do or refrain from doing the act to which his oath related. Yet the Sharia may then command him, or necessity compel him, to do it or refrain from it. Divorce would thus become binding upon him without his having chosen either it or its cause.

Furthermore, what Allah Most High sent Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to establish concerning oaths was to ease their burden through expiation, not to make them more burdensome by imposing obligations or prohibitions. During the pre-Islamic era, people regarded zihār—a declaration likening one’s wife to one’s mother—as divorce. They continued to do so in the early days of Islam, until Aws ibn al-Sāmit made such a declaration concerning his wife.

Moreover, an analogy may be drawn with vows made out of obstinacy or anger. The only difference between the two is what we have mentioned, and we shall explain, Allah willing, why that difference has no bearing on the ruling. Analogy based on excluding any legally relevant distinction is the soundest form of analogical reasoning, by agreement of the recognized scholars.

Thus, if a man says, “If I eat or drink, I shall be obliged to free my slave,” or “I shall be obliged to divorce my wife,” or “I shall be obliged to perform Hajj,” or “I shall be in a state of consecration for Hajj,” or “My wealth shall be given in charity,” or “I shall be obliged to give charity,” then, according to the majority of scholars, expiation for an oath suffices him, as we have already explained on the evidence of the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Companions.

The same therefore applies if he says, “If I eat this or drink this, divorce shall be incumbent upon me,” or “Divorce shall be binding upon me,” or “My wife shall be divorced,” or “My slaves shall be free.” For his saying, “Divorce is incumbent upon me: I will not do such-and-such,” or “Divorce is binding upon me: I will not do such-and-such,” is equivalent to his saying, “Hajj is incumbent upon me: I will not do such-and-such,” or “Hajj is binding upon me: I will not do such-and-such.” Both are newly devised forms of oath, neither transmitted from the Arabs nor known to have been used by the Companions. Rather,