Is an oath broken if a person swears not to enter a house while already residing within it?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Expiations
Primary text
There are two perspectives regarding an oath sworn by a person not to enter a specific dwelling while currently being inside it. The first view holds that the oath is broken because sustaining residence in a property, even if already present, is treated similarly to initiating entry under prohibition. Imam Ahmad expressed apprehension that a man swearing not to enter a house with his wife while both are already inside might have broken his oath. This ruling is favored by those asserting that maintaining presence equates to commencing a prohibited act.
Supporting text
The second view maintains that the oath is not broken. This position is preferred by Abu Al-Khattab and the companions of Al-Ra'y (scholars of opinion). The reasoning is that the term 'entry' (*dukhul*) is not linguistically used for continuation or sustaining presence; one does not say, 'I have been entering it for a month.' Furthermore, entry signifies the transition from outside to inside, which is absent during mere ongoing residence. It is also suggested that those who rule that the oath is broken base their ruling on the apparent intent of the oath-taker, which is to abandon or separate from the dwelling; remaining present contradicts this intent, making it analogous to swearing off continued habitation.