What is the ruling regarding an oath not to use another person's 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 another person's slave, and the slave serves him while the oath-taker remains silent, the oath-taker has not broken his oath (Hanth). This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. The reasoning is that service from another's slave is not an act stemming from the master's inherent right, thus the oath is not violated by silent acceptance.
Supporting text
Abu al-Khattab maintains that the oath is broken, arguing that permitting the service constitutes 'using' and the ruling should be consistent across both scenarios involving one's own slave and another's slave. Al-Shafi'i states that the oath is not broken in either scenario (his own slave or another's slave) because the oath concerns the actor's own actions, and one does not break an oath based on the action of another person, just as in all other actions.