analogy, in his view, placed it on the same footing as manumission; he feared, however, that this might contravene consensus.

The correct view is that the disagreement extends to all such cases—divorce and otherwise—as we shall explain. Even if no specific disagreement had been reported concerning divorce itself, the ruling issued by those Companions who prescribed expiation for an oath in the case of swearing by manumission would have indicated, a fortiori, the ruling on swearing by divorce. For if a vow to emancipate—which is a devotional act—may be expiated when expressed in the form of an oath, then in the case of swearing by divorce—which is not a devotional act—either expiation should suffice, [or else] nothing at all should be required, according to those who hold that nothing is due for a vow involving something other than obedience. Thus, his statement, “If you do such-and-such, you are divorced,” would be equivalent to saying, “Then I am bound to divorce you,” just as, according to those Companions and those who agreed with them, his statement, “Then my slaves are free,” was equivalent to saying, “Then I am bound to emancipate them.”

Nevertheless, to this day I have not learned of any statement from any of the Companions concerning swearing by divorce. That is—and Allah knows best—because swearing by divorce had not yet arisen in their time. People introduced it only in the time of the Successors and those who came after them. The Successors and later scholars therefore differed over it. According to one opinion, divorce takes effect through it, as previously explained. According to the second, it does not become binding upon him. ʿAbd al-Razzāq related from Ibn Jurayj, from Ibn Tāwūs, from his father, that he used to say, “Swearing by divorce amounts to nothing.” I asked, “Did he consider it an oath?” He replied, “I do not know.”

Ibn Tāwūs thus reported that his father did not consider it to effect a divorce, while withholding judgment as to whether it constituted an oath requiring expiation, because it belongs to the category of a vow involving no devotional act. There is well-known disagreement as to whether such a statement constitutes an oath. This is the position of the Zāhirīs, such as Dāwūd and Abū Muhammad ibn Hazm, though they base it on their view that neither a conditional divorce nor a conditional manumission takes effect.