not be a swearer by it. Even if the establishment of its ruling were assumed, only the least that the term (46) encompasses would be binding, which is a type of oath, and not every oath necessitates expiation; thus, nothing is binding upon him. The argument for the first view is that it is a metonymy for an oath, and he intended the oath by it, so it becomes an oath, like the explicit [formula].

Section: If he swears to abandon something or declares it forbidden, it does not become forbidden. Abu Hanifah said: It becomes forbidden, due to the saying of Allah the Almighty: {Why do you forbid that which Allah has made lawful for you?} (47). And His saying: {Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths} (48). Also, because breaking an oath involves violating the sanctity of the Exalted Name (49), it becomes forbidden. Furthermore, because if he declares it forbidden, he has declared the lawful forbidden, so it becomes forbidden, just as if he were to declare his wife forbidden. Our argument is that if he intends to expiate, he is permitted to do the thing he swore against; the permissibility of doing it while it is simultaneously considered forbidden is a contradiction and an opposition. The strange thing is that Abu Hanifah does not permit expiation except after the breach of the oath, yet Allah the Almighty has prescribed the dissolution of the oath. According to his opinion, it would follow that what is forbidden is [also] prescribed, or is a necessity of what is prescribed, because he cannot reach the dissolution except by doing the thing he swore against, which he considers forbidden—and this is not permissible. Also, because if it were forbidden, it would be obligatory to perform the expiation before it (50), like Zihar. Furthermore, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If you swear an oath and then see that something else is better than it, then do that which is better, and make expiation for your oath" (51). He commanded him to do the thing he swore against, and if it were forbidden, he would not have commanded (52) it. He also called it "better," and that which is forbidden is not better. As for the verse, he only intended by it his statement: "It is forbidden upon me," or preventing himself from it, and that is called prohibition. Allah the Almighty said: {They allow it one year and forbid it another year} (53). And He said: {And they forbade what Allah had provided for them} (54). The prohibition is not established therein in reality or in religious law.