two views; this is based on one who swears not to enter a house in which he is currently present, then persists in staying in it; does he violate the oath? There are two views.

1837 - Issue: He said: "And if he swears to strike his slave tomorrow, then the swearer dies on that same day, there is no violation (hinth) upon him. And if the slave dies, he violates the oath."

As for when the swearer dies on that day, there is no violation upon him, because the violation only occurs upon the expiration of the time for what was sworn, which is tomorrow, and the swearer has ceased to be a person of legal responsibility (mukallaf) before tomorrow; therefore, it is impossible for him to violate the oath. Likewise, if the swearer becomes insane on that day and does not recover until after tomorrow has passed, because he has ceased to be a person of legal responsibility. If the slave flees, or the slave or the swearer falls ill, or similar, and he is unable to strike him tomorrow, he violates the oath. If the swearer does not die, there are several issues regarding this: The first is that he strikes the slave tomorrow, at any time during it; he fulfills his oath, without dispute. The second is that he is able to strike him tomorrow, but does not strike him until tomorrow has passed, and both are alive; he also violates the oath, without dispute. The third is that the slave dies on that day; he violates the oath. This is one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. It is also derived that he does not violate the oath, which is the view of Abu Hanifa and Malik, and the second opinion of al-Shafi'i; because he lacked the ability to strike him without his own choice, so he does not violate the oath, like the coerced person or the forgetful one. Our view is that he did not perform what he swore to do at its time, without coercion or forgetfulness, and he is a person capable of violating the oath, so he violates it, [as if he destroyed him by his own choice], and as if he swore to perform Hajj during the year, but was unable to perform Hajj due to illness or lack of provisions. It differs from coercion and forgetfulness, for the inability there stems from a factor within the swearer, while here the inability stems from a factor in the object of the oath, so it is similar to if he left striking him because of the difficulty of doing so, or if the swearer left the Hajj due to the difficulty of the path and its distance for him. As for if the destruction of the object of the oath is by his own action or choice, he violates the oath, without disagreement, because he caused the action to lapse for himself. Al-Qadi said: The swearer violates the oath at the moment