What is the ruling on breaking an oath not to use a slave if the oath-taker remains silent while the slave serves him?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Expiations
Primary text
If a person swears an oath not to use his own slave, and the slave serves him while the oath-taker neither commands nor forbids it, the oath-taker has broken his oath (Hanth). This is the position held by Abu Hanifa. The justification is that the service rendered by one's own slave is considered an act of worship (*Ibadah*) based on the master's inherent right to that service, meaning the oath essentially translates to 'I shall not prevent your service [to me]'. Since the master did not forbid the service, the condition of the oath is violated.
Supporting text
Abu al-Khattab holds that the oath is broken in both cases (one's own slave and another's slave). This is because allowing the service is considered 'using' (*Istikhdam*), as evidenced by the common phrasing that so-and-so 'uses' his slave when he serves, even without command. Furthermore, whatever breaks the oath concerning his own slave must also break it concerning another's slave, similar to other matters.