for a vow to divorce rules that nothing is required of him, as a number of jurists of al-Shāfi‘ī’s school and others have ruled. Whoever holds that expiation is required must, according to his own position, require the expiation prescribed for an oath, as a number of Hanafī and Shāfi‘ī jurists rule. The Hanafīs base this on Abū Hanīfa’s principle that whoever swears an oath by vowing to perform sinful or permissible acts must offer expiation for an oath. Those jurists of al-Shāfi‘ī’s school who hold this view likewise distinguish between saying, “I am bound by a vow,” which entails no obligation, and saying, “If I do it, I am bound by a vow,” which requires expiation for an oath. Thus, they distinguish between a vow to divorce and an oath made by vowing to divorce.

According to the apparent meaning of Ahmad’s expressly transmitted position, both a vow to divorce and an oath made by vowing to divorce require expiation for an oath. Some Khurasanian jurists of al-Shāfi‘ī’s school agree with him on this. Al-Rāfi‘ī, al-Nawawī, and others regard it as the preferred position in al-Shāfi‘ī’s school, mentioning it in connection with vows to perform any permissible act. However, the statement “Divorce is binding upon me” has the form of a pronouncement effecting divorce in Ahmad’s school. If the speaker intends it as a vow, then, according to Ahmad, expiation for an oath is required.

“The third view”—the soundest of these views, and the one supported by the Quran, the Sunnah, and reasoning—is that this is an oath like other oaths sworn by Muslims. It is therefore subject to the same rules as their other oaths, namely, expiation upon breaking it;