At the beginning of my upkeep, I control no permanents other than a Barren Glory, and I have no cards in my hand. The triggered ability goes on the stack. Then my opponent destroys the enchantment.

Do we read the clause “if you control no permanents other than Barren Glory” as (A) “if you control Barren Glory and no other permanents”? Then the condition would be no longer fulfilled, and I wouldn't win the game. Or is it more like (B) “if you control no permanents, not counting Barren Glory”? Then it wouldn't be necessary for the enchantment to be on the battlefield when its ability resolves, and I would win the game.

Kind regards,

Mario Hassler

PS: Of course, to avoid such a situation, my opponent would have better destroyed my enchantment at the end of his turn, but maybe he needed the help of a Seedborn Muse to get the mana in my turn.

The correct interpretation is the straightforward English one, (B): “If you control no permanents, not counting Barren Glory.” The trigger doesn't care whether or not you control Barren Glory at the time it resolves–it's telling you not to include Barren Glory in the count when you're checking how many permanents you control.

If the trigger wanted to make sure you still controlled Barren Glory, it would need to say so, and would instead read something like "if you control Barren Glory and no other permanents"