Does the non-accountability for "laghw" (unintended/vain speech) in oaths extend to all other utterances in contracts and transactions, and to words spoken in jest and anger, and what is the nature of "laghw" in general?

Scholars have differed in interpreting laghw al-yameen (idle oath). The majority of them hold that it is a person's saying, "No, by Allah," and "Yes, by Allah," in their ordinary speech and conversation, without intending it as an oath. This entails neither expiation nor sin.

Scholars have also differed regarding jesting (hazl) in all other legal rulings, such as sale, marriage, and divorce, presenting three opinions: 1. It is never binding. 2. It is always binding. 3. Distinguishing between sale and other matters: It is binding in marriage and divorce, but not in sale.

The term laghw is applied to anything false or devoid of good, just as it is applied to polytheism (shirk (definition)) and sins.

There is no difference between seriousness (jid) and jesting, nor between joking if it involves lying, backbiting, or slander. However, if anger reaches the point of losing consciousness and mental faculty, then the person is not held accountable for what they utter in that state.

As for uttering words whose true meaning is not intended, if done through tawriya (ambiguity/double entendre), there is no harm in it, for tawriya provides a leeway from lying.

If a person's tongue slips and they utter something unintentionally, or they say it out of forgetfulness (sahw), there is no blame upon them.

Accountability is a consequence of the convergence of intention and verbal or actual indication. Allah has forgiven this Ummah for what they thought to themselves, as long as they did not act upon it or speak of it. He has also forgiven them for what they spoke mistakenly, forgetfully, under duulsion, or out of ignorance, provided they did not intend the meaning of what they said or purposefully meant it.