Islamic Fiqh > Oaths and vows > Vows (nudhur) > The impossible or disobedient vow and its expiation
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 12:48 AM
This section is part of the full chapter: All sections of this chapter.
… what the Sharia brings about. An example of the first: vowing to fast yesterday, or to observe a retreat of piety during a month already past; an example of the second: a woman vowing to fast the days of her menses, or vowing to fast the night, for the night is not a valid time for fasting, and menstruation conflicts with it according to the Law: purity from menstruation and postnatal bleeding is a condition for the existence of the legal fast. If one makes such a vow, it does not become binding and it obligates nothing, for its formation and its fulfillment are inconceivable; and if one swore to do it, no expiation would be due, all the more so for a vow (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/82, al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 2/317, Hashiyat Ibn 'Abidin 3/373).
According to a view transmitted from the Hanbalis, it does however oblige the expiation, like the ghamus oath (a deliberately false oath), for the vow is an oath, and what makes the one binding makes the other binding, except regarding the obligation to fulfill it when it is an act of devotion one is able to perform (al-Mughni 10/70, al-Kafi 4/421, al-Mubdi' 9/326).
The jurists differed on the ruling of one who vows an act of obedience he is unable to fulfill from the outset, or who was able to fulfill it and then became unable: what is due from him?
The Hanafis hold that actual, personal fulfillment of the thing vowed is only obligatory when it is possible; when it is impossible, fulfillment is required only by way of equivalence, through its substitute, for the substitute stands in place of the original as though it were it, like pure earth in the absence of water, or complete months in the absence of cycles. Thus, if the old man worn down by age vows fasting, his vow is valid and the compensatory payment (fidya) is due from him: unable to fulfill the fasting in actual terms, he must fulfill it by way of equivalence through its substitute, and it becomes as though he had fasted (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/91).
On this basis, the vow to slaughter one's child is also derived as valid according to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, may Allah have mercy on them both, and the slaughter of a sheep becomes obligatory; for if he is unable to achieve the act of devotion by actually slaughtering the child, he is not unable to achieve it by way of equivalence, by slaughtering its substitute, namely the sheep, as in the case of the old man worn down by age who vows fasting.
However, I found in the book al-Mu'tasar min al-Mukhtasar min Mushkil al-Athar by Imam Yusuf al-Malati the Hanafi: "If the vow concerns an act whose performance is valid according to the Law, but the person is unable to do it because of his weakness, the expiation is due from him, just as the swearer is commanded to offer the expiation when he breaks his oath. The Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"The expiation of a vow is the expiation of an oath."authentic hadith, cited earlier
according to what Ibn Abbas reported: "A man came and said: O Messenger of Allah, my sister has vowed to perform the pilgrimage on foot. He said: Allah has no need of your sister's hardship; let her perform the pilgrimage riding, and let her expiate her oath." He also reported an explanatory addition in which appears what makes the expiation obligatory: what he transmitted from Uqba ibn Amir al-Juhani: his sister had vowed to walk to the Ka'ba barefoot and unveiled; Uqba mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said: "Tell your sister to ride, to cover herself, and to fast three days." Uncovering her face was forbidden to her, and the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded her to offer the expiation because the Law forbade it to her; and this is according to the addition of some narrators among his words: "and he expiates his oath", concerning one who vows to disobey Allah. She also owes the sacrificial offering (hady) for having ridden in what she had vowed to walk. Evidence for this is that the hadith was reported through Ibn Abbas from Uqba: "He came to the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and informed him that his sister had vowed to walk to the Ka'ba barefoot, with her hair undone. The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to him: 'Tell her to ride, to cover her head, and to offer a sacrificial animal.' He imposed the offering upon her because of the walking she had vowed, which belongs to acts of obedience and of which she had become incapable, just as it is commanded for one who falls short in something of his pilgrimage; and he remained silent about the expiation concerning what she had vowed of disobedience in uncovering her head; whereas in the first hadith he imposed the expiation for what she had vowed of disobedience in uncovering her head, and remained silent about the obligation of the offering because of her inability to walk" (al-Mu'tasar min al-Mukhtasar min Mushkil al-Athar 1/262).
The Malikis say: "One who commits himself by vow to what he cannot bear, that is forbidden to him" (Mawahib al-Jalil 4/463). I have not found from them any statement setting out precisely what is due from him if he becomes unable.
Imam al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "One who vows what he is in no way able to do: the vow lapses, for he does not hold the ability to do it, and it is like what he does not own among other things" (al-Umm 7/68).
