the followers of the school of opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y); because the two differ in name and ruling, as evidenced by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "It is charity for her, and a gift for us." Sadaqah (charity) was forbidden to him, whereas a gift (hadiyyah) was permissible for him; he would accept a gift but not charity. Despite this difference, he does not break his oath in one by performing the other. The argument for the first view is that he has performed a voluntary act with an entity during his lifetime, and thus breaks his oath, just as with a gift. Furthermore, charity is called a gift; if he gives charity of a dirham, it is said: "He gifted a dirham" and "He voluntarily gave a dirham." The difference in nomenclature is because charity is a type of gift, so it is distinguished by a specific name, just as a gift and a life-tenancy (umra) are distinguished by two names, yet that does not exclude them from being gifts. Similarly, the difference in rulings [does not exclude it], for a specific category may possess rulings that the general genus does not, just as a human possesses rulings that a generic animal does not. If he bequeaths it to him, he does not break his oath; because a gift is a transfer of ownership during one's lifetime, while a bequest is only owned through acceptance after death. If he lends it to him, he does not break his oath; because a gift is the transfer of ownership of physical assets, and there is no transfer of physical assets in a loan. Furthermore, the borrower does not own the usufruct; he only makes it lawful [to use]. This is why the lender has the right to reclaim it, and the borrower does not have the right to lease it or lend it out. This is the opinion of the Qadi and the school of Al-Shafi'i. Abu al-Khattab said: He breaks his oath, because a loan is a gift of usufruct. The first view is more correct. If he invites him to a meal, he does not break his oath, because he did not transfer ownership of anything to him, but merely permitted it to him, and for this reason, he does not have the right to dispose of it other than by eating. If he sells it to him and grants him a preferential price (muhabah), he does not break his oath; because this is a commutative contract in which the pre-emptor (shafi') has the right to take the entire item sold, and if it were a gift, or if part of it were a gift, he would not have the right to take the whole of it. Abu al-Khattab said: He breaks his oath, according to one of the two views; because he left for him part of the sold item without a price, or gifted him part of the price. If he establishes a charitable endowment (waqf) for him, Abu al-Khattab said: He breaks his oath; because he has performed a voluntary act for him with a physical asset during his lifetime. It is also possible that he does not break his oath; because a waqf cannot be owned, according to one report. If he swears not to give him charity, and then gives him a gift, he does not break his oath; because charity is a type of gift, and the person who swears not to do one type does not break his oath by doing another type, nor does the ruling of the specific type apply to the general genus. This is why charity was forbidden for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), but neither a gift nor a present were forbidden. If he swears not to give him anything as a gift, and then releases him from a debt, he does not break his oath, unless he intended it; because a gift is the transfer of ownership of a physical asset, and he has nothing but a debt owed by him.