Is intent (*ta'wil*) valid justification for breaking an oath when the action taken contradicts the apparent meaning of the oath?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Oaths
Primary text
When an oath-taker employs a metaphorical or non-apparent meaning (*ta'wil*) that contradicts the surface meaning, the validity of that intent depends on the situation of the oath-taker. If the oath-taker is oppressed (*mazlum*), such as being compelled to swear falsely to prevent injustice against themselves or others, their intent is accepted. This is supported by the narration from Suwayd ibn Hanzala where the Prophet (peace be upon him) validated the utterance 'He is my brother' when used to save a captive, stating, 'You are the most righteous and truthful of them; the Muslim is the brother of the Muslim,' and stating that there is latitude concerning lying (*al-ma'arid*) in verbal expressions.
Supporting text
If the oath-taker is the oppressor (*zālim*), such as when swearing before a judge regarding a right owed, their intent is irrelevant. The oath takes effect according to the apparent wording intended by the party demanding the oath. This view is held by Al-Shafi'i and is considered to have no known dissent, based on the Hadith, 'Your oath is according to what your counterpart believes you by' (reported by Muslim and Abu Dawud) and 'The oath is according to the intent of the one demanding the oath.' This principle prevents the intent from negating the purpose of the oath, which is to deter falsehood through fear of the consequence.