al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, is clear. This view, in fact, affords people some ease, because people constantly swear such oaths. But if the intention is to make it binding, then it is clear that he breaks his oath.

In summary, some scholars hold that if the purpose of the oath is not to make something binding, but rather to show honor, then going against it does not constitute breaking the oath, because the honor has been shown. It is as though the one swearing says, “By Allah, I am honoring you in this way,” and that has been accomplished. In my view, however, one should not frequently swear oaths for the purpose of showing honor, because this puts people in an awkward position and, according to the majority of scholars, expiation is due if such an oath is broken.

Expiation must be offered immediately. We have explained (1) in the principles of jurisprudence that obligations are to be fulfilled immediately. If one man says to another, “If you do such-and-such, then my wife is divorced,” does divorce take effect?

The answer is that this is an oath, because the speaker has used this wording for emphasis. That is, “My wife is the most precious thing I possess, yet I am prepared to renounce her for your sake,” in order to reinforce the binding nature of his statement. Swearing by divorce did not exist in the time of the Companions, and therefore no reports concerning it have been transmitted. However, swearing by a vow did exist in their time, and the jurists gave it the same ruling as an oath. Thus, whoever swears with the intention of refraining from something has made an oath, whether he swears by divorce, ẓihār (declaring one’s wife to be like a permanently unmarriageable relative), prohibition, endowment, or anything else.

His statement, “the one for whom it is binding may choose,” excludes one for whom it is not binding.

His statement: “between feeding ten poor persons, clothing them, or emancipating a slave.”