divorce. Thus, according to this view, divorce is inevitable, whether he retains her honourably or releases her graciously.

The Quran, however, indicates that the man who has sworn abstinence has a choice: either to return to conjugal relations or to divorce. If he returns, divorce is not binding upon him; rather, he must offer expiation for breaking his oath, according to the view that an oath invoking divorce entails expiation.

When a man who has sworn abstinence by Allah returns to conjugal relations, he must offer expiation for breaking his oath according to the majority of scholars. There is an anomalous view that he owes nothing whatsoever, but the majority’s view is more correct. Allah has explained expiation for oaths in His Book, in Sūrat al-Mā’idah, and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Whoever swears an oath and then sees that something else is better should do what is better and offer expiation for his oath.”

If it is said, “When a man who has sworn abstinence by invoking divorce returns to conjugal relations, Allah forgives him for his earlier delay in having intercourse with his wife and shows him mercy thereby, even if divorce takes effect,” the answer is: This is not valid. For one of the two views among the scholars who uphold this principle is that a man who swears, on pain of a threefold divorce, not to have intercourse with his wife may not have intercourse with her under any circumstances. Once he penetrates her, he breaks his oath, and his withdrawal would then be from a woman who is no longer his wife. This is one of the two positions reported from Ahmad and one of the two views within Mālik’s school.

The second view is that he may have intercourse with her once, withdrawing immediately thereafter, and that this act makes his wife unlawful to him. Yet it is well known that the ruling on an oath of abstention was instituted to uphold the woman’s right to intercourse. A woman would not choose an act of intercourse immediately followed by a threefold divorce unless she disliked her husband. Her purpose is therefore not fulfilled by such a return to conjugal relations.

Furthermore, on this assumption, there is no benefit in