all of them together, and it differs from an oath sworn by Allah the Almighty, for its requirement is the prevention of the action subject to the oath, so the violation occurs by doing part of it. Some of our companions have combined them both regarding the violation by doing part of it, because the purpose of the oath as a whole to abandon something is to prevent its performance, so they are equivalent. As for if he says, "If you both menstruate, you are both divorced," that is not an oath; for it is not intended by this to prevent anything nor to urge it; it is merely a conditional [statement], and it does not contain the meaning of an oath.

Section: And whoever swears to the performance of two things, saying, "By Allah, I will not eat bread and meat, nor butter and dates, nor will I enter these two houses, nor will I disobey Allah in these two lands, nor will I keep these two wives," then he does part of what he swore upon, such as if he ate one of them, entered one of the two houses, disobeyed Allah in one of the two lands, or kept one of the two wives—will he violate his oath? This is derived into two opinions. If he intended by his oath not to combine them both, or to prevent each one of them individually, his oath is according to what he intended. And if he says, "By Allah, I will not eat fish and drink milk" (using the accusative case [fatḥa] for the second noun), and he is an expert in the Arabic language, he does not violate the oath except by combining both; for the "wa" here is in the sense of "along with," and therefore it necessitated the accusative case. If he had conjoined one to the other by repeating the "la" (nor/not), it would have necessitated the prohibition of each one of them individually, and he would violate it by doing either.

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...