his death; because his oath was contracted from the moment he swore, and the act became impossible for him, so he violates the oath immediately, just as if he had not specified a time. It is also derived that he does not violate the oath before tomorrow, because violation is contrary to what he contracted his oath upon, so the violation cannot occur except by abandoning the act at its specified time. The fourth: The slave dies tomorrow before he is able to strike him; he is the same as if he died on that day. The fifth: The slave dies tomorrow after he had the ability to strike him, but before he struck him; he violates the oath, without disagreement. Some of the Shafi'i scholars said: He violates the oath by one opinion. Others said: There are two opinions regarding it. Our view is that he had the ability to strike him at its time, but did not strike him, so he violated the oath, just as if tomorrow had passed before he struck him. The sixth: The swearer dies tomorrow after having the ability to strike him, but he did not strike him; he violates the oath, without disagreement, due to what we have mentioned. The seventh: He struck him on his day; he does not fulfill his oath. This is the view of the Shafi'i scholars. The Qadi and the scholars of Abu Hanifa said: He fulfills his oath; because his oath was to urge him to strike him, and if he strikes him today, he has performed the object of the oath and more, so it is similar to if he swore that he would definitely settle his right to him tomorrow, and he settled it today. Our view is that he did not perform the object of the oath at its time, so he does not fulfill it, just as if he swore that he would definitely fast on Friday, and he fasted on Thursday. It differs from settling a debt, for the intention there is only to expedite it, and in settling it today there is an increase in expedition, so he does not violate it there; because it is known from his intention that he wished not to exceed tomorrow in settling it, so it became as if it were stated, since the basis of oaths is upon intention. It is not valid to analogize what is not like it to it, and the rest of the sworn matters cannot be known to have an intention of expedition from the time specified for them, so the analogy is impossible, and holding to the wording is necessary. The eighth: He struck him after his death; he does not fulfill it, because the oath refers to striking him while he is alive, feeling pain from the strike, and this ceases with death. The ninth: He struck him a strike that does not pain him; he does not fulfill it, for the reason we mentioned. The tenth: He strangled him, plucked his hair, or squeezed his leg in a way that pains him; he fulfills it; [because it is called a strike, for the reason we previously mentioned. The eleventh: The slave became insane, and he struck him; he fulfills it] because he is alive and feels pain from the strike, and if he does not strike him, he violates the oath. And if he swears not to strike him tomorrow, there are similar issues to these. Whenever the striking misses due to his death or otherwise, he does not violate the oath, because he did not strike him.