his own person, his family, or his property, so he remained while seeking to move, or while waiting for the obstacle to be removed, or he left in pursuit of moving but it became impossible for him—either because he could not find a dwelling to relocate to, due to the difficulty of renting or otherwise, or he could not find beasts of burden to relocate upon and he could not move without them—and thus he stayed, intending to move whenever he was able, he does not violate the oath, even if he stays for days and nights. This is because his staying was not by his own choice, due to his inability to move; for if he does not find a dwelling, he cannot abandon his family and leave his belongings on the road. Thus, he does not violate the oath by this, just like one who stays due to coercion. If he stays during this time without intending to move, he violates the oath. His moving of that which he needs to move should be in accordance with custom; so if he possessed a great amount of belongings and moved them little by little according to custom, in such a way that he did not abandon the habitual moving process, he does not violate the oath even if he stayed for days. It is not required for him to gather the beasts of the town for his move, nor to move at night, nor during rest times when fatigued, nor during times of prayer, because the custom does not dictate moving during these times. If he gave away his baggage, deposited it, or lent it and then left, he does not violate the oath, because his possession of the goods has ceased. If he returns to the house to move belongings, or to visit a sick person, or to visit a friend, he does not violate the oath. Al-Qadi said: If he enters it with the intention of sitting inside, he violates the oath, otherwise he does not. Our position is that this is not considered residency, and for this reason, if he swore that he would reside in a house, he would not fulfill the oath by merely sitting in it in this manner, nor is he called a resident of it due to this excuse; therefore, he does not violate the oath by it, just as if he had not intended to sit. If he had a wife or family in the house and he urged them to leave with him and relocate from it, but they refused and he was unable to force them to leave, so he left and abandoned them, he does not violate the oath; because this is something he was unable to do, so it is similar to that which he was unable to move of his belongings.

Section: If he swore not to reside with someone, the ruling regarding continuity is the same as we mentioned regarding swearing about residency. If one of them moves and the other remains, he does not violate the oath because the co-residency has ceased. And if