What is the ruling on saying, "You are divorced, and you are to me as the back of my mother, and unlawful to me like my mother and my sister," with the intention of admonishment and threat during anger, and then retracting the condition?

Severe anger does not negate legal capacity unless it removes consciousness, and this is the view of the majority of scholars. Some jurists, like Ibn Taymiyyah, are of the opinion that the divorce of an angry person does not take effect even if his mind is not completely absent.

Conditional divorce, according to the majority, takes effect as soon as the condition is met, while Ibn Taymiyyah believes that if the intention was merely a threat, then an expiation for a broken oath (kaffarat yamin) is due.

Revocation of a conditional divorce is not possible according to the majority, while Ibn Taymiyyah permits it.

Conditional ẓihār (a pre-Islamic form of divorce by likening one's wife to an unmarriageable relative) necessitates the expiation for ẓihār, and it cannot be revoked, as understood from Ibn Taymiyyah's statements.

Given the jurisprudential disagreement on these issues, it is advisable to refer to the Sharia court, as a judge's ruling resolves disputes in matters of ijtihād (independent reasoning).

Caution must be exercised regarding marital disputes, and they should be handled wisely, avoiding anger.