Section: If he calls out to him in a way that he could hear, but he does not hear due to his being occupied or inattentive, he violates his oath. Ahmad stated this explicitly, for he was asked about a man who swore not to speak to a certain person, then he called out to him, but the person sworn against did not hear. He said: "He violates his oath," because he intended to speak to him, and this is considered speaking; it is said: "I spoke to him, but he did not hear." If he [the person] is dead, absent, unconscious, or deaf, and does not know that he is speaking to him, he does not violate his oath. This is also the view of al-Shafi'i. It was narrated from Abu Bakr that he violates his oath by calling out to a deceased person, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) spoke to them and called out to them, saying: "You are not more able to hear what I say than they are." Our evidence is the saying of God Almighty: {But you cannot make hear those in the graves} [Qur'an 35:22]. Furthermore, his senses have ceased and his soul has departed, so he is even further from hearing than one who is absent and far away, for in the case of the latter, the senses still remain. That which the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) did was an honor for them and a matter specific to him, and thus others are not to be compared to him.

Section: If he greets the person sworn against, he violates his oath, because the greeting (salam) is speech by which prayer is invalidated. If he greets a group among whom he is present, or speaks to them, and he intends the person sworn against along with the group, he violates his oath, because he has spoken to him. If he intends them to the exclusion of him, he does not violate his oath. Al-Qadi said: "He does not violate his oath, in one single narration." This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because a general expression permits specification, so if he intends him by it, it is according to what he intended. If he is absolute (without specifying intent), he violates his oath. This is the view of al-Hasan, Abu 'Ubayd, Malik, and Abu Hanifa, because he is speaking to all of them; for the requirement of the expression is generality, so it is carried upon its requirement when left absolute. Al-Qadi said: "There are two narrations regarding it." For al-Shafi'i, there are two opinions; one of them is that he does not violate his oath, because the general can become specific, so he does not violate the oath based on mere possibility. The first view is more appropriate, because this possibility is weaker, so acting upon the stronger view becomes determined, just as if the expression could imply a metaphor that is not well-known; it does not prevent it from being carried upon its literal meaning when left absolute. If he does not know that the person sworn against is among them, there are two narrations: one is that he does not violate his oath, because he did not intend him, so it resembles the case where he had exempted him. The second is that he violates his oath, because he did intend them with his greeting, and he is among them, and this is equivalent to one who forgets. If he is alone, and he greets him not knowing who he is, Ahmad said: "He violates his oath." It is possible that he does not violate his oath, based on the case of one who forgets or is ignorant.