This and similar evidence from the Quran, the Sunnah, and reasoned consideration show that ruling that an oath-taker’s divorce takes effect is contrary to the Quran and Sunnah. The most that can be claimed for the other view is that it falls within the scope of admissible independent juristic reasoning.

As for saying that it is not obligatory for all Muslims to act on this view, yet they are forbidden to act on the other, no Muslim scholar would say this after becoming acquainted with the disagreement among Muslims and the evidence involved. Someone who adopts the weaker view because the stronger view is unknown to him can claim, at most, that his position is admissible, so that issuing judgments and fatwas on its basis is not prohibited.

But compelling Muslims to follow this view and preventing them from adopting the view supported by the Quran and Sunnah contravenes what Allah, His Messenger, and His believing servants—including the four imams and others—have enjoined. Whoever prohibits judgments and fatwas declaring that the divorce does not take effect, or prohibits following someone who denies its taking effect on this basis, has contradicted the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger, and the consensus of the Muslims.

Such conduct comes only from someone lacking knowledge—in which case, the most that can be said is that he may be excused, not that he must be followed—or from an obstinate person who follows his own desires. He does not accept the truth when it becomes clear to him, nor does he listen to someone stating it in order to understand what he says. Rather, he follows his own desires without guidance from Allah:

“And who is more astray than one who follows his own desires without guidance from Allah?”

For a person either follows a scholar’s authority or exercises independent juristic reasoning. Someone who follows a scholar’s authority must not denounce a view opposed by that scholar as someone declaring it false would, since he does not know that it is false—much less prohibit its adoption and require adherence to the view of his predecessors. Someone exercising independent juristic reasoning examines the matter and engages in debate. Even when his own view has become clear, he does not deem his opponents’ view admissible, although it falls within the scope of permissible independent juristic reasoning—that is, where it has not been shown to contradict a scriptural text or consensus. Whoever, then, goes beyond the bounds of