What is the ruling on the interpretative understanding (ta'wil) in an oath of divorce, such as saying "By divorce, I shall do such-and-such," when something else is intended? And does the ruling differ between the majority of scholars and Ibn Taymiyyah, and what is the effect of the oath-taker being an oppressor or oppressed on the occurrence of the oath?

The previous fatwa (definition) mentioned that what the questioner said to his wife's mother falls under the category of tawriya (allusory speech) regarding divorce, and therefore nothing is incumbent upon him, whether he was unjust or wronged. This is the view of the majority of scholars. Most Maliki scholars hold that what matters is the intention of the one swearing an oath if he volunteered the oath, and this is what Ibn Maysar preferred, deeming it the sounder opinion. Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah believes that the reliance is on the intention of the swearer, while also considering the reason for the oath and what provoked it.