What is the ruling on one who swore an oath of divorce concerning a past event, intending it to apply to a specific matter, but then it turned out to be otherwise?

Scholars differed regarding the ruling on one who swore an oath concerning a past or present matter, believing it to be in a certain state, but it turned out to be otherwise:

- The First View (Most Probable): Nothing is incumbent upon him. This is the more apparent of the two views of Ash-Shafi'i and a narration from Ahmad.

- The Second View: It is like swearing an oath concerning a future matter, and expiation is due if the oath necessitates expiation.

- The Third View: If the oath necessitates expiation (by Allah), then nothing is incumbent upon him (it is a vain oath - laghw al-yamin). If it does not necessitate expiation (by divorce or manumission), then it becomes binding upon him. This is the doctrine of Malik and Abu Hanifa, and the well-known view from Ahmad.

The most probable view is that one who swears by divorce, believing something to have occurred, but it turns out not to have occurred, does not break his oath, and his divorce does not take effect.