If he were to say, “Allah knows that I will not eat this,” would this count as an oath?

The answer: Yes. This is an oath—or even more emphatic than an oath—because if he says this and then eats it, his words imply something false with respect to Allah, Mighty and Majestic: namely, ignorance.

If that is absent, then one refers to specification. Thus, if he swears, “I will not wear this shirt,” then turns it into trousers, a cloak, or a turban and wears it; or if he says, “I will not speak to this boy,” and the boy becomes an old man; or, “the wife of so-and-so,” “his friend so-and-so,” or “his slave Sa'id,” and then the marriage, ownership, or friendship ceases, after which he speaks to them, …

His statement, “If that is absent, then one refers to specification”: this is the third level. If he has no intention, and there is no occasion that prompted the oath, then one refers to specification—that is, to the particular thing upon which the oath was sworn. Once he specifies something, the ruling attaches to it whatever form it may take.

His statement, “Thus, if he swears, ‘I will not wear this shirt’”: here, the oath involves specification, accomplished by pointing to it. He says, “By Allah, I will not wear this shirt,” having no particular intention and no occasion prompting the oath. In that case, the oath attaches to that very shirt.

His statement, “Then he turns it into trousers, a cloak, or a turban and wears it”: sarāwīl means “trousers” and is singular. Ibn Malik said:

Sarāwīl resembles a plural in form,
which has entailed the general prohibition [against taking it as singular].

Some say that it is the plural of sirwāl, and that the plural of sarāwīl is sarāwīlāt, as occurs in the hadith: “He must not wear trousers.” (1) Thus, if he tears the shirt apart, turns it into trousers, and wears them, he has broken his oath, because it is the very same item. The object of the oath is this very thing itself. Or if he tears it apart and makes it into a cloak