not 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. [As for if he is compelled] (7) by beating, threats of death, and the like, Abu al-Khattab said: There are two narrations regarding it, like the forgetful person. There are two views for al-Shafi'i. Malik and Abu Hanifah said: He breaches his oath; because atonement is not removed by doubt, so it becomes obligatory with compulsion and forgetfulness, like the atonement for hunting. Our argument is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Allah has forgiven my nation for error, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do" (8). Furthermore, it is a type of compulsion, so he does not breach his oath by it, just as if he were carried and unable to refrain. Also, the action is not attributed to him, so he is like someone who did not perform it. We do not concede the [obligation of] atonement for hunting; rather, it is only obligatory upon the one compelled. And Allah knows best.

1780 - Issue: He said: (And whoever swears upon something while knowing that he is lying, there is no atonement upon him, because what he has committed is too grave for atonement to be in it.)

This is the manifest view of the school, transmitted by a group from Ahmad. It is the view of the majority of scholars, among them: Ibn Mas'ud, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan, Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Thawri, al-Layth, Abu 'Ubayd, Abu Thawr, the proponents of Hadith, and the proponents of opinion among the people of Kufa. This oath is called the "lamentable oath" (yamin al-ghamus) because it plunges its taker into sin. Ibn Mas'ud said: We used to count the lamentable oath among the oaths for which there is no atonement (1). Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said: It is one of the major sins, and it is too grave to be atoned for. It is narrated from Ahmad that there is atonement for it, and this is also narrated from 'Ata, al-Zuhri, al-Hakam, and al-Batti. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, because the oath by Allah Almighty occurred from him, as well as the violation with intent, so atonement becomes obligatory upon him, as in a future-oriented oath. Our argument is that it is an oath that is not binding (ghayr mun'aqidah), so it does not necessitate atonement, like a vain oath (laghw), or that it is an oath regarding a past event, so it resembles a vain oath.