If he entered a house that was designated for him, or rode a beast that was designated for him, or wore a garment that was designated for him, he violates the oath. According to al-Shafi'i, he does not violate it because he does not own any [of that], and attribution implies ownership. We have already presented the discussion with him in the section preceding this one. This section is distinguished by the fact that ownership is impossible here, and attribution in its literal sense is not valid, so it is necessary to interpret the attribution here as an attribution of specification rather than ownership. If he swore not to enter the house of Zayd, and he entered the house of his slave, he violates the oath. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. We know of no disagreement regarding this, because the slave's house is owned by his master. If he swore not to wear the master's garment and not to ride his beast, then he wore the garment of his slave and rode his beast, he violates the oath. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He does not violate the oath, because the slave is more specifically associated with them. Our counter-argument is that they are both owned by the master, so the oath of the swearer encompasses them, just like the house, and what they mentioned is refuted by the case of the house.

1831- Issue: He said: (If he swore not to enter a house, and he inserted his hand, foot, head, or something of his body into it, he violates the oath. If he swore to enter, he has not fulfilled the oath until he enters with his entire body. As for when he swears that he will definitely enter or perform something, he does not fulfill it except by doing all of it, and by entering it with his whole body).

There is no disagreement in the Madhhab on that, and we know of no disagreement among scholars regarding it; because the oath encompassed the action of the whole [body], [so he does not fulfill it except by doing the whole of it], just as if Allah the Exalted commanded him to do something, he is not released from the obligation of the command except by doing the whole of it. Furthermore, because an oath concerning doing something is an announcement of his performing it in the future, emphasized by an oath, and the announcement of doing something requires doing all of it.