and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), for the release of ownership necessitates that. If he separates from her without it being a triple divorce and the condition is met, then he marries her, his oath is dissolved according to their view. And if the condition is not met during the state of separation, then he marries her, it is not dissolved according to the view of Malik, the People of Opinion, and one of the opinions of Al-Shafi'i. He has another opinion: the condition does not return under any circumstances. This is the choice of Al-Muzani and Abu Ishaq, because the occurrence [of the divorce] was found before the marriage, so it does not fall, just as if he had suspended it with a condition before marrying her; for there is no disagreement that if he said to a stranger: "You are divorced if you enter the house," then he marries her, and she enters the house, she does not become divorced. This is of the same meaning. As for if the condition is met during the state of separation, the oath is dissolved, because the condition was met at a time when the occurrence of divorce was not possible, so the oath fell away, and if it is dissolved once, it cannot return except by a new contract. Our argument is that the contract of the condition and its occurrence both took place within the marriage, so it falls, just as if no separation had intervened, or as if she had been separated by less than three divorces according to Malik and Abu Hanifah, and the condition was not met. As for their statement that this is a divorce before marriage, we say: it is invalidated by the case where he does not complete the three. And their statement that the condition is dissolved by her action, we say: it is only dissolved by her action in a manner by which she commits a breach (hinth); and that is because the oath was released and contracted, then it was established that its contraction requires ownership, so likewise is its release. Breach does not occur by the action of the condition during the state of her separation, so the oath is not dissolved. As for manumission, there are two narrations regarding it; one of them is that manumission is like marriage in that the condition is not dissolved by its occurrence after he sells him, so it is like our issue. The second is that it is dissolved, because the second ownership is not built upon the first in any of its rulings. It differs from marriage, for marriage is built upon the first in some of its rulings, which is the count of divorce, so it is permissible for it to be built upon it in the return of the condition. Furthermore, this person acts in a ruse to invalidate the suspended divorce, and ruses are deceits that do not make lawful what Allah has forbidden, for Ibn Majah and Ibn Battah have narrated with their chain of authority from Abu Musa, who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said:

Section: If the condition does not return after the second marriage, such as if he said: "If you eat this loaf of bread, you are divorced three times." Then he separates from her, and she eats it, then he marries her, he does not commit a breach; because his breach is by the existence of the condition within the second marriage, and it was not found, and it is not possible to effectuate the divorce by her eating it during the state of separation, because divorce does not attach to a separated woman. And Allah the Exalted knows best.