Ahmad, in a narration by Salih and Hanbal, regarding a man who swore against his wife that she shall not enter his brother's house, said: It does not result in divorce until she enters fully. Do you not see that 'Awf ibn Malik said: "Eat all of me or some of me"? This is because the whole is not part, and the part is not the whole. This is the choice of Abu al-Khattab and the school of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i. Likewise, for everything he swore not to perform, if he performs a part of it, he does not violate the oath until he performs the whole of it, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would extend his head to 'Aisha while he was in i'tikaf (seclusion), and she would comb his hair while she was menstruating. The one in i'tikaf is forbidden from exiting the mosque, and the menstruating woman is forbidden from remaining in it. It was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he said to Ubayy ibn Ka'b: "I will not exit the mosque until I teach you a surah," and when he moved his foot out of the mosque, he taught it to him. Furthermore, because his oath was attached to the entirety, it does not dissolve with a part, like affirmation. This disagreement is regarding the absolute oath. As for if he intended [the entirety or the part, his oath is upon what he intended]. Likewise, if an indicator accompanied it requiring one of the two matters, his oath is attached to it. If he said: "By Allah, I will not drink from this river or this pond," his oath is attached to a part of it as a single opinion, because performing the whole is impossible, so his oath does not direct itself towards it. Likewise, if he said: "By Allah, I will not eat bread, nor drink water," and what is similar to it, from that which he attached to a generic noun or attached to a collective noun, such as Muslims, polytheists, the poor, and the needy, then he violates the oath by [performing it with] a part. Abu Hanifah held this view. The companions of al-Shafi'i agreed with it regarding a generic noun, but not a collective noun. If he attached it to a possessed generic noun, such as "the water of the river," he also violates the oath by performing it with a part, if it is something the whole of which cannot be consumed. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and one of the two opinions of the companions of al-Shafi'i; the other is that he does not violate the oath because his wording requires the entirety, so it does not attach to a part of it, like the water of a waterskin. As for us;