does the ruling on this oath differ from his saying: "divorce be upon me" (علي الطلاق)?

If a man makes the prohibition of his wife contingent upon eating food she prepared, then if he does not eat, nothing is incumbent upon him. But if he eats, then his intention is examined:

- If he intended divorce: his divorce takes effect, and he may take his wife back before the expiry of her iddah if this is not the completion of three divorces. - If he intended ẓihār: he must offer the kaffārat al-ẓihār (expiation for ẓihār). - If he intended an oath by Allah or had no intention: he must offer the kaffārat yamīn (expiation for an oath).

However, if the husband made the divorce contingent by saying "Upon me be divorce" (عليَّ الطلاق) upon eating the food, then if he eats, a single divorce becomes incumbent upon him, according to the preponderant opinion. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held the view that the kaffārat yamīn (expiation for an oath) is incumbent if the husband did not intend divorce.