The issues in either of the two chapters overlap with those in the other because their meanings often—or generally—coincide. For this reason, when a group of jurists—such as Abu al-Khattāb and others—included the Chapter on Making Divorce Conditional in the Book of Divorce, they followed it with the Comprehensive Chapter on Oaths. Another group—such as al-Khiraqī, Judge Abu Ya‘lā, and others—placed the Comprehensive Chapter on Oaths only in the Book of Oaths, because it is more closely connected to it. An analogous case is the Chapter on the Prescribed Punishment for False Accusation: some place it alongside the Chapter on Mutual Imprecation because of their close connection, while others defer it to the Book of Prescribed Punishments because it belongs more specifically there.

Once it is clear that an oath has two forms—the oath form and the conditional form—what comes first in the oath form comes later in the conditional form, while what comes later in the conditional form comes first in the oath form. A condition expressed negatively in the conditional form is expressed affirmatively in the oath form. Thus, if a person says, “Divorce shall be binding upon me; I shall not do such-and-such,” he has sworn by divorce not to do it. Divorce is therefore mentioned first, while the act is mentioned afterward and is negated. [If he were to swear using the conditional form, he would say]: “If I do such-and-such, then my wife is divorced.” [Thus, the act would come first and be affirmative, while divorce would come later and be negative]. In the oath form, by contrast, he places the legal consequence first and the act afterward. This rule resolves many issues concerning oaths.

As for the conditional form, it is originally a verbal sentence, since conditional particles are originally joined only to verbs. The oath form may likewise be verbal, as when one says, “I swear by Allah,” ta-Allāhi (“By Allah”), wa-Allāhi (“By Allah”), and the like; and it may also be—