What is the ruling on someone who swore by divorce, saying, in a moment of anger, "It is forbidden and by divorce, I will not take a single riyal from her," and does the divorce take effect, or is expiation required?

Previously, the rulings concerning divorce in a state of anger were explained. If the oath "haram and divorce" was uttered in a state of intense anger that deprived one of awareness, then nothing is incumbent upon the swearer, and it is permissible for him to take from his mother's money. However, if the anger was slight, then the divorce takes effect upon the fulfillment of that which was sworn upon, contrary to Ibn Taymiyyah's view. The ruling concerning the utterance of "haram" depends on the intention: if divorce was intended, then two divorces take effect, unless the intention was merely emphasis. If zihar (injurious assimilation of wife to unmarriageable kin) was intended, then it takes effect. If an oath was intended, or if no specific intention was present, then it necessitates an expiation for a broken oath. As for that which he swore upon, it refers back to his intention: if he intended to abstain from benefiting from his mother's money in any way, then he breaks his oath by any form of benefit. If he intended only to abstain from asking her for money, then he breaks his oath by asking her for money. If that which he swore upon occurs, then divorce takes effect upon the wife. If it is less than three divorces, he may take her back before the expiration of her iddah (waiting period).