two reports. This is the approach of al-Qādī Abū Yaʿlā, Ibn ʿAqīl in al-Fusūl, Abū Muhammad al-Maqdisī, and others. They thus confined the disagreement to the future, excluding the past.

Some of them said: An “inconsequential oath” is when someone swears to something he believes to be as he has sworn, only for it to turn out otherwise; there is no disagreement about this. But if he inadvertently utters an oath concerning the future, there are two reports. This is the approach of al-Qādī and Ibn ʿAqīl in al-Fusūl. In his Khilāf, al-Qādī preferred the view that saying “No, by Allah” or “Yes, by Allah” concerning the future is not inconsequential. This is the position of Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, and others.

Others among them said: An oath that slips off the tongue is inconsequential, with no disagreement among the scholars. But when someone swears to something that turns out otherwise, there are two reports. This is the approach of Abū Muhammad.

The correct view is that there is disagreement concerning both cases. According to al-Rabīʿ’s report from al-Shāfiʿī, al-Shāfiʿī requires expiation from someone who swears to something he believes to be as he has sworn, only for it to turn out otherwise. Al-Shāfiʿī’s other view, however, is that this is inconsequential, in agreement with the majority. This is also the view of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. Likewise, the apparent position of Ahmad is that both kinds are inconsequential and require no expiation. This is the view of the majority of scholars.

For this reason, most of Ahmad’s followers stated categorically that neither case requires expiation, mentioning no disagreement. This is because, in his response, he explicitly declared both kinds inconsequential, as al-Khiraqī, Ibn Abī Mūsā, and other early scholars related.

A group transmitted two reports from him concerning inconsequential oaths: one corresponding to the view of Abū Hanīfah and Mālik, and another corresponding to the view of