Chapter One
On the Conditions for an Exception that Alters the Ruling of an Oath

The jurists are unanimously agreed that, in principle, an exception (istithnāʾ) can dissolve an oath. They then disagreed over the specific conditions under which the exception takes on this legal effect—after first concurring that when three conditions are met, the oath never becomes binding at all: (1) the exception must correspond to the oath in wording, (2) it must be uttered, and (3) it must have been intended from the very outset of the oath.

They differed regarding these three points in the following situations: when the exception is detached from the oath; when it is intended but not spoken; or when the intention to exempt arises only after the oath, even though it is later pronounced in a form that fits the oath.

The First Issue:
Whether continuity between the exception and the sworn statement is required. Some stipulated this requirement; it is the position of Mālik.

Al-Shāfiʿī held that a brief pause is permissible, such as a pause for recollection, to take breath, or when the voice momentarily breaks.

A group of the Successors said that the swearer may add the exception so long as he has not risen from his place, while Ibn ʿAbbās was of the view that he may do so at any time, whenever he remembers.

All, however, agree that inserting the phrase “if Allah wills” with respect to the act sworn to perform—or to refrain from—nullifies the oath, because the very function of an exception is to lift the obligation of the oath.

Abū Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said: “It is authentically established that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Whoever swears and then adds “if Allah wills” does not incur the sin of breaking his oath.’”

The point of contention, therefore, is whether the exception is effective when it is not connected to the oath. This divergence stems from their disagreement over whether the exception is a pre-condition for the oath’s formation, or a factor that prevents it from taking effect altogether.

If we say it is a preventive factor rather than a condition, then it must be directly attached to the oath. If we say it is a condition, attachment is not required.

Those who regard it as a condition nonetheless differ: is it a condition that operates only when it is near in time to the oath, or even when separated by a longer interval, as cited from Ibn ʿAbbās?

Those who held it to be a condition requiring proximity cite as evidence the tradition reported by Saʿd, from Simāk ibn Ḥarb, from ʿIkrimah, who said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) declared, ‘By Allah, I will certainly attack Quraysh’—he said it three times—then fell silent, after which he added, ‘if Allah wills.’” This indicates that the exception is a condition attached to the oath, not a barrier that prevents its initial formation.

They also argue: Proof that it is a proximate condition is that, were it effective even after a long interval as Ibn ʿAbbās maintained, the exception would always obviate the need for expiation—and what they have stated is clear.

As for the requirement that the exception be pronounced aloud, this too is disputed. One view stipulates that verbal articulation is indispensable, by any wording that conveys exclusion—whether by explicit words of exception, by restricting a general statement, or by qualifying an unqualified one. This is the