Hadith 3464

(1) The statement: “And sees something better than it, let him do what is better”: The author of “Al-Hidayah” said: Whoever swears to commit a sin, such as not praying, not speaking to his father, or killing someone, should break it. Ibn al-Humam (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Meaning, it is obligatory for him to break his oath and expiate it. In “Radd al-Muhtar,” it is stated: It is not far-fetched that obligation is intended by their saying “it is preferable,” and it is expressed in “Al-Majma’” as “fulfilling righteousness is preferred.” This is supported by the statements in “Al-Hidayah,” “Al-Kanz,” and others: Whoever swears to commit a sin should break it, as breaking it is obligatory, as you have learned. They intended by “should” obligation, even though it is predominantly used for other than obligation, just as you say, “It is preferable for a Muslim to pray.”

(2) The statement: “Let him do what is better and expiate his oath”: Know that expiation has three states: First, before swearing, it does not suffice by consensus. Second, after swearing and breaking, it suffices by consensus. Third, after swearing but before breaking, there is disagreement regarding advancing expiation before breaking. Shafi’i, Malik, and Ahmad permitted it, except that Shafi’i said: If one expiates by fasting before breaking, it is not permissible, but freeing a slave, feeding, or clothing is permissible, just as advancing zakat before its time is permissible, but advancing the fast of Ramadan before its time is not. Abu Hanifah and his companions said: Expiation, with all its types, does not suffice before breaking, even if one expiates before breaking and then breaks, he must expiate again. Meaning, the time of obligation for expiation in a binding oath about the future is the time of breaking, so it is not obligatory except after breaking according to us. According to Shafi’i and others, its time is the time of the oath’s existence, so expiation is obligatory upon making the oath without breaking. The conclusion is that according to them, the oath is the cause of expiation, and breaking is a condition, so expiation is permissible after the cause is realized, as expiation is attributed to the oath. Allah, the Exalted, said: That is the expiation for your oaths when you have sworn (Al-Ma’idah: 89), which is an indication of causality, as obligations are attributed to their causes in reality, such as expiation for killing, expiation for declaration of prohibition, expiation for breaking the fast, and others. According to us, breaking is the cause of the obligation of expiation, and the oath is a condition, as the oath’s binding nature is based on intending fulfillment, doing what was sworn, and being truthful in swearing, which is commanded by Shariah, as Allah, the Exalted, said: And guard your oaths (Al-Ma’idah: 89). Thus, it is not a cause for expiation, as the least degree of a cause is that it leads to the ruling and is a path to it, but the oath prevents it, so how can it be a cause? The oath does not lead to expiation. What leads to it is breaking, if it occurs after the oath, so it is the cause, and the oath is a condition for obligation. Thus, advancing expiation before breaking is not permissible, as it is advancing before the cause. The attribution mentioned in the verse is to the condition, as attribution to the condition is permissible and established in Shariah, such as expiation for pilgrimage and charity of breaking the fast. Even if we grant that the oath is the cause, there is no doubt that breaking is a condition of obligation, as it is certain that expiation is not obligatory before it, otherwise it would be obligatory by the mere oath. The conditioned does not exist before its condition, so expiation does not occur as obligatory before it, nor does it remove the obligation before or at the time of its establishment by an act that was not obligatory before. As for the hadith, it is narrated with variations: “Let him do what is better and expiate his oath,” and “Then let him expiate his oath.” In all its narrations, it is evidence for us, not for them, because if expiation were obligatory by the oath itself, he would have said: “Whoever swears an oath, let him expiate,” without addressing what the oath was about. Breaking was required when it was better, followed by expiation. Since he specified the oath where breaking is better than fulfilling with breaking and expiation, it is specific to breaking, not the oath itself, even if it is by the oath’s establishment without breaking. These narrations with the letter “waw,” which is for absolute conjunction without precedence or delay, whether expiation is mentioned before or after, do not indicate advancing expiation before breaking as evidence for us. Likewise, what is narrated in some narrations: “Let him do what is better, then expiate his oath.” What is narrated in “Abu Dawud” and “Nasa’i” is: “If you swear an oath, expiate your oath, then do what is better.” If this hadith is authentic, its interpretation is that “then” means “and” to reconcile the different narrations. The evidence for the permissibility of “then” meaning “and” is Allah’s statement: Or a poor person in dust, then he is among those who believe (Al-Balad: 16-17), meaning “and he was before that,” as righteous deeds before faith are not considered. Thus, expiation is not obligatory before breaking. If it were as they say, expiation would be obligatory first, then breaking afterward, separated by the command for it. Saying that one is free to do it before or after negates the requirement of the command and the function of “then.” In Shafi’i’s view, expiation includes all its types. After breaking, the term applies to all, but before breaking, it is restricted to some, abandoning the apparent meaning for three reasons: First, calling it expiation when there is nothing to expiate, as expiation is for covering a sin like disbelief, and there is no sin before breaking. Second, diverting the command from obligation. It is answered that this is considering that breaking violates Allah’s sanctity outwardly or the swearer’s assumption that breaking entails sin. [Summarized from “Al-Luma’at”] Al-Barmawi said: “Sinful” is a comparative form implying participation, suggesting that giving expiation entails sin due to the lack of reverence for Allah’s name in breaking, and there is a customary connection between it and expiation. [From “Al-Mirqat”]