When a husband swears an oath not to stay with his wife in a specific dwelling, under what conditions does the intent or the dwelling itself affect whether he violates the oath by staying with her elsewhere?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Expiations
Primary text
If the husband intended by his oath to express estrangement from his wife through not staying with her, and the dwelling itself had no role in provoking his oath, then mentioning the dwelling is considered irrelevant. His oath is effectively against not staying with her. Thus, if he stays with her in a different dwelling, he has stayed with her, and he violates the oath by contradicting what he swore to cease doing. This is comparable to the Bedouin asking the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) about intercourse during Ramadan; the Prophet commanded the freeing of a slave, as the mention of his family had no bearing on incurring the expiation, making the act of intercourse the cause, regardless of whether it was with family or not.
Supporting text
If the dwelling did have a bearing on his oath—such as he disliked residing in it, or a dispute arose concerning it, or his wife boasted about it to him—then he is not liable for violating the oath if he stays with her in another dwelling, because his intent was specifically to avoid intimacy in that particular dwelling. If neither a specific cause nor a specific intention exists, he is only liable upon doing what the literal wording of his oath covered, which is staying with her in that exact dwelling, as the literal wording must be followed when there is no intention or cause to redirect its meaning or add to it. The meaning of 'staying' (al-awe) is entering, so whoever swears not to stay with her and enters the dwelling with her, he violates the oath, regardless of whether their stay was brief or prolonged.