al-Shafi'i held that if he knew that they all touched him, and if he knew they did not all touch him, he does not fulfill his oath. And if he was in doubt, he does not violate his oath in the legal ruling, because God Almighty said: "And take in your hand a bundle [of grass] and strike with it and do not violate your oath." [Sad: 44]. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding the sick person who committed adultery: "Take for him a bundle containing one hundred branches and strike him with it one single blow." Furthermore, because he struck him with ten lashes, he fulfilled his oath, just as if he had separated the blows. Our view is that the meaning of his oath was to strike him ten blows, and he did not strike him except with one single blow, so he did not fulfill his oath, just as if he had sworn to strike him ten times with a whip. The evidence for this is that if he struck him ten blows with one whip, he would fulfill his oath without disagreement. Yet if the number [ten] is returned to the whip, he would not fulfill his oath by striking with a single whip, just as if he had sworn to strike him with ten whips. Furthermore, the whip here is an instrument that was used in place of the verbal noun (masdar), and it occupies its position; thus, the meaning of his statement is, "I will surely strike him ten times with a whip." This is what is understood from his oath and what the language necessitates, so he does not fulfill his oath with what contradicts that. As for Job (peace be upon him), God Almighty granted him a concession out of kindness to his wife, due to her righteousness and kindness toward him, in order to combine for him both the fulfillment of his oath and kindness to his wife. For this reason, He favored him with this and mentioned it among the things He favored him with, such as curing him of his affliction and providing water for him; therefore, this is specific to him, like his specificity regarding what was mentioned with it. If this ruling were general for everyone, He would not have singled out Job with this favor. Likewise, the sick person whose death is feared is granted a concession for this in the hadd punishment and no one else. If this ruling does not extend beyond this in the punishment regarding which the text was revealed, then it not extending to the oath is even more appropriate. Even if the one who has an excuse that permits changing in the hadd punishment to striking with the bundle were singled out for the fulfillment of the oath, it might have a basis, but extending it to anyone else is very far-fetched. And if he swore to strike him with ten lashes and he bundled them together and struck him with them, he would fulfill his oath, because he has