His saying, exalted and majestic is He:

"Allah does not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He imposes blame upon you for what your hearts have earned. And Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing." "For those who take an oath from their wives is a waiting period of four months. But if they return, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." "And if they decide on divorce, then indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing."

"Unintentional": It refers to the speech that has no ruling, and it is used in vain talk and indecent speech, and what has no ruling among oaths, likening it to the fall of speech. It is said of it: lagha yalghu laghwan, laghiya yalghi laghyan, and the language of the Qur'an is with the waw.

(p-550) And the blame (mu'akhadhah): It is the taking of punishment.

The scholars have differed regarding the oath that is unintentional; Ibn Abbas, Aisha, Amir al-Shabi, Abu Salih, and Mujahid said: The unintentional oath is the saying of a man in the midst of his speech and his hastiness in conversation: "No, by Allah," and "Yes, by Allah," without intending the oath. It has been narrated that a group were discussing among themselves while they were in the presence of the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, and one of them swore, "I have hit the mark and you have missed it, O so-and-so," and the matter was contrary to that. A man said: "He has broken his oath, O Messenger of Allah," and the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him, said: "The oaths of the archers are unintentional; there is no sin in them and no expiation."

Abu Huraira, Ibn Abbas, and Al-Hasan, and Malik ibn Anas, and a group of scholars said: The unintentional oath is what a man swears by his certainty, while the uncovering of the unseen is contrary to that.

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

And this certainty is the predominance of suspicion. The jurists have used the term certainty as a figure of speech. Malik said: An example of this is when a man sees someone from a distance and believes that it is so-and-so, without doubt, so he swears, then someone other than the one he swore about comes. And Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, and Abu Bakr ibn Abd al-Rahman, and Abdullah and Urwah, the sons of al-Zubair, said: The unintentional oath is swearing in sins, like one who swears that he will certainly drink wine, or that he will certainly sever the ties of kinship; his righteousness is to abandon that act, and there is no expiation upon him. And Sa'id ibn Jubayr said similarly, except that he said: He disbelieves, and his statement resembles that of one who does not see it as unintentional.

Ibn Abbas also said, as did Tawus: The nullification of the oath is the swearing in a state of anger. Ibn Abbas narrated that the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, said: "There is no oath in anger." Makhlul al-Dimashqi and a group of scholars said: The nullification of the oath is when a man forbids himself what Allah has permitted, saying: "What is upon me is forbidden if I do such and such," or "What is lawful for me is forbidden." Malik ibn Anas held this view, except in the case of the wife, for he made the prohibition binding in it unless the one swearing releases it in his heart. Zayd ibn Aslam and his son said: The nullification of the oath is the man's curse upon himself: "May Allah blind his sight, may Allah take away his wealth, he is a Jew, he is a polytheist, he is a liar if he does such and such." Ibn Abbas also said, and Al-Dahhak: The nullification of the oath is the expiation, meaning if you expiate the oath, then it is nullified and Allah does not hold you accountable for its expiation and returning to what is better. Ibrahim al-Nakha'i said: The nullification of the oath is what a man breaks while forgetting. Ibn Abd al-Barr narrated a saying: The nullification is the oaths of the coerced.

Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

The method of consideration is to reflect on the term "nullification" and the term "earning," and to judge their position in the language. The earning of a person is what he intended and meant, and the nullification is what he did not intend or what is rightfully to be dropped due to its triviality. Some of the previous sayings strengthen this method while others weaken it.

And Allah, the Exalted, has lifted the accountability for the absolute in the nullification, for its reality is that there is no sin in it and no expiation. The accountability in oaths is with the punishment of the Hereafter in the grave sin - and in what he left expiating from what has an expiation - and with the punishment of this world in the obligation of expiation, so the saying that it is the expiating oath is weakened because the accountability has already occurred in it, and the specification of accountability being only in the Hereafter is decisive.

