of the grounds for judging it weak elsewhere. If it is authentic, it would establish disagreement among the Companions on this matter. Al-Bukhārī mentioned a report from Ibn ʿUmar concerning divorce which may or may not fall within this category.

In sum, disagreement on this question is established among the early generations, including ʿAtāʾ, al-Hasan al-Basrī, and others. Abū Muhammad al-Maqdisī discussed it in his commentary on al-Khiraqī’s statement:

“Whoever swears an oath pledging the emancipation of the slaves he owns, then breaks it, thereby emancipates all those he owns: his male and female slaves, those contracted to purchase their freedom, those whose emancipation is stipulated upon his death, his slave women who have borne him children, and any share he owns in a slave.”

He explained:

“This means that a man says, ‘If I do such-and-such, every slave I own is free and emancipated,’ or, ‘Everything I own is free.’ If he then breaks his oath, his slaves become free, and expiation does not avert this. This has been reported from Ibn ʿUmar and Ibn ʿAbbās. It was also the position of Ibn Abī Laylā, al-Thawrī, Mālik, al-Awzāʿī, al-Layth, al-Shāfiʿī, and Ishāq.”

He continued:

“It has also been reported from Ibn ʿUmar, Abū Hurayrah, ʿĀʾishah, Umm Salamah, Hafsah, Zaynab bint Abī Salamah, al-Hasan, and Abū Thawr that expiation for an oath suffices, because this is an oath and thus falls within the general scope of the Most High’s words:

‘Its expiation is to feed ten poor people.’”

He cited the previously mentioned report of Abū Rāfiʿ, then said:

“Our evidence is that he has made emancipation contingent upon a condition. Emancipation admits such conditions, so it yields its effect when its condition is fulfilled, as does divorce. Divorce is excluded from the verse’s general scope, and emancipation is analogous to it. Moreover, emancipation is not truly an oath; it is merely made contingent upon a condition, and thus resembles divorce.”

He said:

“As for the report of Abū Rāfiʿ, Ahmad