al-Khattab relates from al-Qadi that his divorce does not take effect, just as if he swore that he would certainly ascend to the sky or fly, he would not be in breach of his oath. The correct view is that he is in breach; for the one who swears to perform the impossible is a liar and in breach. Allah the Almighty says: {They swore by Allah their strongest oaths that Allah would not resurrect those who die.} up to His saying: {So that those who disbelieved might know that they were liars} (119). If one swears to perform a conceivable act and it becomes impossible, he is in breach by that; thus, it is all the more appropriate that he be in breach by the fact that it was impossible at the time of his oath.

Section: If he swears, "I will not drink from this river," then he scoops from it and drinks, he is in breach. If he swears, "I will not drink from this vessel," then he pours from it into another vessel and drinks, and the vessel was large such that it is not possible to drink directly from it, he is also in breach. If drinking from it was possible, he is not in breach; because the small vessel is an instrument for drinking, so his oath is diverted to drinking from it, unlike the river and the large vessel, for his oath is not diverted to anything except drinking from its water. If he swears he will not drink from Barada, and he drinks from a river that branches from it, he is not in breach. If he swears he will not drink from the water of Barada, and he drinks from a river that branches from it, he is in breach. Al-Qadi mentioned something similar to this; because Barada is a name for a specific place, so if he goes beyond it (120) to another place and drinks from it, he has not drunk from Barada. And when his oath was regarding its water, its water is its water wherever it may be and wherever it is transported. Likewise (121) if he swears he will not eat from the dates of Basra, and he eats them elsewhere, he is in breach. If he scoops from Barada with a vessel and transports it to another place and drinks it, he is in breach in both matters; because the scooping of the water is from Barada. If he swears he will not drink from the water of the Euphrates (al-Furat), he is not in breach except by drinking from the water of the river (122) in the Euphrates. If he swears he will not drink from fresh (furat) water, he is in breach by drinking from any fresh water; because when he defines it with the definite article 'al', it is directed to the well-known river, and when he uses it indefinitely, it becomes general, so it includes everything that is called 'furat' (fresh), and every fresh thing is 'furat'. Allah the Almighty says: {And We gave you water to drink that is fresh} (123). And He says: {And the two seas are not alike; this is fresh, sweet to drink, and this is salty and bitter} (124). Whenever he intends with his oath (125) the other possibility, it is directed to it, and that is accepted from him; because it is plausible, and his intention is not far-fetched.

Section: If he swears, "I will not insult him, and I will not speak to him in the mosque," and he does that (126) in the mosque while the person against whom the oath is made is elsewhere, he is in breach. If he does it (127) outside the mosque while the person against whom the oath is made is in the mosque, he is not in breach. If he swears, "I will not strike him, nor wound him, nor kill him in the mosque," and he does so, while the swearer is in the mosque and the one against whom the oath is made is elsewhere, he is not in breach. If the swearer is outside the mosque and the one against whom the oath is made is in the mosque, he is in breach; because insulting and speaking is speech that the speaker performs independently, so the presence of the one insulted is not considered in it, so it occurs from the insulter in the mosque even if the one insulted is not there, and speaking is speech; it is like insulting. The rest of the mentioned actions are transitive actions whose locus is the one struck, killed, and wounded, so if their locus is outside the mosque, the action is outside of it, so the locus of the object of the action is considered. If he swears, "I will certainly kill him on Friday," and he wounds him on Thursday, and he dies on Friday. Al-Qadi said: He is not in breach. If he wounds him on Friday and he dies on Saturday, he said: He is in breach; because he is not considered 'killed' until he dies, so his day of death is considered, not the day of his striking. It is also valid that the ruling be the opposite in the two matters, so the day of his wounding is considered, not the day of his death; because killing is the action of the killer, and for this reason, giving the command for it and prohibiting it is valid. Allah the Almighty says: {So kill...