the house, and he ascended its roof, he has not fulfilled the oath. And if he swore that he would not leave it, and he ascended its roof, he does not violate the oath. Furthermore, because it is included within the boundaries of the house, and is owned by its owner, it is owned upon purchasing it, and it exits the ownership of its owner by its sale, and one who stays the night upon it, it is said: 'He stayed the night in his house.' By this it differs from what is behind its wall. And if there is a verbal or contextual indication in the oath that necessitates the restriction of the intent to the interior of the house, such as if the roof of the house were a thoroughfare and the cause of his oath necessitated avoiding the contact of the people of the house, he would not violate the oath by passing over its roof. Likewise, if he intended by his oath the inner part of the house, his oath would be restricted to what he intended; for a person has only what he intended.

Section: If he clung to a branch of a tree in the house, he does not violate the oath. And if he climbed until he was level with its roof between its walls, he violates the oath. If he did not descend between its walls, it is possible that he violates it; because he is in its air, and its air is the property of its owner, so it is similar to if he stood on its roof. It is also possible that he does not violate it; because he is not called an entrant, nor is he on any part of its constituents. Likewise [if] the tree were outside the house, and he clung to a branch that swayed over the house level with its roof. And if he stood on the wall of the house, there are two possible views; one of them is that he violates the oath. This is the opinion of Abu Thawr and the People of Opinion, because he is within its boundary, so it is similar to one standing on its roof. The second is that he does not violate it; because it is not called entering. If he stood in the doorway, it is the same; because it is equivalent to its wall. The Qadi said: If he stood on the threshold, he does not violate it; because when the door is closed, he is outside of it, and he is not called an entrant into it.

Section: If he swore not to place his foot in the house, and he entered it riding or walking, wearing shoes or barefoot, he violates the oath, just as if he swore he would not enter it. This is the opinion of the People of Opinion. Abu Thawr said: If he entered it riding, he does not violate the oath, because he did not place his foot in it. Our evidence is that he has entered the house, so he violates the oath, as if he had entered it walking, [and we do not concede that he did not place his foot in it, for his foot is placed on the mount within it. So it is similar to if he had entered it while wearing shoes]. Moreover, this is a customary expression for avoiding entry, so the oath is interpreted accordingly.