to one of his two wives. On this view, is the divorced wife to be identified by drawing lots, or should the matter remain unresolved? There are likewise two views within Ahmad’s school; leaving the matter unresolved is al-Shāfiʿī’s position.

The correct view is that no divorce takes effect for someone who swears to something he believes to be true, just as when he swears to something and it subsequently proves otherwise. Mālik, however, considers all of them to have broken their oaths, even if the person swearing is subsequently shown to have spoken the truth. This follows his principle concerning someone who swears to something whose truth he does not know—as when someone swears that he will enter Paradise. The disagreement here is the same as the disagreement over the underlying issue.

The majority of scholars do not hold that divorce takes effect on account of doubt, whereas Mālik holds that it does because the person swearing does not know the truth of what he has sworn to. This is therefore like the case of a person who swears to something he does not know, without anyone else contradicting him—for example, swearing that so-and-so’s legal school is the best, despite not knowing this.