Does speaking a short phrase to complete an oath not to speak result in violating the oath (hancith)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Expiations
Primary text
The companions of our school rule that if a person swears an oath not to speak (la yukallimuhu) and then immediately follows that oath with a short piece of speech, such as saying "fa-tahaqqaqa dhalika" (then that was verified) or "fa-idhab" (then go), the oath is violated. The evidence for this is that this short utterance is speech in reality, and it occurred after the oath, thus necessitating violation, similar to if the speech had been separated. Furthermore, whatever causes violation when separated causes violation when connected. This utterance is a new speech, distinct from the first, proven by the fact that if the speech were entirely cut off, violation would occur.
Supporting text
The companions of Abu Hanifa rule that a small amount of speech does not violate the oath because it is considered a completion of the initial speech, and the oath implies refraining from initiating entirely new speech. They argue that connecting this short speech to the oath indicates an intention to initiate new speech only after this connected utterance concludes, meaning no violation occurs, analogous to a sincere intention (niyyah) to not violate the oath.