His statement, “Or if he makes his wife swear, ‘You have not stolen anything from me,’ and she betrays his trust regarding a deposit, but he did not intend that matter, then he has not broken his oath in any of these cases”: A man makes his wife swear, saying, “Swear that you do not steal anything from me.” She then says, “By Allah, I do not steal anything from you,” although she has betrayed his trust with respect to a deposit, whether before or after this oath. For example, he may at some time have entrusted her with an item for safekeeping and she then denied it. This is not regarded as theft, even though she is wrongfully betraying his trust in doing so.

Evidence for the permissibility of equivocation is found in the account of Job, peace be upon him, for it contains an element of equivocation. Allah, Exalted is He, says:

“And take in your hand a bundle [of grass] and strike with it, and do not break your oath.” [Sad 38:44]

He had sworn that he would strike his wife with one hundred lashes. Yet a bundle containing one hundred stalks is not ordinarily considered to be one hundred lashes; however, the wording allows for this interpretation. This is one aspect of the evidence.

Another is the general purport of the Messenger’s statement, peace and blessings be upon him: “Actions are judged only by intentions, and every person shall have only what he intended.” (1) Likewise, there is the hadith of Rukānah, may Allah be pleased with him—if authentic—in which he said, “By Allah, I intended only one [divorce].” (2) Likewise, the account of Abraham, peace be upon him, with the tyrant contains equivocation. The evidences are numerous.