Whenever she enters the first, she is divorced, whether she enters the other or not, and she does not become divorced by entering the other. Ibn al-Sabbagh said: "She becomes divorced by entering either of them." We have already mentioned that the requirement of the language is what we have stated. If he says: "I intended to make the second a condition for her divorce as well," she is divorced by entering either of them, because he confirms against himself what is more severe. If he says: "I intended that the entry of the second is a condition for the divorce of the second," then it is according to what he intended. If he says: "You are divorced if you enter the house and if you enter the other," she is divorced by entering either of them, because he has conjoined a condition with a condition. If he says: "I intended that the entry of the second does not prevent the occurrence of the divorce," it is accepted from him, because it is plausible, and she is divorced by entering the first [house] alone. If he says: "If you enter the house and if you enter this other one, then you are divorced," it has been said: she is not divorced unless she enters both, because he made her divorce a consequence (jaza') for these two conditions. It is possible that she is divorced by either one of them, whichever it may be, because he mentioned two conditions with two particles, so each one of them requires a consequence, and he omitted mentioning the consequence of the first, while the other consequence serves as an indication of it, just as if he were to say: "I struck and Zayd struck me." Al-Farazdaq said:

Yet justice, if I insulted and he insulted me [By] the sons of 'Abd Shams from Quraysh and Hashim

The implied meaning is: "These people insulted me and I insulted them." And Allah Almighty said: "[With] a seated observer on the right and on the left" [Qaf: 17], meaning: on the right is a seated observer and on the left is a seated observer. If he says: "If you enter the house and you are