What is the ruling on a husband's oath of divorce that he will not have intercourse with his first wife, and will his second wife (the questioner) be divorced if he has intercourse with the first or if he expiates his oath?

Scholars differ concerning one who swears an oath of divorce regarding a matter when he does not intend divorce: does his divorce occur, or is it an oath? They are unanimous, however, that divorce occurs if he intended to make it conditional.

If a man has intercourse with his first wife, divorce occurs according to the majority of scholars, regardless of whether he intended divorce or not. According to another view, it occurs if he intended to make the divorce conditional, but if he intended an oath, then it requires expiation for a broken oath.

If the husband swears an oath of divorce that he will not pay expiation, then if he intended not to break his oath, divorce occurs at that point. If he intended expiation for an oath, then nothing is binding on him according to the majority of scholars, because there is no expiation due from him.

In summary, if by his statement: "You are divorced if you pay expiation for your oath," he merely intends the breaking of the oath and not expiation, then if he breaks it, two divorces are incumbent upon him. However, if he genuinely intended expiation for an oath, then by breaking it, only one divorce is incumbent upon him.

A husband swearing an oath not to have intercourse with his wife is called īlāʾ (a vow of abstinence). The judge grants the one who makes īlāʾ a four-month period. If he has intercourse with his wife, then good; otherwise, his wife has the option to initiate divorce or remain with him without intercourse.

It is not permissible for the questioner to incite or encourage the husband to make īlāʾ concerning his wife, as it will lead to divorce. This may fall under the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: "A woman should not ask for the divorce of her sister to overturn her dish."