and eats from the meat of livestock, or a bird, or fish, he violates his oath.

As for when he eats from the meat of livestock, game, or birds, he violates his oath according to the statement of the general body of scholars in the metropolises. As for fish, the apparent view of the school is that he violates his oath by eating it. This was stated by Qatada, al-Thawri, Malik, and Abu Yusuf. Ibn Abi Musa said in "al-Irshad": He does not violate his oath by it unless he intended it. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr; because the absolute term 'meat' does not extend to it. If he appointed an agent to purchase meat, and he bought fish for him, it would not be binding upon him, and it is valid to negate the name from it, so he may say: 'I did not eat meat, I only ate fish.' Thus, the violation of the oath is not attached to it when used in an absolute sense, just as if he swore: 'I will not sit under a roof.' He does not violate his oath by sitting under the sky, even though God Almighty called it a 'preserved roof' because it is a metaphor; the same applies here. Our evidence is the saying of God Almighty: "And it is He who subjected the sea for you to eat from it tender meat," and He said: "And from each, you eat tender meat." Because it is from the body of an animal and is called meat, he violates his oath by eating it, like the meat of a bird, and what they mentioned is invalidated by bird meat. As for the sky, the one who swears not to sit under a roof cannot avoid sitting under it, so it is known that he did not intend it by his oath, and because the naming there is metaphorical, whereas here it is literal; because it is from the body of an animal that is suitable for eating, so the name is literal regarding it, like bird meat, as God Almighty said: "And the meat of birds from what they desire."

Section: He violates his oath by eating prohibited meat, such as the meat of carrion, swine, and usurped meat. Abu Hanifa stated this. Al-Shafi'i said in one of two opinions: He does not violate his oath by eating what is prohibited by its essence; because his oath refers to what is permissible, not what is prohibited, so he does not violate his oath by what is not permissible, just as if he swore not to sell.