Is a divorce, conditioned by the husband on his wife’s use of public transportation, considered valid, given that he intended to threaten and prevent her, and that the primary reason for this condition was her disobedience to his commands, and she has not yet used public transportation?

Firstly: Conditional divorce is a matter of scholarly disagreement. The majority of jurists hold that the divorce takes effect upon the fulfillment of the condition, while others, including Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, believe that the matter depends on the intention of the one who made the oath. If his intention was to prevent or encourage something and he did not intend divorce, then he must offer expiation for a broken oath (kaffarat yamin) when the condition is violated, and the divorce does not occur. However, if he intended to effect a divorce, then it takes effect upon the fulfillment of the condition. Accordingly, if you did not intend to effect a divorce but rather to prevent your wife, then you must offer expiation for a broken oath. And if your wife refrains from using public transportation in the future, it would be better as it avoids the disagreement.

Secondly: The preponderant opinion among the majority of scholars is that it is not permissible to annul a conditional divorce after it has been issued; rather, they consider it binding.

Advice: Avoid using divorce pronouncements in all circumstances, as it was not legislated for threatening and may lead to family disintegration and regret.