they say: “In this case, he does not break his oath, because its designation no longer applies and its constituent parts no longer remain.”

If its qualities change and its designation no longer applies—as when someone swears, “I will not speak to this boy,” and he becomes an old man, or, “I will not eat the meat of this lamb,” and it becomes a ram—then, according to the majority of them, he breaks his oath. This is the position of Abū Hanīfa and Mālik, and the predominant position in Ahmad’s school; it is also one of the two views within al-Shāfiʿī’s school.

The same applies if someone swears, “I will not eat any of these fresh dates,” and they become dried dates.

They disagreed over the case of someone who eats products made from fresh dates or grapes, such as syrup and vinegar. Some held that he breaks his oath. This is Mālik’s position and the predominant position in Ahmad’s school. Others held that he does not break his oath, which is the position of Abū Hanīfa and al-Shāfiʿī.

A group of Ahmad’s followers said: “This is because the designation and form of the object to which the oath relates have ceased to exist, so he does not break his oath, just as in the case of the egg and the chick.”

Those holding the first position replied: “The object itself remains, so this is like the case of the lamb. It differs from an egg becoming a chick, for its constituent parts have undergone transformation and become another entity; the original entity no longer remains.”

These questions nevertheless involve further discussion that is beyond our present scope. Some of them consider the oath to remain binding even when the object itself has undergone transformation through change, while others consider the oath no longer binding as soon as the designation ceases to apply.