What is the ruling on breaking an oath made regarding a past action when the statement is found to be untrue?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Oaths
Primary text
The prevailing opinion among most scholars, including Ibn Mas'ud, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Al-Hasan, Malik, Al-Awza'i, Al-Thawri, Al-Layth, Abu Ubayd, Abu Thawr, the Hadith scholars, and the Kufan scholars of *Al-Ra'y*, is that there is no expiation for the *Yamin al-Ghumus* (oath taken regarding a past event falsely, which immerses the person in sin). This is because it is considered a major sin, greater than what expiation can remedy. Ibn Mas'ud stated it is one of the oaths for which there is no expiation, and Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib deemed it a major sin, greater than what can be atoned for.
Supporting text
A narration from Ahmad suggests expiation is due, a view also attributed to 'Ata, Al-Zuhri, Al-Hakam, and Al-Batti, and it is the position of Al-Shafi'i, who holds that since the oath was taken by God with intention and subsequent contradiction, expiation is obligatory, similar to an oath regarding the future. The counter-argument is that it is an unbinding oath, thus imposing no expiation, like *yamin al-laghw* (idle oath), or an oath about the past.