carried into it. Our view is that the action is not from him, and an action is not attributed to other than its agent except metaphorically, and speech, when left unqualified, refers to its literal meaning when possible. As for the food, the occurrence of the action from it literally is impossible, so it is necessary to interpret the "entering" within it metaphorically. As for if he arrives by himself due to coercion, then according to the opinion of al-Khiraqi, he does not break the oath; this is one of the two views held by the companions of al-Shafi'i. Abu Bakr said: He breaks the oath, and he narrated this from Ahmad, because the action is truly from him and is attributed to him. Allah the Almighty said: "And those who disbelieved will be driven to Hell in groups, until, when they reach it" (Surah Al-Zumar, 71). It is valid to command someone under coercion to perform an action; Allah the Almighty said: "Enter the gates of Hell" (Surah Al-Zumar, 72). Were it not for the fact that the action is realized from him, the command to him would not be valid. The reasoning for the first view is that, through coercion, his choice is removed; thus, if the attribute is found from him, it is like the occurrence of divorce from him while coerced, and this is where he uses it without restriction. If he has an intention, his speech is interpreted according to it and is restricted by it.

Section: If he arrives voluntarily, the one who swore the oath breaks it, regardless of whether the arriving person knew of the oath or was ignorant of it. Abu Bakr al-Khallal said: The divorce occurs, according to one unanimous opinion. Abu Abdullah ibn Hamid said: If the arriving person is someone who is not deterred from arriving by his oath, such as a ruler, a pilgrim, or a stranger, the one who swore the oath breaks it, and neither his knowledge nor his ignorance is considered. If he is someone who is deterred by the oath from arriving, such as a relative of theirs, or a relative of one of them, or a servant of one of them, and he is ignorant of the oath or has forgotten it, then the ruling for him is as if he had sworn an oath regarding his own action, and he performed it while forgetting or being ignorant, and there are two narrations regarding that, so it is the same here. This is because if he is not someone whom the oath would deter, it was a suspension of divorce upon a condition and was not an oath, thus it resembles the case where he suspends it upon the rising of the sun. If he is someone who would be deterred, it is an oath, and he is excused