no rational person would say that the substance of the wood remains in the ripe date itself, that the particles of semen remain in the fetus’s parts, such as its bones and eyes, or that the egg white remains in the chick itself.”

Anyone who says, “This remains in that, just as a body remains the same body when it turns black after being white, changes in part from sourness to sweetness, or becomes round after being flat,” either does not understand what he is saying or is an obstinate sophist.

Thus, the matter ultimately comes down to either an inadequate understanding or sheer obstinacy. This is the root of all misguidance: ignorance or obstinacy. Obstinacy characterizes those who have incurred Allah’s anger, while ignorance characterizes those who have gone astray.

The distinction between the transformation of an entity itself and a change in its attributes is known to ordinary people and specialists alike. The jurists have discussed this in numerous places. They discuss it in connection with an impure substance undergoing transformation, as when it becomes ash, salt, or something similar.

Likewise, in the chapter on oaths, they discuss cases in which someone swears an oath concerning an action involving a particular physical object, and that object subsequently changes.

If the change does not alter its designation, the oath remains binding, without any disagreement among them. For example, someone swears not to speak to a particular man, who then becomes ill or grows old, or swears not to eat a particular loaf of bread, which is then broken into pieces, and similar cases.

If, however, its constituent parts have undergone transformation and its designation has changed—as when someone swears, “I will not eat this egg,” and it becomes a chick, or “I will not eat this wheat,” and it becomes a growing crop—