1842 - Issue: He said: "And if he swore regarding his wife that she shall not go out except with his permission, then that applies to every time, unless he intended a single time."

The summary of it is that whoever says to his wife: "If you go out except with my permission, or without my permission, then you are divorced," or says: "If you go out unless I give you permission," or "until I give you permission," or "up until I give you permission," the ruling for these five phrasings is that whenever she goes out without his permission, she is divorced, and his oath is dissolved; because the particle "an" (unless/except) does not necessitate repetition. Thus, if he breaks his oath once, it is dissolved, as if he had said: "You are divorced if you wish." If she goes out with his permission, he does not break his oath, because the condition was not met. There is no disagreement regarding this. The oath is not dissolved; [rather, whenever] she goes out after this without his permission, she is divorced. Al-Shafi'i said: It is dissolved, so he does not break his oath by her going out after that, because the oath was attached to a single act of going out, by a particle that does not necessitate repetition. So if it occurs without permission, he breaks his oath; and if it occurs with permission, he fulfills his oath, because fulfilling relates to what breaking relates to. Abu Hanifah said, regarding his statement: "If you go out except with my permission," or "without my permission," it is like our statement, because going out with his permission in these two instances is an exception from his oath, so it does not enter into it, and neither fulfillment nor breaking applies to it. If he says: "If you go out unless I give you permission," or "until I give you permission," or "up until I give you permission," whenever he gives her permission, his oath is dissolved, and he does not break his oath after that by her going out without his permission, because he made the permission in it the end-point of his oath, and he made the divorce dependent upon going out before his permission. So whenever he gives permission, the end-point of his oath terminates, and its ruling ceases, as if he said: "If you go out until the sun rises," or "except until the sun rises," or "up until the sun rises, you are divorced," and she went out after it rose. This is because the particles "ila" (up until) and "hatta" (until) are for the end-point, not for exclusion. We argue that he suspended the divorce upon a condition, and it has occurred, so the divorce takes effect, as if she had not gone out with his permission. Their statement that "he has fulfilled his oath" is incorrect for two reasons: First, that which is permitted is excepted from his oath and does not enter into it; so how can he have fulfilled his oath? Do you not see that if he said to her: "If you speak to a man except your brother, or other than your brother, then you are divorced," and she spoke to her brother, then spoke to another man, she would be divorced, and his oath would not be dissolved by her speaking to her brother? The second is that