Is an oath taken under duress considered valid, and what is its ruling, if an employee swears an oath not to do something requested by the other partner except after informing him, after the partner withheld his identification papers and refused to return them except by means of this oath?

One whose identity papers have been confiscated and withheld until he swears an oath is considered to be under duress. Such a person is not required to offer expiation for breaking the oath (kaffarat al-yameen) if he violates it, based on the Almighty's saying: (except for him who is compelled [to renounce his faith] while his heart is at ease with faith) and the Hadith: (My Ummah is forgiven for their mistakes, forgetfulness, and that which they are compelled to do).

If informing the compeller about the content of the oath leads to corruption, then it is impermissible to inform him, even if there is no compulsion. If he then breaks his oath, expiation is required, based on the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: "Whoever swears an oath, then sees that something else is better than it, let him do that which is better and offer expiation for his oath."

If the questioning becomes severe, one may use tawriyah (equivocation), which is when the speaker intends a true meaning by his statement, containing no falsehood from his perspective, even if it appears to be a lie to the listener. It is not permissible to assist a partner in treachery or harm, based on the Almighty's saying: (And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression).