you are divorced." The Qadi said: The analogy of the school is that he breaks his oath, unless he intends the specific water she is in, because the absoluteness of his oath implies her exiting the river or remaining in it. Abu al-Khattab said: He does not break his oath, because the water sworn against has flowed away from her, and she has become in other water, so he does not break his oath whether she remains or exits, because she is only standing in other water or exiting from it. The Qadi said the same in "al-Mujarrad", and it is the school of al-Shafi'i, because oaths, according to them, are based on the wording, not on intent. They also said: He does not break his oath in all these preceding oaths. If he said: "If my wife is in the market, my slave is free, and if my slave is in the market, my wife is divorced." And they were both in the market, it is said: The slave is freed, and the wife is not divorced, because when he broke the first oath, the slave was freed, so no slave remained for him in the market. It is possible that he breaks his oath, based on our statement regarding one who swears against a specific object, where the oath attaches to the object itself rather than its description; like one who says: "If you speak to my slave Sa'd, you are divorced." Then he emancipates him, and she speaks to him, she is divorced. It is the same here, because his oath attached to a specific slave. If he did not intend a specific slave, the wife is not divorced, because no slave of his remained in the market. If there was a date in her mouth, and he said: "You are divorced if you eat it, or throw it away, or hold it." And she ate some of it, and threw some of it away, he does not break his oath except according to the view of one who says that he breaks his oath by performing some of what was sworn against. If he intended the whole, he does not break his oath in any case. If he had a deposit for someone in his possession, and an oppressor made him swear that there is no deposit for so-and-so with you, he should swear: "There is no deposit for so-and-so with me," and he intends by "ma" (that which / not), "that which" (is owed). Thus, he is truthful in his oath. Likewise, if his wife stole something from him, and he swore to her by divorce: "You must tell me, did you steal from me or not?" And she feared to tell him the truth, she says: "I stole from you what I stole from you," and she means "the thing that I stole from you." If an oppressor makes him swear: "Have you seen so-and-so or not?" He means by "ra'aytu" (I have seen), "I have struck his lung" (ri'atahu). "And I mentioned him" (dhakartuhu), meaning "I cut off his mention." "And I did not request a need from him," meaning the tree which the pilgrim detained. "And I did not take a farruj (a tunic) from him," meaning the qaba' (outer garment). Nor a hasir (a mat), which is imprisonment, and similar examples. Whenever he is not an oppressor, and he swears and intends this by it, his oath is connected to what he intended. If he had a wife on a staircase, and he swore against her that she should not descend from it, nor ascend from it, nor stand on it, she may move from it to another ladder, and descend if she wishes, or ascend, or stand on it; because her descent only occurred from other than it, if it was in his oath. And if she did not move from it, she is carried forcibly. If he was on a ladder, and he had two wives, one in the room and the other in the lower house, and he swore: "I will not ascend to this one, nor descend to the other one." The lower one may ascend, and the upper one may descend, then he may descend if he wishes or ascend.

Section: Abdullah ibn Ahmad said: I asked my father about a man who said to his wife: "You are divorced if I do not have intercourse with you today, and you are divorced if I bathe from you today, and you are divorced if I miss a prayer because of it." He said: He prays Maghrib, then has intercourse with her, and when the sun sets, he bathes, if he did not mean by his saying: "I bathed," the intercourse. He said regarding a man who said to his wife: "You are divorced if I do not have intercourse with you in Ramadan." Then he traveled a distance of four days, or three, then had intercourse with her. He said: "It does not please me, because it is a trick, and I do not like tricks in this or in other things." The Qadi said: Ahmad only disliked this because the travel that permits breaking the fast must be an intended, permissible travel, whereas this person intends nothing by it other than fulfilling the oath. The correct view is that the oath is resolved by this, and it is permissible for him to break his fast in it; because it is a long, permissible travel for a valid purpose, and the desire to fulfill his oath is among the valid purposes. We have already permitted one who has two routes, a short one in which prayer is not shortened, and a long one, to take the long one in order to shorten his prayer in it and break his fast, even though he has no intention other than the concession. So it is even more appropriate here.