Is it possible for someone who swore by disbelief, then repented, to proceed with what he swore upon without becoming a disbeliever, by analogy with what Ibn Taymiyyah said concerning swearing by divorce?

Ibn Taymiyyah's words do not prohibit intending disbelief by a conditional divorce from doing what the disbelief was conditioned upon, after repentance. So, whoever intended disbelief by a conditional divorce and did not dislike its occurrence is not considered an oath-taker by Ibn Taymiyyah, because an oath-taker is one who commits to what he dislikes occurring upon transgression. And whoever swore by disbelief is not forbidden from doing what he swore upon; rather, the dispute is regarding the obligation of expiation. The majority of scholars agree that neither disbelief nor Islam is incumbent upon him, but they differed on the obligation of expiation for the oath.