He also said, “The qualification applies only to something for which expiation may be made, whereas divorce and manumission cannot be discharged by expiation.” What he said is evident.

This is because directly effecting divorce or manumission is not an oath at all. Rather, it is akin to waiving retaliation or releasing someone from a debt. Thus, if a man were to say, “By Allah, I shall not swear an oath,” and then manumitted slaves of his, divorced his wife, or released an adversary from any claim involving blood, property, or honor, he would not have broken his oath. To my knowledge, no one has disagreed about this.

Whoever includes directly effecting divorce and manumission within the Prophet’s statement (peace and blessings be upon him), “Whoever swears an oath and says, ‘If Allah wills,’ does not break it,” has made the general wording bear what it cannot bear. Conversely, whoever excludes from this general wording such statements as, “Divorce shall be binding upon me: I shall certainly do such-and-such—or not do it—if Allah wills,” or, “If I do it, my wife is divorced, if Allah wills,” has excluded from the general statement something that falls within it. For this is an oath made by means of divorce and manumission [and here Ahmad should be followed in his statement: “Divorce and manumission”], which are not themselves oaths; swearing by them is like swearing by charity, pilgrimage, and the like. This is necessarily known by reason, customary usage, and revealed law. Thus, if a man were to say, “By Allah, I shall never swear an oath,” and then said, “If I do such-and-such, my wife is divorced,” he would have broken his oath.

It has already been stated that the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) called it an oath [and likewise all the jurists called it an oath], as do Muslims generally. The meaning of an oath is therefore present in it. For when a person says, “I swear by Allah that I shall certainly do it if