Muslim

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: This hadith establishes that if a person, based on a particular intention, lawfully makes someone take an oath, then in such a case, the intention and meaning of the one who administers the oath will be considered. If the one taking the oath uses equivocation (tawriyah) or indirectness (ta‘ridh), it will not be considered. If this oath is taken for the court, then there is no difference of opinion among the jurists in this matter. If taking the oath was permissible, and the oath is taken in court, in the name of Allah or His attributes, then the intention and purpose of the judge or his deputy will be considered. And if the one taking the oath, instead of in court, takes the oath himself and intends to commit oppression or excess, then in light of the narration from Sunan Abi Dawud, it is permissible to use equivocation and indirectness.

You were informed that we were coming to you, so Wa’il bin Hujr radi Allahu anhu was captured by his enemies. Among them, Suwayd bin Ghaflah radi Allahu anhu swore an oath that he is my (religious) brother. Upon this, the enemy released him. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said to Suwayd radi Allahu anhu, “You have spoken the truth; a Muslim is the brother of a Muslim.” From this, it is established that if the one taking the oath is committing oppression or excess, then equivocation is permissible. For details, see (al-Mughni, vol. (13), pp. 497–501, issue no. (1803), Dr. Turki).

And according to Imam Nawawi, if the one taking the oath is made to swear regarding divorce or the freeing of a slave, then the intention of the one taking the oath will be considered, meaning he may use equivocation and indirectness. Imam Taqi has also stated this as the position of the Hanafis, but Allamah Sa‘idi has opposed this and said that according to the Hanafi jurists, if an oath is taken in favor of someone, then the intention of the one administering the oath will be considered, whether it is an oath by Allah, or regarding divorce or emancipation. And when someone takes an oath himself, then his own intention will be considered, and he may use interpretation and equivocation. And at the end, it is written that the discussion by Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali rahimahullah on this issue is the correct and true one. (Sharh Muslim Sa‘idi, vol. 4, p. 587)

Benefits and Issues:
Swearing oaths by way of hints, allusions, or equivocations (tawriyah) in order to resolve disputes among Muslims is in no way beneficial or permissible.
Rather, it is unlawful.
However, if there is a confrontation with disbelievers (kuffar) or oppressors (zalimun), then concession is granted.

Benefit:
This means that if someone swears an oath and makes an ambiguous statement, intending a meaning that is true, but the listener does not understand that meaning and instead understands a meaning which, according to him, is incorrect, then this will be considered a false oath.
The meaning of the oath that is considered valid is the one understood by the person administering the oath.