was a binding oath concerning a possible future event, yet it did not occur. According to the view we have adopted, however, he owes no expiation, because this man has fulfilled his oath: he has always maintained, and still maintains, “I swore according to what I believed, and this is what I believe. As for its occurring contrary to my belief, that is not due to me.” This was the preferred view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him: whoever swears concerning a future matter on the basis of what he expects, and it then does not occur, owes no expiation.

Issue: Is divorce like an oath in this matter?

The answer: The correct view is that it is like an oath. The established legal school holds that it is not like an oath in either case—that is, divorce takes effect unconditionally. The same applies to manumission. The second condition for expiation to become obligatory will follow, Allah willing.

Second: One must swear voluntarily; if he swears under compulsion, his oath is not binding.

His statement, “Second: one must swear voluntarily,” means that the second condition for expiation to become obligatory is that he swear voluntarily—that is, intending to take the oath. The opposite of one who acts voluntarily is one who is compelled. The author says: “If he swears under compulsion, his oath is not binding.”

For example, if a criminal is discovered by someone, who detains him and says, “I will report you to the authorities,” and the criminal says to him, “If you report me, I will kill you,” then the criminal says, “Swear by Allah that you will not inform on me, or else I will kill you,” and so he swears by Allah not to report him—then no expiation is due for this oath, because he swore under compulsion. Accordingly, if he informs the authorities of this criminal’s deed, he incurs no sin and owes no expiation, because he swore under compulsion.

The proof for this is from the Quran and the sunnah. As for the Quran, Allah the Exalted says: “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after