1834 - Issue; He said: (If he swears not to visit them both, or not to speak to them both, and he visits or speaks to one of them, he violates the oath, unless he intended that his action should not occur with both of them together).

It is possible that this issue is based on one who swears not to do something, then does part of it. This person has sworn an oath regarding speaking to and visiting two people; thus, his speaking to or visiting one of them is an action consisting of part of what he swore to avoid. The discussion on this has already passed. It is also possible to say that the estimation of his oath is: "I will not speak to this one, and I will not speak to that one." This is because for a conjoined term, it is estimated that after the conjunction particle, there is a verb and an operative factor like the operative factor that preceded the noun to which it is conjoined, similar to His statement, the Almighty: "Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters" [Surat an-Nisa: 23]. Meaning: and your daughters are forbidden to you. Thus, each one of them becomes a separate subject of the oath, and he violates it by [acting upon] either. If he intended that his action should not combine both of them, he does not violate the oath except by doing so; for he intended by his oath what it allows, so it is directed towards that. If he intended to leave off speaking to each one of them individually, he violates the oath by his action; for he bound his oath to the abandoning of that. If he said: "By Allah, I will not speak to Zayd or Amr," he violates the oath by speaking to either of them without ambiguity; for this necessitates leaving off speaking to each one of them individually. Allah the Almighty said: "And they possess for themselves neither harm nor benefit, and they possess no power over death, nor life, nor resurrection" [Surat al-Furqan: 3], meaning they do not possess any of that.

Section: If he says: "You are divorced if you speak to Zayd and Amr," or "My slave is free if you speak to Zayd and Amr," the divorce or manumission does not take effect except by speaking to both of them; because he made speaking to them together a condition for the occurrence of that, and the conditional result is not established except by the existence of the entire condition. Likewise, if he said to his two wives: "If you both menstruate, you are both divorced," the divorce does not occur to either of them except by both of them menstruating.

1835 - Issue; He said: (And if he swears not to wear a garment, then he buys a garment with it [the previous garment] or with its price, and wears it, he violates the oath if he was someone who had been favored with that garment. Similarly, if he benefited from its price).

This issue is a branch of a principle whose mention has preceded at the beginning of the chapter, which is that causes are considered in oaths, and the ruling extends with their extension. So if he was favored with a garment, and he swore not to wear it so that the favor might be severed by it, he violates the oath by benefiting from it in ways other than wearing it, such as taking its price; for it is a type of benefit from it that attaches the favor to it. If he did not intend to sever the favor, and the cause of his oath did not necessitate that, he does not violate the oath except by what his oath encompassed, which is wearing it specifically. So if he exchanged it for another garment, then wore it, or benefited from it in ways other than wearing it, or...