the oath applies to it. If it is said: "This is a metaphor to which the oath does not apply," we respond: When a metaphor becomes well-known, it becomes one of the conventional names, so the expression in its absolute form is directed toward it, like the word "rawiyah" (water carrier/water skin) and "dabbah" (beast of burden), and others similar to them.

Section: If he swore not to enter this house through its door, and he entered it through other than the door, he does not violate the oath; because his oath did not encompass other than the door. It is inferred that he might violate the oath if he intended by his oath to avoid the house, and the door was not the cause that instigated his oath, just as if he swore not to dwell with his wife in a house, and then he dwelt with her in a different one. If its door was moved to another place, and he entered through it, he violates the oath; because he entered it through its door. This is one of the two views held by the companions of al-Shafi'i. If he swore: "I will not enter through the door of this house," it is the same. If another door was made for it, while the first remained, and he entered through it, he violates the oath; because he entered through the door of the house. If the door was removed and installed in another house, and it is the passage, he violates the oath by entering through it, [and he does not violate the oath by entering] from the place where the door was installed; because the entry is in the passage, not through the door leaf.

Section: If he swore not to enter the house of so-and-so, and he entered a house owned by him, or a house he inhabits by way of rent, loan, or usurpation, he violates the oath. This is the opinion of Abu Thawr and the People of Opinion. Al-Shafi'i said: He does not violate the oath except by entering a house that he owns; because the attribution in reality is to the owner, as evidenced by the fact that if he said: "This house is for so-and-so," he would be acknowledging his ownership of it. And if he said: "I meant that he resides in it," it would not be accepted. Our evidence is that a house is attributed to its resident just as it is attributed to its owner. God Almighty said: {Do not turn them out of their houses}, and He meant the houses of their wives which they inhabit. And He said: {And abide in your houses}. Furthermore, attribution is for the purpose of specification, just as a man is attributed to his brother by brotherhood, to his father by sonship, to his child by fatherhood, and to his wife by marriage; the resident of the house is specified by it, so its attribution to him is valid, and it is used in common custom, so it becomes necessary that he violates the oath by entering it, just as if it were owned by him. As for their statement: "This attribution is a metaphor," this is denied; rather it is a reality, based on what we have mentioned. Even if it were a metaphor, it is well-known, so the expression encompasses it, just as if he swore: "I will not drink from the water-skin (rawiyah) of so-and-so." He would violate the oath by drinking from his water-bag (mazadah). As for acknowledgment, if he said: "This is the house of Zayd," and he interpreted his acknowledgment as referring to his residence in it, it is possible that we say: his interpretation is accepted. If we concede [that, then the context] of the acknowledgment directs it toward ownership. Likewise, if he swore: "I will not enter the residence of Zayd," he violates the oath by entering the house which he resides in. And if he said: "This residence is for Zayd," he would be acknowledging it for him. There is no disagreement on this issue, and it is analogous to our issue.

Section: If he swore not to ride the beast of so-and-so, and he rode a beast that so-and-so had rented, he violates the oath. If he rode a beast that he had borrowed, he does not violate the oath. Abu al-Khattab mentioned this. It is the same if he rode a beast that so-and-so had usurped. He distinguished this from the issue of the house; for he did not violate the oath regarding the house because of his having borrowed it, nor having usurped it, but rather he violated the oath for having resided in it, so the house was attributed to him for that reason. If he had usurped it or borrowed it without residing in it, its attribution to him would not be valid, and the one who swore would not violate the oath; so he would be just like the borrower of the beast and the usurper of it.

Section: If he swore not to enter the house of this slave, and not to ride his beast, and not to wear his garment,