because he has spoken to all of them. If he intended by the greeting only those other than himself, he does not commit a breach, because he only spoke to others while he was among them. If he did not know that he was among them, there are two narrations: one is that he commits a breach, because he spoke to them all while he was among them; the second is that he does not commit a breach, because he did not intend him. It is possible to interpret his statement regarding the breach to apply to an oath by divorce or emancipation, because one is not excused in those two regarding forgetfulness and ignorance, according to the correct position of the Madhhab, and that there is no breach in an oath requiring expiation. If the swearer is an Imam and the one sworn about is a follower (ma'mum), he does not commit a breach by the salutation of the prayer, because it is for exiting it, unless he intends by his salutation those being led, and then his ruling is the same as if he had greeted them outside of prayer. It is also possible that he does not commit a breach in any case, because this is not considered speaking, and the swearer does not intend it. If he swears not to speak to so-and-so, and speaks to a person while so-and-so is listening, intending by that to make him hear it, as in the saying:

• I mean you, listen, oh neighbor! (53)

He commits a breach. Ahmad stated this clearly, saying: If he swears not to speak to so-and-so, and speaks to a person while so-and-so is listening, intending by his speech the one sworn about, he commits a breach, because he has intended to speak to him. It has been narrated from Abu Bakrah that which indicates that he does not commit a breach, for he had sworn not to speak to his brother Ziyad, and Ziyad was determined to perform the Hajj. Abu Bakrah came and entered his palace, and took his son into his lap and said: "Your father wants to perform the Hajj and enter upon the wife of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)" for this reason, and he knew that it was not correct. Then he left, and he did not consider that he had spoken to him (54). But the first view is the correct one, because he made him hear his speech while intending him by it, so it is like if he had addressed him with it, and because the intended purpose of speaking to him has been achieved by making him hear his speech.

Section: If he writes to him or sends a messenger to him, he commits a breach, unless he intended only not to speak to him face-to-face. Ahmad explicitly stated this, and al-Khiraqi mentioned it [in] (55) another place, and that is due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: "It is not for any human that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil or by sending a messenger" (56). And because the intention in abandoning speaking to him is to shun him, and that does not occur while maintaining contact with him through messengers and letters. It is possible that he does not commit a breach unless he intends to abandon that, because this is not speaking in reality. If he swore that he would definitely speak to him, he would not fulfill his oath by that, unless he intended it, so likewise, he does not commit a breach by it. If he swore not to speak to him, and sent a person to ask the scholars about an issue or a hadith, and the messenger came and asked the one sworn about, he does not commit a breach by that. If he swore not to speak to his wife, then had intercourse with her, he does not commit a breach, unless his intention was to shun her. Ahmad said, regarding a man who said to his wife: "If I speak to you for five days, you are divorced." Is it permitted for him to have intercourse with her and not speak to her? He said: What was the beginning of this, did it displease her or anger her? If he had no intention, then he is permitted to have intercourse with her and not speak to her. If he swore not to read a book of so-and-so, and he read it to himself without moving his lips with it, he commits a breach, because this is the reading of books in people's custom, so his oath is directed to it, unless he intends the literal act of reading. Ahmad said: If he swore: "I will not read a book for so-and-so," and he opened it until he finished the end of it, but did not move his lips, if he intended not to know what is in it, he has indeed known what is in it and read it.

Section: If he said to his wife: "If I begin speaking to you, you are divorced," and she said: "If I begin speaking to you, my slave is free," his oath is invalidated, because when she addressed him with her oath, she missed the beginning with her speech, and her oath remains suspended. If he begins with speech to her, her oath is also invalidated, and if she begins with him, her slave is freed. This is how our companions mentioned it. It is possible that if he begins speaking to her (58) at another time, he commits a breach, because that is called a beginning, so his oath covers it, unless he intends to renounce the beginning at this time or in this gathering, and thus restricts it to that.