roasted meat, but not other things like roasted eggs and the like. This is also the view of the scholars of reason (Ashab al-Ra'y). Abu Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir said: He violates his oath by eating everything that is roasted, because it is roast (shiwa'). Our evidence is that this is not called roast in common custom, so he does not violate his oath by eating it, just like cooked food. As for their statement that it is roast in reality, we say: But it is not called roast in common custom, and the apparent meaning is that he only intended what is called roast in their custom.

If one swears not to enter a house (bayt), but enters a mosque or a public bath (hammam), he violates his oath. Ahmad explicitly stated this. It is also possible that he does not violate it, which is the opinion of the majority of jurists, because it is not called a house in common custom, so it resembles the preceding types. The first is the school's doctrine, because both are houses in reality, and God has called mosques houses, saying: "In houses which God has ordered to be raised." And He said: "Indeed, the first house established for mankind was that at Bakkah, blessed." It was also narrated in a hadith: "The mosque is the house of every pious person." It was also narrated in a report: "The worst of houses is the public bath." Since it is a house in reality and the Lawgiver calls it a house, he violates his oath by entering it, like a person's house. We do not concede that it is among the [previous] types, for this is called a house in common custom, unlike the one preceding it.

If he enters a house made of wool or otherwise, he violates his oath, whether the one who swore is a city dweller or a bedouin, for the name of the house applies to it in reality and custom. God Almighty says: "And God has made for you from your homes a place of rest and made for you from the hides of animals houses which you find light on the day of your departure." As for that which is not called a house in common custom, like a tent, it is more appropriate that one who does not call it a house does not violate his oath by entering it, because his oath does not extend to it. If he enters the vestibule (dihliz) of a house or its portico (suffa), he does not violate his oath. This is the opinion of some of the followers of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He violates his oath, because the entire abode is a house. Our evidence is that this is not called a house, and that is why it is said: "He has not entered the house, he only stood in the courtyard."