Ruling on Double Entendres
Question

                What is the ruling on double entendres?
Praise be to Allah.
    
    Double entendre refers to when a person means something other than the 
    apparent meaning of the words. It is permissible subject to two conditions: 
     

    1 – 
    that the word may be interpreted in that fashion

    2 – 
    that there be no wrongdoing involved. 

    If a 
    man says, “I only sleep on a watd” – a watd is a piece of wood placed on the 
    wall for things to be hung from (i.e., a hook), but the man says that what 
    he meant by watd was a mountain, this is an acceptable kind of double 
    entendre, because the word watd may also mean a mountain, and there is no 
    wrong being done to anyone in this case. 

    
    Similarly if a man says, “I only sleep under the saqaf (lit. roof),” then he 
    sleeps on the roof, and says that what he meant by saqaf was the sky, this 
    is also acceptable, because the sky is called saqaf in the verse where Allah 
    says (interpretation of the meaning): 

    “And 
    We have made the heaven a roof [saqafan], safe and well-guarded” [21:32] 
But if 
    you use double entendres in order to wrong someone, that is not permitted, 
    such as if a person deprives another of something that is his due, then he 
    goes to the qaadi (judge), but the one who was wronged has no proof, so the 
    qaadi asks the one who took away his right to swear that he does not have 
    anything that belongs to the claimant, and he swears saying, “Wallaahi maa 
    lahu ‘indi shay’,” and the qaadi rules in his favour, then some of the 
    people speak to him and told him that his oath was a false oath (yameen 
    ghamoos) which may doom him to Hell. It says in the hadeeth, “Whoever swears 
    an oath when asked to do so  in order to deprive a Muslim man of his rights 
    unlawfully, will meet Allah when He is angry with him.” The person who swore 
    this oath said, “I did not mean to deny, I meant to affirm, and what I meant 
    by saying “maa lahu” was “Of Whose I have something.” [i.e., I have 
    something that belongs to Allah – because all things belong to Allah]. Even 
    though what he said may mean this, his intention was to wrong another and 
    not give him his due, so it is not permissible. Hence it says in the hadeeth: 
    “Your oath is according to what your companion believes.” Twisting the 
    meaning will not avail you anything before Allah, and you are now swearing a 
    false oath.

    If a 
    man accuses his wife of betraying him and she is innocent of that and he 
    swears an oath and says, “By Allah she is my sister,” and says that he meant 
    she is his sister in Islam, then this is a valid statement, because she is 
    his sister in Islam and she has been falsely accused. 

    Majmoo’ Duroos wa Fataawa al-Haram al-Makki by Shaykh Ibn 
    ‘Uthaymeen.