you are divorced, you are divorced. And he said: I intended by the second one emphasis. Section: If he swears a general oath for a specific reason, and he has an intention, it is applied to it, and his statement is accepted in legal judgment; because the reason is evidence of his truthfulness. If he did not intend anything, it has been narrated from Aḥmad what indicates that his oath is restricted to that in which the reason was found. Al-Khiraqī mentioned it, saying: If he has no intention, one returns to the reason for the oath and what provoked it. The apparent meaning of this is that his oath is restricted to the place of the reason. This is the position of the companions of Abū Ḥanīfa. It has been narrated from Aḥmad what indicates that his oath is applied to the general sense; for he said, regarding one who said: It is incumbent upon me before Allāh that I will not hunt in this river, due to an injustice he saw, then his situation changed, so he said: The vow is fulfilled. That is because the wording is the evidence for the ruling, so consideration must be given to it in specificity and generality, just as in the wording of the Lawgiver. The aspect of the first [view] is that the specific reason indicates the intent of specificity, and it stands in the place of intention when it is absent; due to its indication of it, so it is necessary that the general wording be restricted by it like the intention. It differs from the wording of the Lawgiver; for He intends to clarify the rulings, so it is not restricted to the place of the reason, because the need calls for knowing the ruling in other than the place of the reason. Based on this, if his wife stood up to go out, so he said: If you go out, you are divorced. Then she returned, then went out after that; or a person invited him to his lunch, so he said: My wife is divorced if I eat lunch. Then he returned and ate lunch in his house, he does not break the oath on the first, and he breaks the oath on the second. And if he swears to a worker that he will not go out except with his permission, or he swears that regarding his wife or his slave, then he dismisses the worker, divorces the wife, and sells the slave, or he swears regarding an agent and dismisses him, two views are derived in all of that. Section: And if he said: If anyone enters my house, my wife is divorced. Then he himself entered it. Or he said to a person: If anyone enters your house, my slave is free. Then its owner entered it, the judge said: He does not break the oath; because the context of the speaker's situation indicates that he only swears regarding someone else, and prevents those other than him, so he himself is excluded from the generality by the context, and the addressee is also excluded from the oath by it. And it is possible