This opinion is held by Al-Sha'bi, Al-Nakha'i, Malik, the people of the Hijaz, Al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa, the people of Iraq, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, Abu 'Ubayd, and others. This is because it is an oath that prevents intercourse, and thus it is Ila', just like an oath by Allah, the Almighty. Furthermore, conditioning divorce or manumission upon having intercourse is an oath, as evidenced by the fact that if a man were to say: 'Whenever I swear by your divorce, you are divorced,' and then says: 'If I have intercourse with you, you are divorced,' the divorce takes effect immediately. Abu Bakr said: 'Every oath, whether involving something forbidden or otherwise, that necessitates an expiation (kaffara), renders the person who swears it a Muli.' As for divorce and manumission, swearing by them does not constitute Ila' because the right of a human being is attached to them, whereas what necessitates an expiation is attached to the right of Allah, the Almighty. The first narration is the most well-known, because unrestricted Ila' is specifically an oath (qasam); this is why Ubayy and Ibn Abbas recited: 'Yuqsimuna' (they swear) in place of {yu'luna} (they vow). It is narrated from Ibn Abbas regarding the interpretation of {yu'luna} that he said: 'They swear by Allah.' This is how Imam Ahmad recorded it. Conditioning upon a condition is not an oath; therefore, it does not employ the particle of swearing, it is not answered with its response, nor do the linguists mention it in the chapter on oaths. Thus, it is not Ila', and it is only called an 'oath' (half) metaphorically, due to its shared meaning with an oath in the common understanding, which is to incite an action, prevent one, or emphasize a statement. When speech is unrestricted, it is directed toward its literal meaning. This is indicated by the saying of Allah, the Almighty: {But if they return [to normal], then indeed, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful} (Qur'an 2:226). Forgiveness only enters into an oath by Allah. Furthermore, there is the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him: 'Whoever swears by other than Allah has committed polytheism.' And his saying: 'Indeed, Allah forbids you from swearing by your fathers.' These are agreed upon. And even if we concede that non-oaths are considered oaths, an oath in its unrestricted sense refers only to a formal oath (qasam), and it is only diverted to other than that by evidence. There is no disagreement that a swear by other than Allah, the Almighty, and His attributes is not Ila', because it does not necessitate an expiation nor anything that prevents intercourse, so it is not Ila', like a statement without an oath. If we follow the second narration, he is not a Muli unless he swears by something that, if he breaks, a right becomes binding upon him, such as saying: 'If I have intercourse with you, my slave is free,' or 'you are divorced,' or 'you are to me like the back of my mother' (Zihar), or 'you are forbidden to me,' or 'I owe it to Allah to perform a year of fasting, Hajj, or charity.' This is considered Ila', because by having intercourse, a duty becomes binding upon him which prevents him from doing so due to his fear of its obligation. If he says: 'If I have intercourse with you, you are an adulteress,' he is not a Muli because no obligation falls upon him by the act of intercourse, nor does he become a qadhif (one who falsely accuses of adultery) through intercourse; for accusation (qadhf) is not contingent upon a condition, and it is impossible for her to become an adulteress by his having intercourse with her, just as she does not become an adulteress by the rising of the sun. If he says: 'If I have intercourse with you, I owe it to Allah to fast this month,' he is not a Muli, because if he were to have intercourse with her after the month has passed, no duty would be binding upon him; for fasting that month is inconceivable after it has passed, so it cannot be binding as a vow, just as if he were to say: 'If I have intercourse with you, I owe it to Allah to fast yesterday.' But if he said: 'If I have intercourse with you, I owe it to Allah to pray twenty rak'ats,' he is a Muli. Abu Hanifa said: 'He is not a Muli, because prayer does not involve wealth, nor is it connected to wealth, so the one who swears by it is not a Muli, just as if he said: 'If I have intercourse with you, I owe it to Allah to walk in the market.' We argue that prayer is made obligatory by a vow, so the one who swears by it is a Muli, like one who swears by fasting or Hajj. What he mentioned is incorrect, for prayer requires water and a barrier (sutra). As for walking in the market, the analogy of the school according to this narration is that he is a Muli;'