encompass oaths involving divorce. It has also been reliably reported from several of the early generations that an oath involving divorce does not make divorce binding, as reported from Tāwūs, ‘Ikrima, Abū Ja‘far, and Ja‘far ibn Muhammad. Some of them required expiation, which is the correct view, while others did not.

Scholars thus hold more than four views concerning oaths involving divorce. One view is that divorce is binding in all cases, as held by the four imams. Another is that it is not binding in any case, as held by Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Shāfi‘ī, Ibn Hazm, and others. A further view is that if the person intended an oath, divorce is not binding. This is the most correct view, and it is what the Companions meant by “an oath.”

There are two views on whether expiation is required. The more correct is that it is required if the oath concerns the future. If, however, the oath concerns the past or present, and the person intends to state a fact—not to urge or prevent an action—as when he says, “By Allah, I have indeed done such-and-such,” or “… I have not done it”; or, “Divorce shall be binding upon me: I have indeed done such-and-such,” or “… I have not done it”; or, “What is lawful is forbidden to me: I have indeed done such-and-such”—then he either believes that he is telling the truth or knows that he is lying.

If he believes that he is telling the truth, there are three views. The first is that nothing is incumbent upon him in any of these oaths. This is the stronger of al-Shāfi‘ī’s two positions and the second position reported from Ahmad. Thus, whoever swears an oath involving divorce, emancipation, or anything else