And His saying, the Exalted: "But He will hold you accountable for what your hearts have earned." Ibn Abbas, al-Nakha'i, and others said: What the heart earns: it is the false, grave oath, and in this is the accountability in the Hereafter, and the expiation is only in what is nullified if he swears.

Malik and a group of scholars said: The grave oath is not expiated; it is a greater sin than that. Al-Shafi'i, Qatadah, Ata, and Al-Rabi' said: The grave oath is expiated, and the expiation is accountability, and the grave oath is what a man intended in swearing by it with a lie, and likewise the grave oath, the meaning in both is the same, but the grave is named so because it has immersed its owner in sin, and the grave oath is named so because its endurance is a struggle and strength over it, just as an animal endures for slaughter and throwing. Zayd ibn Aslam said regarding His saying, the Exalted: "But He will hold you accountable for what your hearts have earned," it is in the man saying: he is a polytheist if he does, meaning this is nullification unless the polytheism is established in his heart and he earns it.

And "Forgiving, Forbearing" are two attributes suitable for what was mentioned regarding the lifting of accountability, for it is a door of kindness and expansion.

And His saying, exalted is He: ﴿For those who take an oath regarding their wives﴾. Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Ibn Abbas read: "For those who swear," and "take an oath" means: they swear. It is said: a man took an oath [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: awli] an oath, and the oath is the right hand. It is also said in it: [UNTRANSLATED-LATIN: alwah] with the opening of the hamzah, and with its damm and kasr.

And waiting is being patient and delaying. It was the custom of the Arabs that a man would swear not to approach his wife, intending by that harm during the period of mutual consultation and similar matters. So Allah, exalted is He, established this limit so that men do not harm women. And the one who swears has a respite of less than four months.

(p-553) And there is a difference of opinion regarding who is obligated by the ruling of taking an oath. Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: It is the man who is angry with his wife and swears an oath - a ruling is attached to the breaking of it - not to approach her for more than four months, not intending by that the reform of a nursing child or similar. This was also said by Ata and others. Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Abbas, and Al-Hasan ibn Abi Al-Hasan said: It is the man who swears not to approach his wife out of anger and mutual consultation, whether or not it includes the reform of a child. If it is not out of anger, then it is not considered taking an oath. Ibn Abbas said: There is no taking an oath except in anger. Ibn Sirin said: Whether the oath is in anger or not, it is still considered taking an oath. This was also said by Ibn Mas'ud, Al-Thawri, Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and the people of Iraq. However, Malik said: Unless he intends to reform a child. And Al-Sha'bi, Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, Salim ibn Abdullah, and Ibn Al-Musayyib said: Every oath that a man swears not to approach his wife, or not to speak to her, or to harm her, or to be angry with her, all of that is considered taking an oath. And Ibn Al-Musayyib among them said - except that if he swears not to speak and he approaches her, then it is not considered taking an oath, and the oath regarding not approaching is considered taking an oath only if it is coupled with the refusal to approach.

And the sayings of those we mentioned - along with Said - are recorded and it is possible that what Said said is valid, and it is possible that the corruption of the relationship is taking an oath. Al-Tabari went with this last possibility. Ibn Abbas also said: He is not called a taker of an oath except the one who swears not to approach at all, as reported by Ibn Al-Mundhir. Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and Abu Thawr said: He is not a taker of an oath unless he exceeds the four months.

And Ata, Al-Thawri, and the people of opinion said: Taking an oath is to swear for four months or more. And Qatadah, Al-Nakha'i, Hamad ibn Abi Sulayman, Ishaq, and Ibn Abi Layla said: Whoever swears for a short time or a long time and leaves it for four months is a taker of an oath. Ibn Al-Mundhir said: Many scholars rejected this statement.

And His saying, exalted is He: ﴿Regarding their wives﴾ includes free women and maidservants if they are married.

