concerning something he believes to be true—as when he swears to something that later proves otherwise—incurs no obligation according to this view. This is the most correct of these views.

The second view is that all such oaths are treated like oaths concerning the future. This is al-Shāfi‘ī’s second position and the second position reported from Ahmad. Accordingly, expiation is required for those oaths that admit of expiation.

The third view is that if his oath admits of expiation, as with an oath sworn by Allah’s name, nothing is incumbent upon him; rather, this falls under unintentional oaths. If, however, it does not admit of expiation, as with an oath involving divorce or emancipation, its stipulated consequence becomes binding upon him. This is the position of Mālik and Abū Hanīfa, and the well-known position reported from Ahmad.

If the oath is knowingly false—that is, he swears falsely while knowing that he is lying—then, by agreement of the Muslims, he sins by taking it and must seek Allah’s forgiveness for it. It is a major sin, especially if his intention is to wrong someone else, as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Whoever swears a wicked oath by which he wrongfully takes a Muslim’s property will meet Allah while He is angry with him.”

If such an oath is of a kind that admits of expiation, then expiation is required according to al-Shāfi‘ī and one position reported from Ahmad. Most scholars, however, said that its gravity is too great to be expiated. This is the position of Mālik and Abū Hanīfa, and the well-known position reported from Ahmad.

They said: Major sins carry no prescribed expiation, just as there is no prescribed expiation for theft, unlawful sexual intercourse, or drinking wine. Likewise, according to the majority of scholars, there is no prescribed expiation for intentional killing.