generalization, it would be necessary to specify it, for that which is less than the nisab (minimum threshold) is property, yet there is no Zakat upon it. If one swears that he has no property, and he is owed a debt, he violates his oath. This was mentioned by Abu al-Khattab, and it is the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He does not violate his oath, because one does not benefit from it. Our evidence is that the Zakat year runs upon it, it is permissible to pay Zakat from it, it is permissible to exercise legal authority over it through release, transfer (hawala), compensation for it from one upon whom the liability rests, and authorizing an agent to collect it; therefore, he violates his oath by it, just like entrusted property. If he has usurped property, he violates his oath because it remains his legal ownership. If he has lost property, there are two views; one is that he violates his oath because the original status is that it remains his property. The second is that he does not violate his oath because its continued existence is not known. If it is lost in a manner that he has despaired of its return, such as that which fell into the sea, he does not violate his oath because its existence is like its non-existence. It is possible that he does not violate his oath in any case where he is unable to take hold of his property, such as that which is denied by the holder, or usurped, or that which is owed by someone who is not solvent, because there is no benefit in it, and its ruling is like that of non-existent property regarding the permissibility of receiving Zakat and the absence of the obligation to pay it on its behalf. If he gets married, he does not violate his oath because what he acquired is not property. If he is entitled to a right of pre-emption, he does not violate his oath because ownership was not established for him through it. If he leases real estate or other property, he does not violate his oath because he is not called an owner of property.

1845 - Issue: He said: (And if he swears he will not eat meat, and he eats fat, or marrow, or brain, he does not violate his oath, unless he intended to avoid fatty substances, in which case he violates his oath by eating the fat).

The summary of this is that the one who swears to refrain from eating meat does not violate his oath by eating that which is not meat, such as fat, marrow—which is what is inside the bones—brain—which is what is inside the skull—liver, and...