Is the wife divorced if the son goes to his grandfather's house after the father, in a fit of rage, told his son who had not yet reached puberty, "Your mother is divorced if you go to your grandfather's house"?

The majority of scholars hold that a divorce contingent on the son going to his grandfather takes effect if he goes, even if the husband did not intend divorce. However, Ibn Taymiyyah views this as an oath that requires an expiation for an oath (kaffarat yameen) if the husband did not intend divorce but rather intended prevention and threat.

Some scholars, including the Shafi'is, qualify the occurrence of contingent divorce when the contingent act is not performed in cases of forgetfulness, ignorance, or duress. So, divorce does not occur if the act is done forgetfully, ignorantly, or under duress. This applies to contingencies based on one's own actions. However, if the contingency is based on the action of another, the divorce takes effect if that other person is unconcerned with the contingency, even with forgetfulness or similar situations.

Regarding a contingency based on the action of an animal or a non-discerning child, the only condition is that the doer is not under duress; if under duress, divorce does not occur. Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami mentioned that if someone swore by divorce regarding his own action and he performed it forgetfully, under duress, or ignorantly regarding the contingent act, he does not break his oath. Likewise, he does not break his oath if the contingency was based on the action of another person who was concerned with his contingency, and that other person acted forgetfully, ignorantly, or under duress. However, if he did not intend to prevent or urge another, or if the other person was unconcerned with his contingency, or was unaware of the contingency and acted, then he breaks his oath, even with forgetfulness. In the case of an animal or a child entering, he breaks his oath if it enters without duress, and he does not break his oath if it enters under duress.