the date sworn about, either by knowing it by its essence, by its description, or by eating all the dates, or all the side in which it fell. In this case, he violates his oath without disagreement among the scholars. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and the scholars of reason (Ashab al-Ra'y), because he has eaten the date sworn about. The second [scenario] is that he verifies that he did not eat it, either by not eating any of the dates, or by eating something he knows is not it; in this case, he also does not violate his oath without disagreement, and it is not incumbent upon him to avoid his wife. The third [scenario] is that he eats some of the dates—either one or more—until only one remains, and he does not know whether he ate it or not. This is the issue of al-Khiraqi. His violation is not established because the remaining one potentially could be the one sworn about, and the certainty of the marriage is established, so it is not removed by doubt. This is the view of al-Shafi'i and the scholars of reason. According to this, the ruling of the marriage remains intact regarding the necessity of her maintenance, clothing, residence, and other rulings, except for intercourse; for al-Khiraqi said: He is prevented from having intercourse with her because he is in doubt regarding her lawfulness, so she became prohibited to him, just as if his wife became indistinguishable from a stranger. Abu al-Khattab mentioned that she remains lawful. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because the basic principle is lawfulness, and it is not removed by doubt, like all other marriage rulings. Furthermore, the marriage remains valid in ruling, so lawfulness is established, just as if he were in doubt whether he divorced her or not. If his oath was, "I will definitely eat this date," then his fulfillment is not verified until he verifies that he has eaten it.

1850 - Issue: He said: (And if he swears to strike him with ten lashes, and he bundles them together and strikes him with them in a single blow, he does not fulfill his oath.)

Malik and the scholars of reason held this view. Ibn Hamid said: He fulfills his oath, because Ahmad said regarding a sick person upon whom a punishment (hadd) is due: He is to be struck with a bundle (ithkal) of palm leaves, and the punishment is dropped from him. This is what was said by