the current moment; because the fatha-voweled 'anna' is not for a condition, rather it is for causation. Its meaning is: 'You are divorced because you stood up,' or 'for your standing,' like the saying of Allah Almighty: 'They consider it a favor to you that they have accepted Islam' [Al-Hujurat: 17]; 'The mountains crumble down that they ascribe a son to the Most Merciful' [Maryam: 90-91]; and 'They drive out the Messenger and yourselves that you may believe in Allah, your Lord' [Al-Mumtahanah: 1]. The Qadi said: The analogy of Ahmad's opinion is that if he is a grammarian, his divorce occurs, but if he is not a grammarian, then it is for a condition; because the layperson does not intend by that anything but the condition, and he does not know that its requirement is causation, so he does not intend it, and therefore the ruling of what he does not know and does not intend does not apply to him, just as if he had pronounced the word of divorce in a language he does not know. It is narrated from Ibn Hamid that he said regarding the grammarian as well: His divorce does not occur by that, unless he intends it; because divorce is interpreted based on custom in the case of both of them. The followers of al-Shafi'i disagreed on three views: one of them is that his divorce occurs at the moment. The second is that it is a condition in the case of the layperson, and causation in the case of the grammarian. The third is that the divorce occurs unless he is not of the people of Arabic grammar, so he says: 'I intended the condition.' It is then accepted; because it is not permissible to divert speech from what it necessitates except by his intent. If he says: 'You are divorced when (idha) you entered the house,' she is divorced at the moment; because 'idha' is for the past. It is possible that it does not occur; because divorce does not occur in a past time, so it resembles his saying: 'You are divorced yesterday.'

Section: When he suspends the divorce upon two conditions, it does not occur before the existence of both of them, according to the opinion of the generality of scholars. The Qadi derived a view regarding its occurrence upon the existence of one of them, based on one of the two narrations concerning someone who swore not to do something, and then did some of it. This is very far-fetched, violates the principles, the requirements of the language and custom, and the generality of scholars; for there is no disagreement among them regarding the issues we have mentioned concerning the two conditions