“What is lawful for me is forbidden to me,” yet in his heart he exempts his wife, nothing becomes binding on him—unless the oath is made in favor of a creditor. If he does utter it for a creditor, Mālik has two opinions: according to one, the silent exemption of his wife avails him nothing and she in fact becomes forbidden; according to the other, the inner exemption is effective and the oath does not include her, just as would be the case had the oath been made for someone other than a creditor.
Whoever declares food, drink, his own bond-woman, or anything else that Allah has made lawful to be forbidden to himself, that declaration carries no legal weight and no expiation is due. However, if in declaring his bond-woman forbidden he intends thereby to manumit her, she becomes free and conjugal relations with her are barred to him unless he contracts a fresh marriage with her after her emancipation. If a man says to his wife, “You are forbidden,” that statement is operative: she is separated from him by a triple divorce, and, according to Mālik, no consideration is given to any contrary intention.
One who is uncertain whether he has broken an oath sworn by Allah is counseled, as a matter of caution, to perform the expiation for an oath, although Mālik does not deem it strictly obligatory. If someone swears not to speak to a particular man, then offers him the greeting of peace deliberately or inadvertently, or greets a group in which that man is present, he has broken his oath in every such case according to Mālik. He does not break it, however, if he sends a messenger to convey his words, or if he greets him while engaged in prayer.
Whoever says, “If I speak to so-and-so, I am in a state of iḥrām for an ʿumrah,” and then does speak to him, must enter iḥrām for the ʿumrah immediately; postponement is not permitted. If he says, “If I speak to so-and-so, I am in iḥrām for a ḥajj,” and then speaks to him, the ḥajj becomes binding, yet he may delay entering iḥrām until the months of ḥajj if the conversation occurred beforehand. According to Ibn al-Qāsim, there is no practical difference between saying “I am muḥrim” and “I will enter iḥrām.”
Should a person swear not to eat two particular items and then consume one of them, he is perjured in Mālik’s view—unless he had intended to avoid them only when taken together. Likewise, whoever swears not to perform a single specified act and then carries out part of it is deemed perjured according to the well-known position of Mālik. Ibn al-Jallāb, however, transmits an alternative opinion within the Mālikī school: he is not considered perjured until he has carried out the act in its entirety.