How is divorce considered binding even if uttered in jest, according to the Hadith: "There are three things which, whether done seriously or in jest, are considered binding: marriage, divorce, and رجعة (taking back one's wife after a revocable divorce)"? And how can divorce be contingent upon intention, such that if the intention was an oath, it is an oath, and if the intention was divorce, it is divorce?

The Hadith (definition) states: "Three things, whether done seriously or in jest, are considered valid: marriage, divorce, and revocation [of divorce]." (In Al-Muwatta', emancipation is mentioned instead of revocation). This means that these matters take effect regardless of whether they were intended seriously or in jest. So, it is of no avail for someone who was jesting to say, "I was playing" or "I was jesting," lest rulings be suspended. As for intention in swearing by divorce, Ibn Taymiyyah holds that if the intention was to emphasize, encourage, or prevent, then its expiation is the expiation for an oath. However, if divorce was intended, then it takes effect. The majority of scholars believe that swearing by divorce is a conditional divorce that takes effect upon the fulfillment of the condition, and intention is not considered.