(p-554) And the servant is obligated to perform [ilaa] from his wife. Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and Abu Thawr said: His term is four months. Malik, Al-Zuhri, Ata ibn Abi Rabah, and Ishaq said: His term is two months. Al-Hasan said: The term for a free woman is four months, and for a slave woman is two months, and this was said by Al-Nakha'i. Al-Sha'bi said: The [ilaa] from a slave woman is half of that of a free woman. Malik, Al-Shafi'i, the companions of opinion, Al-Awzai, Al-Nakha'i, and others said: The one who has entered into the marriage and the one who has not are equal in the obligation of [ilaa] in both cases. Al-Zuhri, Ata, and Al-Thawri said: There is no [ilaa] except after entering. Malik said: There is no [ilaa] from a young girl who has not reached puberty; if he makes [ilaa] from her and she reaches puberty, he is obligated to [ilaa] from the day she reaches puberty. Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abu Al-Dardaa, Ibn Umar, Ibn Al-Musayyib, Mujahid, Tawus, Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq, and Abu Ubaid said: When the four months have passed, he must stop; either he returns or he divorces, otherwise he must divorce her. Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Uthman, and Ali also, and Zayd ibn Thabit, Jabir ibn Zayd, Al-Hasan, and Masruq said: With the passing of the four months, divorce enters upon him without delay.

And the scholars disagreed regarding the divorce that occurs upon the one who has made [ilaa]; Uthman, Ali, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, Ata, Al-Nakha'i, Al-Awzai, and others said: It is a final divorce with no return for him in it. And Said ibn Al-Musayyib, Abu Bakr ibn Abdur-Rahman, Makhlud, Al-Zuhri, and Malik said: It is a revocable divorce.

And 'faa'oo' means: they returned, and from it: ﴿until they return to the command of Allah﴾ [Al-Hujurat: 9]. And 'the return' is the shadow that returns in the evening.

(p-555) And Al-Hasan and Ibrahim said: If the one who made [ilaa] returns and has intercourse, then there is no expiation upon him for his oath, for Allah, the Exalted, said: ﴿But if they return, then indeed Allah is Forgiving and Merciful﴾.

The judge Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: This is based on the fact that a frivolous oath is what he swore in disobedience, and abstaining from having intercourse with the wife is disobedience.

And the majority said: If he returns, he has expiated, and the return according to Ibn Al-Musayyib and Ibn Jubair is only through intercourse. And if he is imprisoned or on a journey, the ruling of [ilaa] applies to him unless he has intercourse, and there is no excuse for him nor return by mere words.

And Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The return can only be through intercourse or through expiation in cases of excuse, like the absent and the imprisoned. Ibn Al-Qasim said in Al-Mudawwana: Except if his oath is something that cannot be expiated because it does not apply to him except after he breaks it, for the saying suffices him as long as he is excused.

And there is disagreement in Al-Mudawwana regarding the oath by Allah, the Exalted; is it sufficient for him to return by mere words and the intention to expiate, or is expiation necessary, otherwise there is no return? Al-Hasan, Ikrimah, Al-Nakha'i, and others said: The return from the one who is not excused is intercourse, and it is necessary for the excused to testify that he has returned with his heart.

Al-Nakha'i also said: The return is valid by saying and witnessing only. The ruling of [ilaa] is dropped. What do you think if he does not engage in intercourse?

And Qadi Abu Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: He refers in this saying, if he does not engage in intercourse, to the chapter of harm. And Ubayy ibn Ka'b read: "So if they return in them." It has also been narrated from him: "So if they return in it."

And His saying, the Exalted, ﴿And if they intend divorce﴾. The speakers said: With the passage of four months, divorce enters. The intention of divorce is to abandon the return until the months are completed. And the speakers said: There must be a pause after the completion of the months, and the intention is the divorce or separation at the time of the pause until the judge divorces. Those who argued for the pause cited His saying: "Hearing," because this understanding is only in the sayings. And Ibn Abbas read: "And if they intend separation."