of his state is the intent to sever the sense of obligation, so his intention, which contradicts both the apparent meaning and the cause, is not given consideration. The first view is more correct; because the cause is only considered for its indication of the intent. If it contradicts the reality of the intent, it is not considered, and its existence is as its non-existence. Thus, nothing remains but the wording in its generality, and the intention specifies it, according to what we have explained previously.

1829- Issue: He said: 'If he swears that he will not reside in a house he is currently residing in, he must leave immediately. If he delays leaving from that moment, he violates his oath.'

The totality of this is that if a resident of a house swears that he will not reside in it, then whenever he remains in it after his oath for a duration in which he could have left, he violates the oath. This is because the continuation of residency is like its initiation regarding the occurrence of the term 'residency' upon it. Do you not see that he might say: 'I resided in this house for a month,' just as he might say: 'I wore this garment for a month'? Al-Shafi'i stated this as well. If he remains for the sake of moving his baggage and household items, he does not violate the oath; because moving can only be accomplished with one's family and property, so he needs to move those with him until he is considered to have relocated. It is narrated from Malik that if he remains for less than a day and night, he does not violate the oath; because that is a small amount of time needed for moving, so he does not violate the oath by it. From Zufar, it is narrated that he said: 'He violates the oath even if he moves immediately; because he must necessarily be a resident for a moment following his oath, so he violates it by that.' This is not correct; for what cannot be avoided is not intended by the oath, nor does it fall under it. As for when he remains for a duration in which it is possible for him to move, he violates the oath; because he has committed an act to which the term 'residency' applies, so he violates it by that, as in the case of consensus. Do you not see that if he swore he would not enter a house, and he entered into the very first part of it, he would violate the oath, even if it were small?

Section: If he remains to move his belongings and his family, he does not violate the oath. Abu Hanifa stated this as well. Al-Shafi'i said: 'He violates the oath.' Our position is that moving is only accomplished with family and property, as we shall mention, so it is not possible for him to avoid it.