river, not to the Euphrates, and by attributing it to the river, it ceases to be attributed to the Euphrates, so he does not break his oath by it, like any other than the Euphrates.

1841 - Issue; he said: "If he said: By Allah, I will not part from you until I have obtained my due from you. So he fled from him, he does not break his oath. But if he said: We shall not part ways. And he fled from him, he breaks his oath."

As for when he swears: "I will not part from you," there are ten issues regarding it. The first is that the swearer parts from him voluntarily, so he breaks his oath without disagreement, whether he [the other party] absolved him of the right or he parted from him while the right was still upon him, because he parted from him before obtaining his due from him. The second is that he parted from him under compulsion, so it is examined: if he was carried away under compulsion until he was separated from him, he does not break his oath. And if he was compelled by beating or threatening, he does not break his oath. According to a statement of Abu Bakr: he breaks his oath. Regarding the forgetful person, there is a detail we mentioned previously. The third is that the debtor fled from him without his [the swearer's] choice, so he does not break his oath. This is the position of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and the People of Reason [Ahl al-Ra'y]. It is narrated from Ahmad that he breaks his oath because the meaning of his oath is that no separation occurs between them, and it has occurred. Our argument is that he swore regarding his own action in the separation, and he did not act, nor did he act by his own choice, so he does not break his oath, just as if he had sworn, "I will not stand," and someone else stood. The fourth is that the swearer authorized him to separate, so he parted from him; the implication of the words of al-Khiraqi is that he breaks his oath. Al-Shafi'i said: He does not break his oath. The Qadi said: This is the view of al-Khiraqi because he did not perform the separation that he swore he would not perform. Our argument is that the meaning of his oath is "I will certainly stick to you." And when he parted from him with his permission, he did not persist, and it differs from the case when he flees from him, because he fled without his choice, and this is not the view of al-Khiraqi, for al-Khiraqi said: "So he fled from him," so its implication is that if he parted from him without fleeing, he breaks his oath. The fifth is that he parted from him without permission or fleeing, in a way that he was able to persist in his company, walk with him, or restrain him, yet he did not do so; the ruling in this case is like the one before it. The sixth is that he paid him the amount of his due, and he parted from him thinking that he had paid him in full, but it turned out to be counterfeit or only part of it; it is derived as an issue of breaking the oath.