al-Shāfiʿī, as related by a group of scholars, including Ibn ʿAqīl, Abū al-Khattāb, and others. Some of them, such as Ibn ʿAqīl, explicitly stated that if an inconsequential oath is defined as an oath uttered inadvertently, without intent, then someone who swears to something he believes to be as he has sworn, only for it to turn out otherwise, has broken his oath. Consequently, several approaches emerged within Ahmad’s school.

“The approach of the early scholars”: Both cases are inconsequential, with no disagreement.

“Al-Qādī’s approach”: An oath concerning the past is inconsequential, with no disagreement, while there are two reports concerning an oath inadvertently uttered about the future. This approach accords with the position of Abū Hanīfah and Mālik.

“Abū Muhammad’s approach”: An inadvertently uttered oath is inconsequential, with no disagreement, while there are two reports concerning an oath about the past. This approach accords with al-Shāfiʿī’s position.

“The fourth approach”—the weakest of these approaches—is that, according to one report, one case is inconsequential but the other is not, while according to the other report, the reverse is true.

“The fifth approach,” which reconciles the various approaches, is that there are three reports within Ahmad’s school, as stated by the author of al-Muharrar. Thus, if someone inadvertently says, “No, by Allah” or “Yes, by Allah,” believing the matter to be as he has sworn, this is inconsequential by agreement of the imams