Chapter on Equivocation in Oaths

Its meaning is that a person intends by his wording something contrary to its apparent meaning. Thus, if he swears an oath and uses equivocation in it, it benefits him unless he is a wrongdoer. If a wrongdoer makes him swear, “Zayd has nothing with you,” while he has a deposit belonging to Zayd in one place and intends another place, or intends mā in the sense of “that which,” …

Equivocation in an oath is explained by his words: “Its meaning is that a person intends by his wording something contrary to its apparent meaning.” Equivocation comes from the speaker himself; hence he says, “that he intends by his wording.” Thus, he interprets his own words in a manner contrary to what appears to us.

We must first ask: what is the ruling on equivocation? Is it permissible, obligatory, or prohibited? The author clarified this when he said:

“Thus, if he swears an oath and uses equivocation in it, it benefits him unless he is a wrongdoer.” This is the position of the school: if he swears an oath and uses equivocation in it, it benefits him unless he is a wrongdoer. If he is a wrongdoer, equivocation does not benefit him, because the wrongdoer’s oath is understood according to the meaning by which his counterpart would deem him truthful.

A person using equivocation falls into one of three categories: he is either wronged, a wrongdoer, or neither a wrongdoer nor wronged. If he is wronged, equivocation is permissible for him by consensus. If he is a wrongdoer, equivocation is prohibited for him by consensus. If he is neither a wrongdoer nor wronged, there is disagreement concerning it; the well-known position of the school is that equivocation is permissible.

The second view is that equivocation is not permissible. This was the view preferred by Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, because its consequences are not praiseworthy; for if people uncover