{Do not turn them out of their houses} (Surah al-Talaq: 1), and He meant the houses of their wives which they inhabit. And He said: {And abide in your houses} (Surah al-Ahzab: 33). Furthermore, attribution is for the purpose of specification, just as a man is attributed to his brother by brotherhood, to his father by sonship, to his child by fatherhood, and to his wife by marriage; the resident of the house is specified by it, so its attribution to him is valid, and it is used in common custom, so it becomes necessary that he violates the oath by entering it, just as if it were owned by him. As for their statement: "This attribution is a metaphor," this is denied; rather it is a reality, based on what we have mentioned. Even if it were a metaphor, it is well-known, so the expression encompasses it, just as if he swore: "I will not drink from the water-skin (rawiyah) of so-and-so." He would violate the oath by drinking from his water-bag (mazadah). As for acknowledgment, if he said: "This is the house of Zayd," and he interpreted his acknowledgment as referring to his residence in it, it is possible that we say: his interpretation is accepted. If we concede [that, then the context] of the acknowledgment directs it toward ownership. Likewise, if he swore: "I will not enter the residence of Zayd," he violates the oath by entering the house which he resides in. And if he said: "This residence is for Zayd," he would be acknowledging it for him. There is no disagreement on this issue, and it is analogous to our issue.

Section: If he swore not to ride the beast of so-and-so, and he rode a beast that so-and-so had rented, he violates the oath. If he rode a beast that he had borrowed, he does not violate the oath. Abu al-Khattab mentioned this. It is the same if he rode a beast that so-and-so had usurped. He distinguished this from the issue of the house; for he did not violate the oath regarding the house because of his having borrowed it, nor having usurped it, but rather he violated the oath for having resided in it, so the house was attributed to him for that reason. If he had usurped it or borrowed it without residing in it, its attribution to him would not be valid, and the one who swore would not violate the oath; so he would be just like the borrower of the beast and the usurper of it.

Section: If he swore not to enter the house of this slave, and not to ride his beast, and not to wear his garment,