Is the conditional form different from the oath form according to Ibn Taymiyyah, and is his doctrine concerning inquiring about a man’s intention restricted to the oath form, or does it include the conditional form?

The school of thought of Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah regarding an oath of divorce conditioned on a contingency, intended for emphasis, prevention, or encouragement, is that the divorce does not occur. Rather, the one who swore the oath is required to offer an expiation for an oath (kaffarat yameen) if he breaks it. This detailed ruling depends on the man's intention in the wording of the oath and the condition. If his intention behind the contingency was merely to swear an oath and not to effect a divorce, then his ruling is that of one who swears an oath, and it falls under the category of an oath. However, if his intention was to effect a divorce upon the fulfillment of the condition, then the divorce occurs upon breaking the oath, even if it was in the form of an oath.