Section: If he says, "By Allah, I will not speak to Sa'd, the husband of Hind," or "the master of Subayh," or "the friend of 'Amr," or "the owner of this house," or "the owner of this cloak." Or: "I will not speak to Hind, the wife of Sa'd," or "Subayh, his slave," or "'Amr, his friend." Then he divorces the wife, sells the slave, the house, or the cloak, or becomes hostile toward 'Amr, and then speaks to them, he breaks his oath. This is because whenever the name and the attribution are joined, the name prevails, due to its functioning in the manner of specification in identifying the subject.

Section: Whenever he intends by his oath, regarding [any of] these things, the person as long as he remains in that state or attribution, or while [the state] has not changed, his oath applies to what he intended, according to his statement, peace be upon him: "A person shall have only what he intended." And Allah knows best.

1844 - Issue: He said: (And if he swore not to eat dates (tamr), and he ate fresh dates (rutab), he does not break his oath.)

The sum of this is that if he does not specify the subject of the oath, and he does not intend by his oath what contradicts the apparent wording, nor does the cause redirect him from it, his oath is attached to what is covered by the name upon which he attached his oath, and it does not go beyond it. So, if he swears not to eat dates (tamr), he does not break his oath if he eats fresh dates (rutab), nor unripe dates (busr), nor green dates (balah). And if he swears not to eat fresh dates (rutab), he does not break his oath if he eats dates (tamr), nor unripe dates (busr), nor green dates (balah), nor anything else that is not called fresh dates (rutab). This is the school of Al-Shafi'i and the scholars of reasoning (Ashab al-Ra'y). We know of no disagreement regarding this.

Section: And if he swears not to eat grapes, and he eats raisins, grape syrup (dibs), vinegar, or a confection (natif); or not to speak to a young man, and he speaks to an old man; or not to buy a kid (young goat), and he buys a he-goat; or not to strike a slave, and he strikes an emancipated person, he does not break his oath, without disagreement, because the oath was attached to the quality rather than the essence, and the quality was not found. Thus, it follows the same rule as his saying: "I will not eat this date," then he eats a different one.