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 (Ashab al-Ra'y), for they said: If he swears not to drink, then sucks pomegranate seeds and throws away the pulp, he does not violate his oath;