performed what he swore to do. If he swore that he would strike him ten times, he does not fulfill his oath by striking him with ten lashes all at once, without disagreement, because he did not do what his oath covered. If he swore to strike him ten blows, it is the same, except for one view held by the companions of al-Shafi'i that he does fulfill it. This is not correct, because this is one single blow with [multiple] lashes, and for this reason, it is correct to say: "I did not strike him except with a single blow." If he swore not to strike him more than a single blow, and he did this, he does not violate his oath.

Section: He does not fulfill his oath until he strikes him with a blow that causes him pain. Malik held this view as well. Al-Shafi'i said: He fulfills his oath with that which does not cause pain, because the name [of the act] covers it, so the fulfillment [of the oath] occurs with it, just as with that which causes pain. Our view is that this [act] is intended in common usage to cause pain, so he does not fulfill his oath with anything else. Likewise, in every case where striking is required in Sharia law, whether in a hadd punishment or ta'zir (discretionary punishment), a condition of it is that it causes pain, and so it is here.

1851 - Issue: He said: "And if he swore not to speak to him, and he wrote to him or sent a messenger to him, he violates his oath, unless he intended that he would not speak to him face-to-face."

The majority of our companions hold this view. It is the school of thought of Malik and al-Shafi'i. Al-Athram and others have narrated from Ahmad regarding a man who swore not to speak to a man, and he wrote him a letter, that he said: "And what was the reason for that? One looks only to the cause of his oath and why he swore it? For a letter may run in the place of speech, and it may be in the status of speech in some circumstances." This indicates that he does not violate his oath by writing, unless his intention or the cause of his oath necessitates shunning him and ceasing his communication with him. If it is not like that, he does not violate his oath by writing or by a messenger, because that is not speech in reality. For this reason, it is correct to negate it, for one says: "I did not speak to him, I only wrote to him and sent him messages." For this reason, God Almighty said: