“The second view” is that no divorce takes effect and no expiation is required. This is the position of Dāwūd and his followers, as well as several groups among the Shia. Reports suggesting this view are cited from a number of the early generations; indeed, it is explicitly transmitted from some of them, such as Abū Ja‘far al-Bāqir, a transmitter from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad.

Their underlying principle is that oaths invoking divorce, emancipation, zihār (likening one’s wife to a forbidden female relative), declarations of prohibition, or vows are nonbinding, like oaths sworn by created beings.

A number of jurists belonging to the schools of Abū Hanīfa and al-Shāfi‘ī, such as al-Qaffāl and the author of al-Tatimma, issue this ruling concerning an oath made by undertaking an obligation to divorce. It is also transmitted as an explicit statement from Abū Hanīfa. Their reasoning is that saying, “Divorce is binding upon me,” “I am bound to divorce,” or similar expressions constitutes a vow, not a pronouncement effecting divorce. It is like saying, “I owe it to Allah to divorce.” There is no disagreement that someone who vows to divorce is not obliged to do so. There are, however, two views on whether he must offer expiation.

“The first” is that he must. This is the expressly stated position of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and it is also reported from Abū Hanīfa—either without qualification or only when the vow was intended as an oath.

“The second” is that he need not. This is the position of a number of the Khurasanian jurists of al-Shāfi‘ī’s school, such as al-Qaffāl, al-Baghawī, and others. Thus, whoever regards this as a vow and does not require expiation