There are two narrations based on the case of the forgetful person. There are two positions for al-Shafi'i, like the two narrations: one of them is that he breaks his oath, and this is the position of Malik, because he parted from him before obtaining his due voluntarily. The second is that he does not break his oath, which is the position of Abu Thawr and the People of Reason if he found them to be counterfeit. And if he found most of them to be copper, he breaks his oath. And if he found them to be claimed by another, so their owner took them, it is also extrapolated based on the two narrations regarding the forgetful person, because he is under the impression that he has obtained his due, so it resembles the case where he finds them to be of poor quality. Abu Thawr and the People of Reason said: He does not break his oath, but if he knew of the situation and then parted from him, he breaks his oath, because he did not fulfill his due to him. The seventh is that the ruler declares him bankrupt, and he parts from him; you must examine this: if the ruler forces him, then he is like one compelled. If he does not force him to part, but he parts from him because of his knowledge of the necessity of parting, he breaks his oath, because he parted from him without compulsion, so he breaks his oath, just as if he had sworn, "I will not pray," and a prayer became due upon him, and he performed it. The eighth is that the debtor refers him to collect his due from someone else [hiwala], so he parts from him; he breaks his oath. This is the position of al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifa and Muhammad said: He does not break his oath, because he has been discharged from him by that. Our argument is that he has not obtained his due from him, by the evidence that nothing has reached him, and for that reason, he possesses the right to demand it, so he breaks his oath, just as if he had not referred him. If he thought he had been acquitted by that, and parted from him, Abu al-Khattab said: It is extrapolated based on the two narrations. The correct view is that he breaks his oath, because this is ignorance of the ruling of the Shari'a regarding it, so the breaking of the oath is not dropped from him, just as if he were ignorant that this oath necessitates an expiation. As for if his oath was: "I will not part from you while I have a right upon you," and he referred him for it, and he parted from him, he does not break his oath, because he no longer has a right upon him. And if he took a guarantor, a surety, or collateral for it, and parted from him, he breaks his oath without ambiguity, because he possesses the right to demand the debtor. The ninth is that he paid him a substitute in place of his due, then parted from him. Ibn Hamid said: He does not break his oath, and this is the position of Abu Hanifa, because he paid him.