He replied:

Praise be to Allah.

As for his saying, “If I stay with you, and if I reside with you”: if the oath-taker’s intention regarding staying—once the circumstances that prompted it have ceased—is comparable to that of someone invited to lunch who swears that he will not eat lunch, then the circumstances prompting the oath indicate that he meant that particular lunch. Hence, the correct view is that he does not break his oath by eating another lunch.

The same applies if he and his wife visited some people and he observed circumstances that made him dislike his wife remaining with them, so he swore that he would neither stay nor reside there, intending under those particular circumstances, or if the circumstances prompting the oath indicate that meaning. But if he intended a general prohibition, meaning that he would neither stay with them nor share their residence under any circumstances, then he does not break his oath by staying. If he made the oath without specifying his intention, there is a well-known disagreement among the scholars.

Where staying does constitute a breach of his oath, if by staying he meant residing, no more than one divorce takes effect, unless he intended more than that. Similarly, if someone repeatedly swears by Allah concerning a single act, only one expiation is required, according to the correct view. If staying is included within residing—as the unqualified wording apparently indicates—then this is a case of overlapping conditions. It is like saying:

“If you eat one apple.”

One view is that two divorces take effect because both conditions have been fulfilled. Another view is that only one divorce takes effect. This is the stronger view, since what is understood from these words is, “You are divorced,” whether she eats a whole apple or half of it.

Likewise, if he says, “If I stay”: staying is “a term with more than one meaning”; it can mean residing, encompassing contracts, and he would have