the slave is not obliged to produce either of them. For if this is not obligatory under the law with which Allah sent His Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—the man who swore the oath must be compelled to leave him alone. If he leaves him alone under these circumstances, he does not break his oath.

The same applies if the man who swore the oath believed the situation to be a certain way, but it proved otherwise. For example, he might believe that the accounts would reveal matters that must be disclosed, only for this to prove otherwise. According to many scholars, he does not break his oath if he leaves him alone. Likewise, if he believed that the other man was obliged to return the stipend and swore an oath to that effect, but it then became clear that this was not obligatory, he does not break his oath according to many scholars.

Likewise, if he believed that the person concerning whom the oath was sworn could perform the required act, but it became clear that he was unable to do so, he does not break his oath according to many scholars. This is the better of the two opinions and the one more strongly supported by Islamic law. Similarly, if he believed that the other man had misappropriated or stolen money and swore an oath demanding its return, but it then became clear that he had neither misappropriated nor stolen it, he does not break his oath according to the sounder of the scholars’ two opinions. And Allah knows best.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

About a man who, while angry, swore by triple divorce that his wife would not enter her paternal aunt’s house. His wife was blessed with a child. After that, the woman concerning whom the oath had been sworn entered her paternal aunt’s house. Some people had told the man who swore the oath that if his wife gave birth and then entered, he would not have broken his oath. Please give us a ruling.