he breaks his oath in both of them. We argue that it is an invalid marriage and an invalid sale, so he does not break his oath by either of them, just like those whose invalidity is agreed upon.

Section: The past and the future are the same in this regard. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: If he swears, "I have not married," "I have not sold," or "I have not prayed," and he had done so invalidly, he breaks his oath, because regarding the past, nothing is intended but the name, and the name covers it, whereas the future is otherwise; for in marriage and sale, ownership is intended, and in prayer, devotion. We argue that what the name does not cover in the future, it does not cover in the past, such as the offer (of a contract) or that which is not (properly) named. What he mentioned is not correct, because the name does not cover it except for the legal one, which is not achieved.

Section: If he swears not to sell, and then sells with an option (khiyar), he breaks his oath. Abu Hanifah said: He does not break his oath, because ownership is not established during the period of the option, so it resembles an invalid sale. We argue that it is a valid, legal sale, so he breaks his oath by it, just as with a binding sale. What he mentioned is not correct, for the sale with an option establishes ownership after the expiration of the option by consensus, and it is a cause for it; we do not concede that ownership is not established during the period of the option.

Section: If he swears not to sell or not to marry, and he makes an offer of sale or marriage, but the buyer or the person being married does not accept, he does not break his oath. This is the view of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i, and we know of no disagreement regarding it, because sale and marriage are two contracts that are not completed except with acceptance, so the name does not apply to the offer without it, and thus he does not break his oath. If he swears not to gift or not to lend, and he makes an offer of it, but the other party does not accept, al-Qadi said: He breaks his oath. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and Ibn Surayj, because there is no exchange in a gift or a loan, so their designated meaning is the offer, while acceptance is a condition for transferring ownership and is not part of the cause; therefore, he breaks his oath by the mere offer in both, just like a bequest. Al-Shafi'i said: He does not break his oath by the mere offer, because it is a contract that is not completed except with acceptance, so he does not break his oath by the mere offer, just as with marriage and sale. As for a bequest, a gift, and charity, Abu al-Khattab said: He breaks his oath by the mere offer in them. I do not know the opinion of al-Shafi'i