and [the same for] manumission (1). This is the view of Ata, Amr ibn Dinar, Ibn Abi Najih, and Ishaq; they said: There is no breach for the forgetful person in divorce or anything else. This is also the manifest view of the school of al-Shafi'i; based on the saying of the Almighty: {And there is no sin upon you for that in which you erred, but [only for] what your hearts intended} (2). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Allah has forgiven my nation for error, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do" (3). Furthermore, he did not intend to violate it, so no breach occurred (4), just like the sleeper or the insane person. Furthermore, it is one of the two aspects of an oath, so intention is considered in it, just as it is at the commencement of the oath. There is another narration from Ahmad that he breaches the oath in all cases and is liable for the atonement in a vow requiring it. This is the view of Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, al-Zuhri, Qatadah, Rabi'ah, Malik, the proponents of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and the second view of al-Shafi'i; because he performed that which he swore against while intending to perform it, thus the breach becomes obligatory upon him, just like the one who remembers, and just as if the oath were related to divorce and manumission. Our argument for the fact that atonement is not obligatory in a vow requiring it has already been mentioned, and because it is only obligatory to remove the sin, and there is no sin upon the forgetful person. As for divorce and manumission, it is attached to a condition, so it takes effect upon the existence of its condition without intent, just as if he said: "You are divorced if the sun rises" or "if the pilgrim arrives."

Section: And if he performs it without knowing of the object of the oath, such as a man who swears not to speak to so-and-so, then greets him thinking he is a stranger, or swears that he will not leave his debtor until he receives his due, and he is given an amount of his due, so he leaves, thinking that he has fulfilled his oath, only to find that what he took was counterfeit, or he swears: "I did not sell a garment to Zayd," and Zayd designates someone to deliver it to the one who sells it, and he delivers it to the one who swore, who then sells it without his knowledge, then he is like the forgetful person; because he did not intend to violate it, he is similar to the forgetful person.

Section: The one compelled to perform an act is divided into two categories; [the first is being forced into it] (6), such as one who swears not to enter a house, then is carried and taken inside, or not to exit it, then is carried out, or is pushed without his choice, and he is unable to refrain. Such a person does not breach his oath according to the opinion of most of them. This is also the position of the proponents of opinion. Malik said: If he enters while bound, he does not breach his oath. That is because he did not perform the entering or exiting, so he did not breach, just as if it had not occurred.