The Shafi'is: one who vows pilgrimage or umra must perform it himself if he is able; if he is unable to perform the pilgrimage or the umra himself, he appoints someone to perform the pilgrimage or the umra on his behalf, even for a fee, just as this is obligatory for him in the obligatory pilgrimage: if he is unable to perform it himself, he appoints someone to perform the pilgrimage on his behalf.
It is recommended to hasten to fulfill one's vow at the very first opportunity that presents itself, in eagerness to clear one's responsibility.
If he had the ability to perform the pilgrimage or the umra, then delayed fulfilling it and died, the pilgrimage or the umra is performed on his behalf from his wealth, because of his negligence after ability had materialized. But if he dies before attaining that ability, nothing is due from him, for he was not negligent at that point.
If he vows to perform the pilgrimage or the umra walking, walking is required of him if he is able, for he committed himself to making walking a description of the act of worship; it is as if he had vowed a consecutive fast. If he is not able to walk, walking is not required of him: riding is permitted to him because of his inability to walk. From Uqba ibn Amir: "My sister vowed to walk to the House of Allah, and she asked me to consult the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) on her behalf; I consulted him." The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"Let her walk, and let her ride."reported by al-Bukhari 1866 and Muslim 1644
The meaning is: let her walk if she is able, and let her ride if she is unable or if walking is too hard for her.
One who vows a prayer, a fast or a retreat of piety at a specific time, then becomes unable to perform these acts of devotion at that time: making it up is required of him, but no expiation is due from him for the delay beyond that specific time. If he vows charity then becomes destitute, the vow lapses as long as he remains destitute; if he later becomes solvent, its payment becomes obligatory. If he vows pilgrimage in a specific year and illness or the like prevents him before entering the state of consecration: no making up is due from him; likewise no making up if he was without means at the time of the vow, or if hardship arose and he found no money until the specific year had passed. But if illness prevents him after entering the state of consecration, the position of the school, firmly held by the majority, is that making it up is obligatory; the same applies if pilgrimage becomes inaccessible in that year after capability had been attained.
The proof for the obligation of making up the fast and the prayer, unlike the pilgrimage: what the vow makes obligatory is like what the Law makes obligatory; prayer and fasting can be obligatory despite inability, so they become so through the vow; as for pilgrimage, it is only obligatory upon capability, and such is also the rule of the vow (an-Najm al-Wahhaj 10/117 and 119, Mughni al-Muhtaj 6/269 and 271, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 12/51 and 53, ad-Daybaj 4/425 and 426).
The Hanbalis: one who vows an act of obedience he cannot bear, or who was able to do it then became unable, owes the expiation of an oath, because of what Uqba ibn Amir (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: "My sister vowed to walk barefoot to the House of Allah, and she asked me to consult the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) on her behalf; I consulted him." He said:
"Let her walk, and let her ride."reported by al-Bukhari 1767 and Muslim 1644
And in the version of Abu Dawud:
"And let her expiate her oath."weak hadith reported by Abu Dawud 3295
And in another version:
"And let her fast three days."weak hadith reported by Abu Dawud 3293, al-Tirmidhi 1594, an-Nasa'i 3815, Ibn Majah 2134 and Ahmad 173986
From Aisha: the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"There is no vow in disobedience, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath."authentic hadith reported by Abu Dawud 3290, al-Tirmidhi 1524 and Ibn Majah 2121
From Ibn Abbas: the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"Whoever makes a vow without specifying it: its expiation is the expiation of an oath; whoever makes a vow of disobedience: its expiation is the expiation of an oath; whoever makes a vow he cannot bear: its expiation is the expiation of an oath; and whoever makes a vow he can bear, let him fulfill it."weak hadith reported by Abu Dawud 3322
Once he has offered the expiation, if the thing vowed is other than fasting, nothing further is due from him; if it is fasting, two reports are transmitted from Ahmad. The first: he owes, for each day, the feeding of a poor person, and this is the position of the school; for it is a fast whose cause of obligation has been established in kind: if he becomes unable, he must feed a poor person for each day, like the fast of Ramadan; and because the absolute expression in human speech is understood according to the usage established by the Law: one unable to perform the lawful fast feeds a poor person for each day, and likewise if unable to perform the vowed fast.
The second: nothing further is due from him, neither feeding nor anything else, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever makes a vow he cannot bear: its expiation is the expiation of an oath"; this requires that the oath expiation constitute the entirety of his expiation. And because it is a vow he is unable to fulfill, the obligation in it is therefore the expiation of an oath, like other vows; and because what makes the vow binding is what makes the oath binding, except where fulfillment is possible and it concerns an act of devotion. Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The analogy with the fast of Ramadan is not valid, for two reasons: the first is that for Ramadan, feeding takes its place upon inability occurring through death, and so it would during life; this case is different; and the fast of Ramadan is weightier, as shown by the obligation of the expiation for intercourse during it, and the enormity of the sin of one who breaks it without valid excuse. The second is that the analogy of the vowed with the vowed is more apt than its analogy with what is prescribed by the Law in origin; and because here an expiation has become due and has sufficed, unlike the prescribed fast. As for their argument: 'the absolute expression in human speech is understood according to the usage established in the Law', we say: this is not an absolute expression; it is a specified vow, and it may be deduced that no expiation is due from him for inability, as in inability concerning what is obligatory in origin by the Law."
