altogether. And if the scholars agreed that his divorce does not occur due to his failure to maintain the order in the two conditions that are ordered, such as his saying: 'If you eat, then you wear [clothes],' then for his failure to fulfill the condition entirely, it is even more appropriate. Furthermore, it follows from this that if he says: 'If you give me two dirhams, you are divorced, and when two months pass, you are divorced,' there is no disagreement that she is not divorced before the existence of both of them. His statement would [otherwise] imply that the divorce occurs upon her giving part of a dirham and the passing of part of a day. The principles of Sharia testify that a ruling suspended upon two conditions is not established except by both of them. Ahmad has explicitly stated that if he says: 'If you menstruate once, you are divorced,' and if he says: 'If you fast one day, you are divorced,' she is not divorced until she has had one complete menstruation, and if the sun sets on the day she is fasting, she is divorced. As for an oath, whenever his wording or intention implies the entirety of what is sworn upon, he does not break the oath except by doing all of it. In our issue, there is what implies the suspension of the divorce upon both conditions together, because of his explicit statement of both and his making them a condition for the divorce, and a ruling is not established without its condition. Moreover, an oath, in its requirement, is a prohibition against what he swore upon, so it implies a prohibition against doing all of it, because the Lawgiver's prohibition against a thing implies a prohibition against every part of it, just as it implies a prohibition against the whole of it. What is suspended upon a condition is made its consequence and ruling, and the consequence does not exist without its condition, and the ruling is not realized before the completion of its condition, according to language, custom, and law.