What is the ruling on a husband who forbids his wife to himself or threatens her with divorce while he is angry, and claims that he did not intend it?

The preponderant view among us regarding swearing by the unlawfulness (تحريم) of one's wife is that if divorce is intended, it is a divorce; if ẓihār (a form of injurious oath likening one's wife to a prohibited relative) is intended, it is ẓihār; and if an oath is intended, or nothing specific is intended, then it is an oath that necessitates an expiation for an oath.

So, if the wife does what the husband conditioned her unlawfulness upon, then what the husband intended—whether divorce or ẓihār—takes effect upon her, or an expiation for an oath becomes binding on him.

If a divorce occurs and it is not the third and final divorce, then the husband may take her back before the expiry of her ʿiddah (waiting period).

This is the fatwa issued by us, and it aligns with the majority of scholars. However, some scholars hold the view that swearing by divorce and unlawfulness without intending to effect divorce or unlawfulness has the same ruling as swearing by Allah: neither divorce nor ẓihār occurs upon breaching it, but the one who swore it is bound by an expiation for an oath.