and drank sea water, or impure water, or he swears not to eat bread, but ate rice or corn bread in a place where it is not customary to eat it, he violates his oath. As for eating the eggs of fish or locusts, al-Qadi said: He violates his oath, because it is the egg of an animal, similar to ostrich eggs. Abu al-Khattab said: He does not violate his oath unless he eats eggs that separate from the creature that lays them during its lifetime. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, the scholars of reason (Ashab al-Ra'y), and the majority of scholars. This is the correct view because this is not understood from the absolute term "eggs" (al-bayd), and it is not mentioned except in attribution to the creature that lays it. He does not violate his oath by eating anything called eggs other than animal eggs, nor by eating anything called a "head" (ra's) other than the heads of animals, because that is neither a head nor an egg in reality. And God knows best.

1848 - Issue: He said: (And if he swears not to eat parched flour (sawiq), but drinks it, or not to drink it, but eats it, he violates his oath, unless he has an intention).

The general principle is that whoever swears not to eat something, but drinks it, or not to drink it, but eats it, has had two narrations reported from Ahmad. One of them is that he violates his oath, because an oath to refrain from eating or drinking something is intended in custom to mean avoiding that thing, so the oath is applied to it. Do you not see that the words of God Almighty: "And do not consume their wealth" and "Indeed, those who consume the wealth of orphans unjustly" do not refer to the act of eating specifically? If a physician were to say to a patient: "Do not eat honey," he would be forbidding him from drinking it. The second view is that he does not violate his oath. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the scholars of reason, because actions are of different types just as entities are. If one swears regarding one type of entity, he does not violate his oath by (consuming) another. Similarly, actions (are distinct). Al-Qadi said: The two narrations only exist in cases where the person has specified the object of the oath, such as one who swears, "I will not eat this parched flour," but then drinks it, or "I will not drink it," but then eats it. However, if he uses the absolute term, saying, "I will not eat parched flour," and then drinks it, he does not violate his oath according to one narration, and the school does not differ on this. This contradicts the absolute position of al-Khiraqi, and there is no effect of specification (ta'yin) on violating or not violating, for violation in the specified case only occurred because of his consuming the thing he swore about, applying the meaning of eating and drinking to consumption in general, and there is no difference in this between specification and the lack thereof. The lack of violation is explained by the fact that he did not perform the act he swore to refrain from, but performed a different one, and this applies to the specified case just as it does to the absolute one. So, if there are two narrations in the specified case, they should apply to the absolute case as well, because there is no differentiator between them, and because the narration concerning violation was taken from the words of al-Khiraqi, which does not contain specification, while the narration concerning non-violation was taken from the narration of Muhanna from Ahmad, concerning one who swears not to drink this nabidh (date wine), but eats it, and he does not violate, because it is not called drinking. This is in the specified case. If you extend every narration to the scope of the other, it necessitates that there be two narrations in all cases. If you restrict every narration to its own scope, the matter is the opposite of what al-Qadi said: that he violates his oath in the absolute case and does not violate it in the specified case. As for if he swears that he will definitely eat something but then drinks it, or that he will definitely drink it but then eats it, two perspectives are derived therefrom, based on the two narrations regarding violation if he swears to refrain. Whenever his oath is qualified by an intention or a reason that indicates it, his oath is based on what he intended or what the reason indicated, for oaths are based on intention.

Section: If he swears not to drink anything, then sucks it and throws it away, it has been reported from Ahmad, regarding one who swears not to drink, then sucks sugar cane: He does not violate his oath. [Ibn Abi Musa said: If he swears neither to eat nor to drink, then sucks sugar cane, he does not violate his oath]. This is the view of the scholars of reason, for they said: If he swears not to drink, then sucks pomegranate seeds and throws away the pulp, he does not violate his oath.