Thank you for answering my question, number 2642804, but I would be thankful if you could clarify. Please, Shaykh, do not redirect me on my previous query.
Q1) Your answer states, “Our view is that the intention specifies the general terms of the oath as long as the wording could be interpreted to give that specific meaning.” I did not understand the above statement.
Q2) I also want to make sure if you meant in your answer that I should trust my husband's wording that he just intended for the first time only when I tried exiting even my second exiting was just one or two minutes later, keeping in my mind that he said that I would be divorced if I exited?
Q3) What is the ruling if I believe that he did not mean only one time and that he meant it for the whole argument because whenever I leave during an argument he gets mad?
Q4) And, Shaykh, my main question is the following; I would really appreciate your help on this question: If he intended it just for the first time when I tried exiting, will my second time exiting be the same as my first exiting given that I exited right after, only one or two minutes later, keeping in my mind that I would exit the car and that he told me that I would be divorced if I exited. Also, we were still having the same argument. I did not exit the first time because he held my hand, and the second time I exited (tried to exit), it was so fast that he did not have a chance to stop me or did not expect that I would leave right after him having stopped me; he did not realize it because he was looking straight ahead and was arguing and I left so quick. For the above reasons, if I exited one or two minutes later, will it be the same as my first (attempt at) exiting and has the condition been fulfilled?
I did not get the answer the first time. I am concerned because we have had two divorces besides this incident. I am really, really sorry for resending my question just to clarify all three questions. I would be really grateful for your clarification. Thank you.

All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of the worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger.

First of all, this statement means that if a person makes an oath with words that have a general meaning but says that he intended a specific meaning, then the specific meaning that he intended is what counts.

Ibn Qudaamah said regarding the statement of Al-khiraqi, “‘Oath depends on intention’: This means that the oath depends on the intention of the one who makes the oath, so if he intends with his oath what it might be interpreted to mean, then this is what it means regardless of whether what he had intended corresponds to the wording that he used or is different from it.” He gave an example for this, “To make an oath not to eat meat or fruit while he intends a certain kind of meat and a certain fruit...” It means that he does not break his oath if he eats another kind of meat or fruit other than the one that he intended.

Secondly: the husband knows best about his intention in divorce, so it is what he says about it that is taken into account. But in your case, the condition of divorce, which is you getting out of the car, has happened. Getting out of the car did not happen the first time but it happened the second time. Now, what should be looked at is his statement to you: ‘you will be divorced if you exit’. If he had said it exactly like this, then it is a promise of divorce, and this does not lead to divorce unless your husband had intended to divorce you on the spot.

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said, “The promise of divorce does not lead to divorce, even if it was said many times, and it is neither an obligation to fulfill this promise nor desirable.”

As you see, there are some details about the matter, and there is a need to find out from your husband about them, so if you consult one of the Islamic Centers in your country, then that would be better so that he would be asked about it orally.

Allah knows best.