if, even in an oath by Allah—with all the gravity it carries—one is held accountable only for what the heart has earned, then the same applies, with even greater reason, to other utterances. If someone swears to something he believes to be true, but it turns out otherwise, this is an error that falls under inadvertence, because his heart has not earned any transgression. Similarly, had he stated this without an oath, he would not have incurred the sin of lying, just as someone who mistakenly attributes a man to someone other than his father or patron incurs no sin. If he does not incur the sin of lying without an oath, then with an oath he is not subject to the ruling applicable to someone who violates his oath.

For when an oath concerning the past is reinforced by swearing, the same principle applies to what one swears concerning the future. If someone performs the act covered by his oath while forgetting his oath, or mistakenly, unaware that this is the act covered by it, his heart has earned neither a violation nor a breach of oath. Likewise, had he made a promise concerning this without an oath, he would not have broken his promise; and had he been commanded to do it but omitted it under those same circumstances, he would not have been disobedient.

This evidence encompasses divorce and other matters, either through the general applicability of its meaning or through the generality of both its meaning and its wording. What difference is there between inadvertence accompanying the making of an oath and its accompanying the breach of that oath? His words:

“But He holds you accountable for the oaths you deliberately bind yourselves by”

mean that this is a cause of accountability, not that it necessarily entails accountability, as is unanimously agreed. Error may therefore occur in both its cause and its condition.

Whoever says, “Inadvertence is not excused in divorce,” has no evidence in his favour; rather, the evidence is against him. If the words of divorce slipped from his tongue without any deliberate intention in his heart, divorce would not take effect, by agreement. But if he deliberately utters the words in jest, then his heart has deliberately intended to utter them, just as if he deliberately uttered an oath using them.