Does a divorce take place if one says, "Divorce upon me if our infant son is hungry," while in a state of anger?

Scholars have differed concerning the ruling on swearing by divorce that a child is hungry due to excessive crying, if it becomes clear that what was sworn upon is false. The majority of jurists hold that divorce occurs upon breaking the oath, whereas according to the Shafi'is, one does not break the oath if the swearing was based on a strong presumption. If it is impossible to know the reason for the child's crying, then nothing is binding upon you, because the breaking of the oath is doubtful, and the original state is the continuation of the marital bond. The occurrence of conditional divorce upon the breaking of the oath is the view of the majority, in contrast to Ibn Taymiyyah, who holds that an expiation for an oath is due if the swearer did not intend divorce. Divorce is not binding if the anger was severe at the time of swearing, to the extent that you did not comprehend what you were saying. It is obligatory to avoid swearing by divorce in the future.