Is an oath broken if the contrary action is performed while the swearer is heedless (Nasi)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Oaths
Primary text
Generally, if a person swears not to do something and then does it while heedless (Nasi), no expiation is due. This is the reported position from Ahmad by the majority, except in cases concerning divorce (Talaq) or manumission (Itaq), where breaking the oath results in invalidation (Hanith). This is the apparent position of the Madhhab and was chosen by Al-Khallal and his companion, and it is the view of Abu Ubayd.
Supporting text
There is another narration from Ahmad that one is not held liable for breaking the oath even in cases of divorce or manumission. This view is held by Ata, Amr ibn Dinar, Ibn Abi Nujayh, and Ishaq, stating that heedlessness invalidates the oath in all matters. This aligns with the apparent position of Al-Shafi'i, based on the verse "And there is no blame upon you for what you have erred in, but [only for] what your hearts intended" (Quran 33:5), and the Hadith stating that Allah has pardoned his Ummah for error, forgetfulness, and what they were compelled to do. They reason that since the person did not intend to violate the oath, he is not held liable, similar to one who is asleep or insane. Another narration from Ahmad states that he is held liable for breaking the oath in all cases, and expiation is due in oaths requiring expiation. This view is held by Saeed ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, Al-Zuhri, Qatadah, Rabi'ah, Malik, the Companions of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and the second position of Al-Shafi'i. Their reasoning is that he performed the action he swore against, intending the action itself, thus incurring invalidation, similar to one who remembers, and similar to oaths of divorce or manumission.