{That is how We have favored some messengers over others; among them are those to whom God spoke} [Qur'an 2:253]. He also said: {O Moses, I have chosen you over the people with My messages and My speech} [Qur'an 7:144]. And He said: {And God spoke to Moses with direct speech} [Qur'an 4:164]. If sending a message were speech, Moses would have shared that with other messengers, and he would not be distinguished as the one to whom God spoke (Kalim Allah) and His confidant. Ahmad said, when Bishr al-Hafi died: "He possessed a comforting presence, yet I never spoke to him." There was correspondence between them, and among those who said that one does not violate his oath by this are: al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa, Ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Shafi'i in his 'new' school (al-jadid). Our companions argued using His saying, the Almighty: {It is not for any human that God should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sends a messenger to reveal...} [Qur'an 42:51]. He exempted the 'messenger' from 'speech,' and the principle is that the exempted item must be of the same genus as that from which it is exempted. Furthermore, because it was established for the understanding of human beings, it resembles discourse. The correct view is that this is not speech, and this exemption is from a different genus, as He said in the other verse: {Your sign is that you shall not speak to the people for three days, except by gesture} [Qur'an 3:41]. A gesture is not speech, but if he intended to stop communicating with him, or if the reason for his oath necessitated shunning him, he violates his oath for that reason. Therefore, Ahmad said: "A letter runs in the place of speech, and it may be in the status of speech in some circumstances." He did not declare it definitively to be speech; rather, he stated it is 'in its status' in some situations if the reason necessitates that. If he speaks in general terms, it is possible that he does not violate his oath, because he did not technically speak to him. It is also possible that he does violate his oath, because the primary intention of one who swears such an oath is usually to stop communicating, so his oath attaches to what is usually intended, just as we said in the preceding issue. And God knows best.