Does an oath against interacting with a specifically designated person or property break if the affiliation tied to the designation changes through events like divorce or sale?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Expiations
Primary text
If a person swears an oath not to speak to 'this wife of Zayd', not to enter 'this house of Zayd', or not to interact with 'this slave of Zayd', and the wife is divorced, or the slave and house are sold, and the person then interacts with them, the oath is broken. This is the view held by Malik, Al-Shafi'i, Muhammad, and Zufar.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf rule that the oath is not broken, except in the case of the wife, because a house does not possess loyalty or enmity, and the restriction was tied to the owner's connection, which remains if ownership persists. They argue similarly for the slave, who is usually subject to similar conditions. The opposing argument is that when designation and attribution are combined in an oath, the designation prevails, and the ruling on the slave is incorrect because he is subject to loyalty and enmity, and the oath on the house is broken even if the owner sells it, provided the prohibition was absolute regarding entry.