that which does not cause a violation of the oath if done in prayer, does not cause it if done outside of it, such as gesturing. What they have mentioned is invalidated by the recitation and tasbih during the prayer, and the remembrance of God prescribed therein. If someone seeks permission from him, and he says: {Enter it in peace, safe} [Al-Hijr: 46], intending the Quran, he has not violated his oath; otherwise, he has.

Section: If one swears not to speak for three nights or three days, it is not permissible for him to speak during the days that are between the nights, nor during the nights that are between the days, unless he specifically intends otherwise. This is because God Almighty said: {Your sign is that you will not speak to the people for three days except by gesture}. And in another place: {Three nights in succession} [Maryam: 10]. Thus, each of the two expressions serves as an indication of both periods of time together. God Almighty said: {And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights and completed them with ten} [Al-A'raf: 142]. Thus, both night and day were included in it.

Section: Whoever swears not to act as a guarantor (kafala) for property, but then becomes a guarantor for a person’s body, our companions said: He violates his oath, because the property becomes binding upon him by his guarantee if it is impossible to hand over the person guaranteed. Qiyas (analogy) dictates that he does not violate his oath, because he did not guarantee property; the property only becomes binding upon him due to the impossibility of producing the person guaranteed, and before that, it is not binding. Furthermore, this is not called a guarantee of property, and it is valid to negate it regarding him, by saying: "He did not guarantee property, he only guaranteed the body." This is the school of Abu Hanifah and Al-Shafi'i.

Section: If one swears not to employ (istikhdam) a slave, and the slave serves him while he remains silent, neither ordering nor forbidding him, the Qadi said: If it is his own slave, he violates the oath, but if it is the slave of another, he does not violate the oath. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, because his own slave serves him as an act of worship by virtue of his entitlement over him, so the meaning of his oath is: "I will not refrain from your service." Thus, if he does not forbid him, he has not refrained from it, and so he violates the oath; the slave of another is different. Abu al-Khattab said: He violates the oath in both cases, because his allowing him to provide service constitutes employment (istikhdam), which is why it is said: "So-and-so employs his slave," if he serves him even if he did not order him. Also, because what he violates his oath with in regard to his own slave, he violates it with in regard to another, just like all other things.