If he becomes unable due to an impairment whose disappearance is hoped for, such as illness or the like, he waits for it to disappear, and neither an expiation nor anything else is due from him, for the time has not lapsed: he then resembles the sick person during the month of Ramadan. If his inability persists until its disappearance is no longer expected, he moves to the expiation and the compensatory payment, according to the difference of opinion we have set out. If the inability expected to disappear concerned a specified fast whose time has passed, he waits for the ability to make it up; and is an expiation due from him because of the lapse of the time? Two reports, mentioned by Abu al-Khattab. The first: the expiation is due, for he fell short of his vow in the form he had formulated, so the expiation is required of him, as if he had vowed to walk to the Sacred House of Allah then become unable; and because the vow is like the oath: if he swore to absolutely fast this month then broke it for an excuse, an expiation would be due from him; likewise here. The second: it is not due from him, for he performed a fast that stands in place of his vow without negligence on his part: the oath expiation is therefore not due from him, as if he had fasted what he had specified.
If he vows something other than fasting then becomes unable, such as prayer or the like, only the expiation is due from him, for the Law has appointed no substitute to resort to; the expiation therefore became obligatory…
… and this is the view of al-Hasan ibn Yahya, al-Awza'i, and the last of al-Shafi'i's two views. It has been transmitted from al-Awza'i that he makes up the two days, unless he intends not to make them up nor to fast them. Malik's statement on this question differs along three lines: the first: he makes them up; the second: he makes them up, unless he had intended not to make them up; the third: he does not make them up, unless he had intended to fast them. Ibn Wahb transmitted the first report from him, Ibn al-Qasim the other two. Ibn Wahb said: "Malik said, concerning one who vowed to fast the month of Dhu al-Hijja: he breaks the fast on the Day of Sacrifice and the two days after it, then makes it up; as for the last days of tashriq, he fasts them." Ibn al-Qasim transmitted from Malik, concerning one who vowed to fast a specific year: "he breaks the fast on the Day of the Festival and the days of sacrifice, and no making up is due from him, unless he had intended to fast them." He said: "He was asked afterwards about one who had made the fasting of Dhu al-Hijja obligatory; he said: he makes up the days of sacrifice, unless he had intended that there be no making up of them. Ibn al-Qasim said: his first statement is dearer to me: no making up is due from him, unless he intends to make it up" (at-Tamhid 13/26 and 27, al-Istidhkar 3/332; see also Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/82, Manar as-Sabil 3/441).
The jurists differed on the ruling of one who makes a vow of disobedience: is the expiation of an oath due from him or not, after their agreement that it is not lawful for him to carry it out?
The Hanafis and the Hanbalis, in the position of the school, hold that the expiation of an oath is due from him if he does not carry it out, because Aisha reported that the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"There is no vow in disobedience, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath."authentic hadith reported by Abu Dawud 3290, al-Tirmidhi 1524 and Ibn Majah 2121
And because the vow falls under the ruling of the oath, and because it is a right of Allah the Most High whose obligation attaches to one's word, like the oath. The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to Abu Isra'il, when he had vowed to stand in the sun, not to sit, not to seek shade and not to speak:
"Tell him to speak, to sit, to seek shade, and to complete his fast."reported by al-Bukhari 6326
And he did not command him to offer an expiation, because the vow is a commitment to obedience, whereas this is a commitment to disobedience; and because it is an unformed vow that obligates nothing, like the unformed oath; and because zihar (the likening of one's wife to one's mother) is a disobedience, yet Allah commanded the expiation in it.
Imran ibn Husayn said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say:
"The vow is of two kinds: whatever of a vow is in obedience to Allah belongs to Allah, and its fulfillment is due; and whatever of a vow is in disobedience to Allah belongs to Satan, no fulfillment is due in it, and what expiates an oath expiates it."authentic hadith reported by an-Nasa'i 3845
This is an explicit text, and the vow is an oath.
