that wording. For example, if he had given him silver coins, he may say, “By Allah, he gave me nothing,” intending a different category from what he gave him; this is valid—for instance, he intends, “He gave me nothing from among sheep.”

Know that when you say, “It is permissible,” this does not mean that the two alternatives are equally balanced. Rather, it may be obligatory or recommended. For, according to the principle mentioned previously, every permissible matter may be subject to any of the five legal rulings. Thus, when we say that equivocation is permissible for the one who has been wronged, it may in fact be obligatory. If this wrongdoer would take the deposit should it become known that it is in your possession, then equivocation becomes obligatory, because safeguarding a deposit is obligatory.

It is related that Imam Ahmad was sitting with his companions, and al-Marwadhi, or someone else, was with him. A man came asking for al-Marwadhi, so Imam Ahmad said, “Al-Marwadhi is not here,” while gesturing toward the palm of his hand, and added, “What would al-Marwadhi be doing here?!” Al-Marwadhi was not in Imam Ahmad’s palm, so he used equivocation. Yet this equivocation served an interest: Imam Ahmad did not wish to deprive him of his hadith, and perhaps Imam Ahmad knew that the man did not want him for some important matter.

But if a person is a wrongdoer, it is not permissible for him to use equivocation. An example is a man who has a dispute with someone and they go to court. The oath is then required of the defendant, and the judge says to him, “Say: ‘By Allah, I have nothing belonging to him.’” The defendant says, “By Allah, I have nothing belonging to him,” intending mā to mean “that which.” The judge will rule according to the apparent meaning—namely, that the defendant is cleared of the claim—but this will not benefit him before Allah, because he is a wrongdoer, and the wrongdoer does not