according to both opinions, because he linked her divorce to a condition whose performance or omission is possible, so it is an oath, just as if he said: "If you enter the house, you are divorced." And his statement that it is a repetition of speech is an argument against him; for the repetition of a thing is an expression of its existence once more, so if it was an oath in the first instance, then it has been found once more, thus the oath has been found once more. As for confirmation, speech that is repeated is only interpreted as such if he intended it; here, if he intended to make her understand, nothing would occur with the second (instance), just as if he said: "You are divorced, you are divorced," intending by the second to make her understand. As for if he repeated that for one not yet consummated with, she becomes irrevocably divorced by one pronouncement, and nothing more occurs. Thus, if he said that to her three times, she becomes irrevocably divorced by the second time, and she is not divorced by the third. If he renews her marriage contract, then repeats that to her, or says to her: "If you speak, you are divorced," or similar to that, she is not divorced by that because the condition for her divorce only existed after her irrevocable separation.

Section: If he said to his two wives: "Whenever I swear by your divorce, you are both divorced," then he repeated that three times, each one of them is divorced three times, for the reason we mentioned. If one of them had not been consummated with, she becomes irrevocably divorced by the second time; then if he repeated it a third time, neither of them is divorced, because the one not consummated with is irrevocably divorced, so the repetition of this statement was not an oath by her divorce, and she is not a wife, so the condition was not met. If he conditioned their divorce on swearing by the divorce of both of them, and then he renewed the marriage of the irrevocably divorced one, then said to her: "If you speak, you are divorced," it has been said: They are both divorced at that point, because he has thereby become one who has sworn by her divorce, and he had sworn by the divorce of the one consummated with by repeating his statement in the third instance, so they are both divorced at that point. It is stronger in my view that divorce does not occur by this one whose marriage he renewed, because when he repeated it the third time she was irrevocably divorced, so the attribute did not attach by referring to her, just as if he said to a stranger: "If I swear by your divorce, you are divorced," then married her, and swore by her divorce. However, the one consummated with is divorced at that point, because he has sworn by her divorce in the third instance, and sworn by the divorce of this one at that point, so he completed the condition for her divorce, and she is divorced alone.

Section: If he had two wives, Hafsah and 'Amrah, and he said: "If I swear by your divorce, then 'Amrah is divorced." Then he repeated it, neither of them is divorced; because this is an oath by the divorce of 'Amrah alone, so the oath by the divorce of both of them was not found. If he said after that: "If I swear by your divorce, then Hafsah is divorced," 'Amrah is divorced, because he swore by the divorce of both of them after he had linked her divorce to the oath by the divorce of both of them. Hafsah is not divorced because he did not swear by the divorce of both of them after he had linked her divorce to it. If he said after this: "If I swear by your divorce, 'Amrah is divorced," neither of them is divorced, because he did not swear by the divorce of both, but rather he only swore by the divorce of 'Amrah alone. If he said after this: "If I swear by your divorce, Hafsah is divorced," Hafsah is divorced, and it follows this analogy.