talon [divorced]. She is divorced; because the waw (and) is not for the consequence, and it may be for the beginning of a clause. If he says: "I intended by it the consequence," or he says: "I intended to make her entering while she is divorced a condition for something, then I refrained," he is believed. And is it accepted in legal judgment? This is deduced based on two narrations. If he makes a consequence for this, saying: "If you enter the house while you are divorced, then my slave is free," it is valid, and the slave is not freed until she enters the house. And she is divorced; because the waw here is for the state, like the saying of Allah Almighty: "Do not kill game while you are in the state of ihram" [Al-Ma'idah: 95], and His saying: "You have indeed seen it while you were looking" [Al-'Imran: 143]. If he said: "You are divorced if you enter the house while divorced," and she enters while she is divorced, she is divorced again, and if she enters while she is not divorced, she is not divorced; because this is a state, so it proceeds like his saying: "You are divorced if you enter the house while riding." If he says: "You are divorced if you stood up," it is a condition equivalent to his saying: "If you stand up." This is narrated from Abu Yusuf, and because if it were not for the condition, it would be meaningless, and the principle is to consider the speech of the legally responsible person (mukallaf). It is said: The divorce occurs immediately. This is the opinion of some of the Shafi'i scholars; because it, after affirmation, is used for something other than prohibition, like His saying: "And it is indeed a great oath, if you but knew" [Al-Waqi'ah: 76], and "And they saw the punishment; if only they had been guided" [Al-Qasas: 64]. If he says: "I intended to make it a response (answer)," he is believed. And is it accepted in legal judgment? This is deduced based on two narrations.

Section: If he says: "If you eat and drink, then you are divorced." She is not divorced unless both are present, whether eating precedes or follows; because the waw is for conjunction and does not require sequence. If he says: "If you eat or drink, then you are divorced," she is divorced by the presence of one of them; because 'aw' (or) is for one of the two things. Likewise, if he says: "If you eat, or if you drink, or neither eat nor drink." If he says: "You are divorced if you do not eat and drink," she is not divorced unless she does both, except according to the narration which says: He violates the oath by doing some of