Is a conditional divorce, tied to an unspecified action that the husband intends in his heart but does not articulate, considered valid? For example, if he says: "If you repeat this act again, then you are divorced," without specifying what "this act" is?

Most scholars are of the opinion that if a husband makes his wife's divorce conditional upon a certain event, she becomes divorced upon the fulfillment of that condition, regardless of whether he intended to effect a divorce or merely to threaten, emphasize, or prevent something. Some scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, hold that if he did not intend to effect a divorce, but rather intended to threaten, emphasize, or prevent, then no divorce occurs; instead, he must offer expiation for breaking an oath (kaffarat yamin).

The reference for determining and interpreting the conditional statement is the husband's intention, provided the wording can bear that meaning. If he had no specific intention, then the cause of the oath serves as the reference.

Therefore, the husband should be asked about his intention. If the wife does what the husband intended to prevent her from doing, then divorce occurs; otherwise, it does not. If the husband forgets what he made the divorce conditional upon, then it is apparent that no divorce occurs, because the default state is the continuation of the marriage, and it is not nullified by doubt.