What is the ruling on one who swore an oath by divorce, in a moment of solitary anger, that he would not give anyone from his upcoming salary, but is now compelled to give?

The majority of scholars hold that a conditional divorce takes effect upon the occurrence of the condition, provided the husband was aware of what he was saying at the time of imposing the condition, even if he was angry. So, if you conditioned your wife's divorce on giving a portion of your salary, the divorce takes effect if you give from it, and you can take your wife back if this was not the final divorce. Some scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, are of the opinion that divorce does not occur if the husband did not intend for it to occur, but rather intended to threaten or emphasize, and he must offer an expiation for a broken oath. The preponderant view is that of the majority. However, if the anger was so severe that it led to a lack of awareness of what was being said, then nothing is incumbent upon the husband.