yarn, and it becomes a garment, and he wears it; or "I will not wear this cloak," and he wears it after it has become a shirt or trousers. It differs from the egg if it becomes a chick, because its parts have transformed, so it has become another essence (ayn) and its [original] essence no longer remains. Furthermore, there is no consideration for the name when the object is specified, just as if he swore: "I will not speak to this Zayd," then he changed his name; or "I will not speak to the owner of this cloak," then he spoke to him after selling it. And because when specification and something else by which it is known are joined in an oath, the ruling follows the specification, just as if it were joined with an attribution (idafa).

The third category: the attribution is changed, such as if he swears: "I will not speak to this wife of Zayd," or "this slave of his," or "I will not enter this house of his." Then he divorces the wife, or sells the slave or the house, yet he speaks to them or enters the house; he breaks his oath. Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Muhammad, and Zufar said this. Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf said: He does not break his oath except regarding the wife, because a house is neither loyal nor hostile, and the prohibition is only for the sake of its owner, so the oath is attached to it while his ownership of it remains; the same applies to the slave in most cases. Our argument is that when specification and attribution are both present in the oath, the ruling follows the specification, just as if he said: "By Allah, I will not speak to the wife of so-and-so, nor his friend." What they mentioned does not hold true regarding the slave, because he can be loyal or hostile. Furthermore, it is binding upon him regarding a house if he speaks generally and does not mention its owner, for he breaks his oath by entering it after its owner has sold it.

The fourth category: if its attribute changes in a way that removes its name and then it returns, such as a pair of scissors that broke and was repaired, a pen that broke and was sharpened, a ship that split and was reassembled, a house that was demolished and rebuilt, or a column that was taken down and put back; he breaks his oath because its parts and its name are present, so it resembles the case where it did not change.

The fifth category: if its attribute changes in a way that does not remove its name, such as meat that is roasted or cooked, a slave who is sold, or a man who falls ill; he breaks his oath by it without any disagreement that we know of, because the name upon which he attached the oath has not vanished, nor has the change removed it, so he breaks his oath by it, just as if his state had not changed.