Some later jurists, such as al-Sāmirī, the author of al-Mustawʿib, have supposed that someone who swears an oath invoking divorce or manumission concerning something he believes to be as he has sworn, only for it to turn out otherwise, breaks his oath without disagreement, because oaths invoking divorce cannot be inconsequential. This is mistaken. Those who say that oaths invoking divorce cannot be inconsequential are precisely those who hold that someone who forgets or acts in ignorance breaks an oath invoking divorce. Those who hold that someone who forgets or acts in ignorance does not break his oath do not maintain that oaths invoking divorce cannot be inconsequential—if an inconsequential oath is understood to mean swearing to something one believes to be as one has sworn, only for it to turn out otherwise. For the grounds for not regarding the oath as broken in this case are either stronger than in that case or equally strong, as we have explained.

No one can maintain that someone who swears an oath invoking divorce and manumission, with regard to his wife, that he will not do something, and then does it forgetfully or without knowing that it is the act covered by his oath, does not break his oath, yet also maintain that someone who swears to something he believes to be as he has sworn, only for it to turn out otherwise, does break his oath. This is because ignorance at the time the oath is sworn is less serious than ignorance at the time the act covered by the oath is performed; at most, it is equivalent. Moreover, the first oath is unanimously held to be binding, whereas they disagree as to whether the second is binding at all. And Allah knows best.

Shaykh al-Islām—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

“If someone swears an oath invoking divorce concerning some matter and then breaks his oath, does divorce take effect or not?”

He replied:

“This question is disputed among the early and later scholars, who hold three positions.”