Al-Bukhari mentioned it (40). He also said to Rukanah ibn 'Abd Yazid: "A-lillahi ma aradta illa wahidah?" (By Allah, did you intend only one [divorce]?). He said: "Allah, I did not intend anything but one" (41). Imru' al-Qays said:

• So I said: By Allah's oath, I will continue sitting *

He also said (42):

• She said: By Allah's oath, you have no recourse *

Two contexts are attached to it that indicate it: first, the response being the answer to an oath; and second, the accusative (nasb) and genitive (jarr) cases in the name of Allah the Almighty. Therefore, it is mandatory (43) that it be an oath, just as if he had said: "Wa-llahi" (By Allah). If he says: "Allahu la-af'alanna" (Allah, I will surely do [it]) in the nominative case [and intended an oath, it is an oath, but he has committed a solecism (lahn); it is as if he had said: "Wa-llahu" in the nominative case] (44). If he does not intend it as an oath, Abu al-Khattab said: It is an oath, because the context of the answer being the answer to an oath is sufficient. A commoner does not know grammar, so he utters it that way, unless he is one of the people of Arabic, for his deviation from the grammar of an oath is proof that he did not intend it. It is possible that it is not an oath in the case of a commoner, because it is not an oath in the case of those who know Arabic, so it would not be an oath in the case of (45) others, just as if he had not responded with the answer to an oath.

Section: An oath is responded to with four particles; two for negation, which are "ma" and "la", and two for affirmation, which are "in" and the fatha-vowelled "lam". The kasra-vowelled "in" acts in place of the negating "ma" (46), such as in His saying: {And they will surely swear: "We intended nothing but good"} (47). And if he says: