sin and then into the Fire. For one who swears falsely and knowingly about a past matter—may Allah protect us—has combined two matters: lying, which is among the traits of the hypocrites, and treating an oath by Allah lightly, which is among the traits of the Jews. For the Jews are those who disparage their Lord and ascribe defects to Him. Thus, his oath is an engulfing oath.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that this applies whether or not such an oath involves wrongfully taking a Muslim’s property. An oath that involves wrongfully taking a Muslim’s property is one sworn by a person in a legal claim before a judge. For example, a man claims one hundred riyals from him, and he says, “I owe you nothing.” The judge then asks the claimant, “Do you have evidence?” He replies, “No.” The judge then asks the defendant, “Will you swear an oath?” If he swears, saying, “By Allah, he has no claim against me,” while the claim is in fact valid, then this oath is an engulfing oath, because he has sworn falsely and knowingly concerning a past matter, thereby wrongfully taking a Muslim’s property.

Wrongfully taking property may also occur when someone claims something to which he has no right and produces a witness. If he produces one witness, his oath completes the evidence, and judgement is issued in his favour. His oath is then an engulfing oath, because through it he has wrongfully taken a Muslim’s property by claiming what was not his. This is more serious than the preceding case, because it entails both lying in the oath and unlawfully consuming a Muslim’s property.

Thus, the engulfing oath is that by which a person knowingly swears falsely concerning a past act in order to wrongfully take a Muslim’s property. This is the correct view, because there is no evidence for the first view.

An unintentional oath is that which slips from his tongue without intention, such as his saying, “No, by Allah,” or “Yes, by Allah.” Likewise, if he makes an oath believing himself to be truthful, but it later becomes clear that the matter was otherwise, then there is no expiation in any of these cases.

His statement, “An unintentional oath is that which slips from his tongue without intention”: laghw (an unintentional utterance) is the subject, and “that which” is its predicate. Therefore, it is appropriate here for him to say