They said:

An oath concerning the future, however, becomes binding; error and forgetfulness affect the act, not the making of the oath. This is why they distinguish between past and future in oaths sworn by Allah. As for divorce, they give the same ruling for both past and future, corresponding to one of the reports from Ahmad concerning the future.

As for the positions of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad, according to their view that someone acting in ignorance or forgetfulness does not break his oath concerning the future, neither does someone who was mistaken when making his oath—someone who swore to something he believed to be as he had sworn, only for it to turn out otherwise.

According to their view that he breaks his oath concerning the future, he also breaks it concerning the past, treating past and future alike. Likewise, he does not break his oath.

This is the approach adopted by those followers of al-Shāfiʿī and Ahmad who take this line, such as Abū al-Barakāt in his al-Muharrar.

Those who follow this approach say that anyone who holds that a person does not break his oath when he swears to something he believes to be as he has sworn, but it turns out otherwise, must also hold that he does not break his oath by performing the act covered by it forgetfully or in ignorance. They regard the distinction drawn by Mālik and Abū Hanīfah as weak.

Another view is that he does not break his oath concerning the past, with no disagreement on this point, whereas there are two views concerning the future.

This is the approach of a group of Ahmad’s followers who followed the reasoning of the followers of Abū Hanīfah and Mālik. They distinguished between past and future, saying: If someone swears by Allah to something he believes to be as he has sworn, but it turns out otherwise, he does not break his oath. But if he swears not to perform the act covered by his oath, then performs it forgetfully or in ignorance, then in his case there are