in it due to forgetfulness or ignorance. It is appropriate to consider, according to this opinion, the intention of the one who swore the oath and the attendant circumstances that indicate his intent. If his intent with his oath was to prevent the arriving person from arriving, then it is an oath. If his intent was to establish it as a condition for her divorce in an unqualified manner, it is not an oath, and the arriving person's knowledge, ignorance, forgetfulness, insanity, or lucidity are all equal in it; for example, if he intends to divorce her when her Mahram (unmarriageable relative) is with her, but does not divorce her when she is alone. The attendant circumstances are to be considered; thus, whenever he attaches an oath to the arrival of a distant absentee whom he knows does not know of the oath and is not deterred by it, or to the action of a child, a madman, or someone who is not deterred by it, it is not an oath. If he attaches that to the action of someone present who knows of his oath and refrains due to it from the action upon which he attached the divorce, it is an oath. When the situation is ambiguous, the divorce should occur, because his wording requires the occurrence of divorce upon the existence of this condition generally, and it only deviates from that by evidence. So, whenever we are in doubt regarding the specifying evidence, it is obligatory to act according to the general requirement.

Section: If he says, "If you let this child leave, then you are divorced," and the child slips away without her choice and leaves, then if he intended that he should not leave, he has broken his oath. If he intended that she should not let him, he has not broken it. Ahmad explicitly stated the meaning of this; and that is because when the oath falls upon her action, he has performed the leaving without any choice on her part, so she is like the one who is coerced, since it was not possible for her to guard him or prevent him. If he intended his action, it has occurred, and he has broken the oath. If his intention is not known, his oath is interpreted as pertaining to her action, because that is what his wording encompassed; therefore, he does not break the oath unless he leaves due to her negligence in guarding him or by her choice.