“The first view” is that divorce takes effect if he breaks his oath. This is the well-known position among most later jurists, some of whom even believed that it was a matter of consensus. Most of them therefore cited no proof for it. The proof they do offer is exceedingly weak: that he undertook a commitment contingent upon a condition, and so, when that condition is fulfilled, he becomes bound by his commitment.

This reasoning is contradicted by numerous cases, some of which are matters of consensus, such as vows to divorce, to commit a sin, or to do something permissible, and pledges to commit disbelief made by way of an oath. Moreover, no precedent can be adduced for an analogy without there being a legally significant difference between the two cases. Nor is this position supported by the general wording of any scriptural text or by consensus.

However, since a contract entails being bound by what one has undertaken, one might initially suppose that this, too, is a binding contract. This accords with the practice in the earliest days of Islam, before Allah revealed expiation for oaths requiring or forbidding an action. It is also said that this was the law prescribed for those before us. But the law of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, abrogated this: it prescribed for Muslims a means of release from their oaths and allowed them to dissolve the bond of an oath through the prescribed expiation.

If, however, he does not break his oath, divorce undoubtedly does not take effect, except according to a weak opinion reported from Shurayh and mentioned as a narration from Ahmad, concerning cases in which the pronouncement of divorce precedes the condition.

According to the view that divorce does take effect, if he intended the second oath merely to reinforce the first—not to establish another oath—only one divorce takes effect. If he left his intention unspecified, three divorces take effect; another opinion holds that only one takes effect.