may refrain.” They thus included within its scope oaths invoking divorce, manumission, and vows, as well as oaths by Allah. The only reason Mālik, Ahmad, and others did not include [swearing] by divorce—in agreement with Ibn Abbas—is that an outright pronouncement of divorce is not an oath. A binding oath, however, comprises something invoked in the oath and a matter sworn to, whether expressed as an oath, as a condition and consequence, or in some equivalent form, as we shall explain, if Allah wills.

This indication is clear according to the legal principles of al-Shāfiī, Ahmad, and those who agree with them regarding vows of obstinacy and anger. They cited this verse as proof that such a vow may be expiated, treating His words, “the dissolution of your oaths” and “the expiation for your oaths,” as general in scope, encompassing both oaths by Allah and oaths involving vows. It is well known that the wording applies equally to vows of obstinacy and anger involving Hajj, manumission, and the like.

If it is said: What is meant by the verse is only an oath by Allah, since that is what is understood from an unqualified reference to an oath. The definiteness conveyed by the definite article or by possessive annexation—in His words, “the oaths you bind” and “the dissolution of your oaths”—may refer specifically to the oath familiar to them, namely an oath by Allah. The wording would then encompass only what was known among them, whereas swearing by divorce and the like was not known among them. Even if the wording were general, we know that it does not include oaths that are not religiously sanctioned, such as oaths sworn by created beings. It therefore does not include swearing by divorce and the like, since that is not a religiously sanctioned oath, in light of the Prophet’s words (peace and blessings be upon him): “Whoever is going to swear, let him swear by Allah or remain silent.”