For this reason, when al-Shāfiʿī arrived in Egypt, someone asked him about a person who says, “If I do such-and-such, I shall be obliged to perform Hajj or to fast.” Al-Shāfiʿī ruled that he should offer expiation for an oath. The prevailing view among the people of Egypt was Mālik’s position: that he was obliged to perform Hajj or to fast. Nevertheless, when the son of ʿAbd al-Rahmān al-Qāsim broke such an oath, ʿAbd al-Rahmān al-Qāsim—whose authority is central to Mālik’s school—ruled that he should offer expiation for an oath. He said, “I have given you a ruling according to the position of al-Layth ibn Saʿd. If you do this again, I shall give you a ruling according to Mālik’s position.”

The discerning scholars among the later followers of Mālik favour ruling that expiation for an oath is required. This is also the position that Abū Hanīfah ultimately adopted. The majority of the early generations, among the Companions and Successors, hold that expiation for an oath suffices, as is the position of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad. The well-known position of both is that the person may choose between offering expiation and performing the act he undertook. Another position reported from Ahmad is that expiation itself is obligatory; a similar opinion is also mentioned within al-Shāfiʿī’s school.

Likewise, a number of muftis who follow Mālik rule that an oath by divorce requires expiation for an oath. They cite as evidence the report they transmit from ʿĀʾishah, who said, “Every oath, however weighty, has the same expiation as an oath sworn by Allah.” This is the position of Tāwūs and those of the early generations who agreed with him, and it is the meaning of the Companions’ position.

These are important questions requiring an extensive discussion, for which this is not the place. Allah knows best.