Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "If he breaks his oath under compulsion or while forgetting, there is no expiation."

The Shaykh : He did not say "knowingly," but it was mentioned to us earlier in the chapter on various issues in the chapter of divorce that if one is ignorant, there is no breach of oath upon him, even according to the school of thought, which is the correct position. Based on this, we add a third condition, which is being knowledgeable. So we say: The breach of his oath occurs if he does what he swore to leave or leaves what he swore to do, while being willing, remembering, and knowledgeable. If he is compelled, forgetting, or ignorant, there is no expiation upon him. Now, is there a distinction in this chapter between divorce and oaths, or are they the same? The school of thought distinguishes, stating that divorce and manumission are not excused by ignorance or forgetfulness; they are excused by compulsion, but not by ignorance or forgetfulness. So if a man says, "If I speak to so-and-so, my wife is divorced," and he speaks to a man without knowing he was so-and-so, this is ignorance according to the school of thought, and the divorce takes place. And if he says, "By Allah, if I wear this garment, my wife is divorced," and then wears it while forgetting, according to the school of thought, the divorce takes place. The same applies to manumission. The correct view is that this chapter is one: divorce, manumission, vows, zihar, and declaring something forbidden are all on the same level. A person does not breach any of them unless he is knowledgeable, remembering, and willing. This is because the breach of an oath is, by its name, a sin. So if you are ignorant, forgetting, or compelled, there is nothing upon you. This is the correct view, and it is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is what the general evidence indicates, namely that a person is excused by ignorance, forgetfulness, and compulsion.