and emancipation when the person does what he swore not to do forgetfully or out of ignorance. They say regarding divorce and emancipation: “He has broken his oath,” so divorce takes effect and the slave is emancipated. But regarding an oath by Allah, they say: “He has not broken his oath.” The correct view is that there is no difference: he has not broken his oath in either case, just as he has not broken an oath by Allah. This applies when he swears concerning his own actions.

If he swears concerning another person—that he must not do something—whether by an oath, divorce, emancipation, or a vow, that other person must be one of two types:

The first is one who customarily refrains because of his oath; that is, if he swears concerning him, he honors his oath, due to kinship, marriage, or friendship.

The second is one who does not refrain because of his oath and does not care about it. This will be discussed later.

Thus, if the other person is someone who refrains and honors his oath, and does not go against him because of kinship, marriage, or friendship—for example, if he swears that his wife must not do something, and she does it forgetfully or out of ignorance; or if he swears concerning his child, whether son or daughter, that they must not do something, and the child does it forgetfully or out of ignorance—then that person takes the same ruling as the one who swore. That is, he is treated as though he were the swearer himself. Thus, if he does it forgetfully or out of ignorance, then with an oath by Allah, he has not broken his oath; but with emancipation or divorce, he has broken his oath.

Examples:

He says to his son, “If you do such-and-such, then your mother is divorced.” If the child does it forgetfully, is she divorced? Yes, according to the established school, she is divorced.

He says to his child, “If you do such-and-such, then my slave is free.” If the child does it forgetfully, he has broken his oath and the slave is emancipated, just as if this had concerned his own action.