Is a person bound if one swears an oath by divorce (*talaq*) and another says, 'My oath is in your oath'?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Expiations
Primary text
If a person swears an oath by divorce (*talaq*), and another says, 'My oath is in your oath,' intending that whatever is binding upon the first person's oath becomes binding upon him, the second person's oath is established. This was explicitly stated by Ahmad. When asked about a man who swore by divorce not to speak to another, and a third person said, 'And upon me is like your oath,' the answer was that the third person is bound by the same thing the first person uttered. This is because ambiguous wording (*kinayah*) applies to divorce, as well as oaths of manumission (*itiq*) and divorce by implication (*zihar*).
Supporting text
If the second person made the statement without intending anything specific, his oath is not established because ambiguous wording is inoperative without intention, as this is not explicit language. Furthermore, if the person told to say the phrase had not yet sworn, and merely intended that whatever the other person becomes bound to by an oath shall bind him if he were to swear, and subsequently the second person swears, the first person's oath is not established in cases of divorce or manumission because there must exist something to which the ambiguous wording refers, and in this scenario, there is nothing yet being referred to.