And she went out for the visitation of a sick person, then busied herself with something else; or he said, "If you go out to other than the bathhouse without my permission, you are divorced," and she went out to the bathhouse but then diverted to somewhere else. There are two viewpoints regarding this: One of them is that he does not break his oath, because she did not go out for other than the visitation of a sick person, nor to other than the bathhouse. This is the school of Al-Shafi'i. The second is that he breaks his oath, because his intent in the majority of cases is that she not go to other than the bathhouse and the visitation of a sick person, and she has gone to other than these two. Also, the ruling of continuation is the ruling of initiation; for this reason, if he swore not to enter a house while he is already inside it, and he remained in it, he would break his oath according to one of the two viewpoints. If she intended by her exit the bathhouse and something else, or the visitation and something else, he breaks his oath, because she went out for something other than them. If he said, "If you go out, not for the visitation of a sick person, you are divorced," and she went out for the visitation of a sick person and something else, she is not divorced, because she went out for the visitation of a sick person, even if she intended something else along with it. If he said, "If you go out without my permission, you are divorced," then he gave her permission and she did not know, so she went out, there are two viewpoints: one of them is that she is divorced. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. The second is that he does not break his oath, which is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i and Abu Yusuf, because she went out after the existence of permission from his side, so he does not break his oath, just as if she had known of it. Furthermore, if he removed his agent, he is removed even if he does not know of the removal; likewise, she becomes one who has been given permission even if she does not know. The argument for the first [viewpoint] is that permission is notification (i'lam), as it is said in His saying: "I have informed you all equally" (Surah al-Anbiya: 109), meaning: I have informed you, and we are now equal in knowledge. "And a proclamation from Allah and His Messenger" (Surah al-Tawbah: 3), meaning: a notification. "So be notified of a war from Allah and His Messenger" (Surah al-Baqarah: 279), meaning: so know of it. Its derivation is from the ear (udhun), meaning: I have placed it in your ear and informed you of it. With the absence of knowledge, it is not a notification, and therefore not permission. Furthermore, the permission of the Lawgiver in His commands and prohibitions is not established except after knowledge of them; likewise is the permission of a human. Based on this, the existence of permission from his side is denied [without knowledge].