Similarly, if he swears not to ride an animal while he is riding it, he must dismount at the first possible opportunity; otherwise, he violates the oath. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and the jurists (Ashab al-Ra'y). Abu Thawr said: He does not violate the oath by continuing the wearing or riding until he initiates it, because if he were to swear not to marry or not to perform ritual purification, and he continued in those states, he would not violate the oath. Thus, it is the same here. Our response is that continuing to wear or ride is called wearing and riding, and he is called a wearer and a rider; therefore, it is said: "I wore this garment for a month," and "I rode my animal for a day." Thus, he violates the oath by continuing it, just as if he swore not to reside in a place, and then continued the residency. The Lawgiver (al-Shar') has considered this in the state of Ihram, for He prohibited wearing stitched garments and imposed the expiation for continuing to wear them, just as He imposed it for initiating it. It differs from marriage, for the term [marriage] is not applied to its continuation; it is not said: "I married for a month," rather it is said: "I have been married for a month." For this reason, its continuation in Ihram was not prohibited as its initiation was.

Section: If he swears not to marry, not to apply perfume, and not to perform ritual purification, and he continues in those states, he does not violate the oath according to all of them, because the name of the act is not applied to one who continues these actions. It is not said: "I married for a month," nor "I purified for a month," nor "I perfumed for a month." Rather, it is said: "I have been [in that state] for a month." The Lawgiver did not treat the continuation of marriage and perfume in the same way as their initiation regarding their prohibition in Ihram and the obligation of expiation for them.

Section: If he swears not to enter a house while he is currently inside it, and he remains there, there are two opinions. One is that he violates the oath because continuing to stay on another's property is like initiating it in terms of prohibition. Ahmad said regarding a man who swore to his wife: "I will not enter this house, nor will you," while they were both inside it: "I fear he may have violated the oath." The second is that he does not violate it. The Qadi mentioned this, and Abu al-Khattab chose it, and it is the opinion of the jurists (Ashab al-Ra'y); because the word "entry" is not used for continuation, which is why one says: "I have been inside it for a month," but one does not say: "I entered it for a month." It is treated like marriage. Furthermore, entry is the detachment from being outside to being inside, and this does not occur in residency. Al-Shafi'i has two opinions, just like the two views. It is possible that whoever considered it a violation