How do different conditional particles ('in', 'idhā', 'matā', 'man', 'ayy', 'kullamā') affect the timing (immediacy or delay) of a divorce conditioned on performing an action?
Chapter on Explicit Divorce and Others
Al-Mughni
Book of Divorce
Primary text
When divorce is suspended on the occurrence of an act using any of these particles ('in', 'idhā', 'matā', 'ayy haz', 'ayy zaman', 'ayy waqt', 'kullamā', 'man'), the divorce is conditional upon delay; it occurs when the act takes place. If one of them dies, the oath lapses. When divorce is suspended on the *negation* of an act, 'in' implies delay, whereas 'matā', 'ayy', 'man', and 'kullamā' imply immediacy. 'Matā' and 'Ayy zaman' imply immediacy because they refer to any time the condition is met. 'In' implies no specific time, thus being absolute unless context dictates otherwise. Regarding 'idhā', there are two views: delay, favored by Abu Hanifa, because it is often used conditionally like 'in'; or immediacy, favored by Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and Al-Shafi'i, because it denotes a future time, like 'matā'.
Supporting text
Only 'kullamā' inherently implies repetition. Abu Bakr argued 'matā' also implies repetition, but the correct view is that it signifies 'any time' or 'idhā', and repetition is not inherent unless evidenced by context. 'Ayy waqt' and 'ayy zaman' are also used for both immediacy and repetition, requiring contextual evidence to imply repetition.