and was forced to swear on pain of imprisonment and beating, his oath is not binding, and he incurs no liability for breaking it. And Allah knows best.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

A man buys vegetables, paying a levy on some purchases but not on others. Someone whom he fears came to him, so he swore an oath on pain of divorce that he would pay the levy on whatever he bought. May he purchase al-falt?

He replied:

If he was wrongfully coerced into taking the oath, it is not binding, and he incurs no liability for breaking it. If he has not been placed within the power of the tax-farmer’s agents, the latter has no claim against him, whether under Islamic law or by custom. If he has no claim against him, the man does not break his oath by withholding payment. And Allah knows best.

He was asked:

A man left a legal document in his brother’s house, and it went missing. Several days later, he asked for it but could not find it. Believing that it still existed, he swore an oath on pain of divorce that he would not enter his brother’s house until the document was given to him. What is the ruling?

He replied:

If the document had already ceased to exist before he took the oath, but he believed that it still existed, then, according to the majority of scholars, he does not break his oath, for two reasons:

First, he swore to something impossible in itself, just as if he had sworn that he would drink the water in a jug when there was no water in it. According to most scholars, such a person does not break his oath.

Second, he believed that the document still existed and could be handed over. Thus, he swore concerning something that he believed possessed a particular characteristic, but it proved to be otherwise.