From Uqba ibn Amir (may Allah be pleased with him): he asked the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about a sister of his who had vowed to perform the pilgrimage barefoot and unveiled; he said: "Tell her to cover herself, to ride, and to fast three days." And the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to Uqba's sister, when she had vowed to walk to the Sacred House of Allah and could not bear it: "Let her expiate her oath"; an authentic hadith reported by Abu Dawud; and in one version: "And let her fast three days" (weak hadith reported by Abu Dawud 3293, al-Tirmidhi 1594, an-Nasa'i 3815, Ibn Majah 2134 and Ahmad 173986).
Ibn Abbas said to the woman who had vowed to slaughter her son: "Expiate your oath."
And if he swore to commit a disobedience, the expiation would be due from him; likewise when he vows it (Fatawa as-Sughdi 1/195, al-Mabsut 8/142, Sharh Mukhtasar at-Tahawi by al-Jassas 8/447, al-Mughni 10/69, Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/349 and 350, ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 2/615, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/440, Manar as-Sabil 3/441).
The Malikis, the Shafi'is, and Ahmad in one report hold that one who vows a disobedience, for example by saying: "I owe Allah that I drink wine, or commit fornication, or steal, or kill, or strike so-and-so", must seek Allah's forgiveness, and that no expiation is due from him, because the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"Whoever vows to disobey Allah, let him not disobey Him."reported by al-Bukhari 6700
And because of the statement of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
"There is no fulfillment of a vow in disobedience, nor in what the servant does not possess."reported by Muslim 1641; and in one version: "There is no vow in disobedience to Allah"
He mentioned no expiation; had it been obligatory, he would have mentioned it (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 6/163, at-Tamhid 2/64, al-Istidhkar 5/185 and 187, al-Bayan wa-t-Tahsil 3/129, al-Hawi al-Kabir 15/501, al-Bayan 4/472, Sharh Sahih Muslim 11/101, Rawdat at-Talibin 2/750 and 751, al-Mughni 10/69).
Imam Ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "They differed concerning one who vows a disobedience: Malik, al-Shafi'i and the majority of the scholars said that nothing is due from him in that regard. Abu Hanifa, Sufyan and the Kufans said: rather it is binding; and what is binding according to them in this matter is the expiation of an oath, not the commission of the disobedience."
The cause of their disagreement lies in the contradiction between the apparent meanings of the reports in this chapter: two hadiths were reported in it. The hadith of Aisha from the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
"Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him; and whoever vows to disobey Allah, let him not disobey Him."reported by al-Bukhari 6700, cited earlier
Its apparent meaning is that the vow of disobedience binds nothing. The second is the hadith of Imran ibn Husayn and the established hadith of Abu Hurayra from the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
"There is no vow in disobedience to Allah, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath."authentic hadith reported by Abu Dawud 3290, al-Tirmidhi 1524 and Ibn Majah 2121, cited earlier
This is an explicit text on bindingness. Whoever combines the two in this says: the first hadith contains the notification that the disobedience is not binding, and this second one contains the bindingness of the expiation. Whoever gives precedence to the apparent meaning of the hadith of Aisha, since the hadith of Imran and Abu Hurayra is not authentic in his view, says: nothing is binding in the case of disobedience. And whoever takes the way of combining the two hadiths makes the expiation of an oath due in that regard.
Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr said: "The hadith scholars declared weak the hadith of Imran and that of Abu Hurayra, saying that the hadith of Abu Hurayra revolves around Sulayman ibn Arqam, whose hadith is abandoned…"
… Thus it is not formed by intention, like the other contracts, and it is formed by the intelligible gesture of the mute, and by the allusive wording of the one who speaks, together with the intention (Mughni al-Muhtaj 6/254, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 12/7 and 8).
An-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The most complete formula of the vow is to say, for example: 'If Allah heals my sick one, I owe such-and-such for Allah.' If he said: 'I owe this', without saying 'for Allah', there are two ways: the position of the school, held by the author and the majority, is its validity, for the reason the author mentioned. The second way contains two views transmitted by ar-Rafi'i and others, the sounder of which is the validity of his vow. The second view: it is not valid except with the explicit mention of Allah the Most High; it is close to the weak view regarding the obligation of attributing ablution, prayer and all acts of worship to Allah" (al-Majmu' 8/343).
The Hanbalis: the formula of the vow is to say: "I owe Allah that I do such-and-such"; and if he said: "I owe a vow of such-and-such", it is likewise binding upon him, because he explicitly uttered the word vow. If he said: "If Allah heals me, I owe a month of fasting", it is a vow; likewise "I have vowed to Allah", or "I owe it to Allah", and any like formula conveying its meaning. No fixed formula is required such that the vow is only formed through it: it is formed by anything conveying its meaning, like sale (al-Mughni 10/88, Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/346).
The jurists differed concerning the vow: is it formed by intention, or is pronouncing it indispensable?
The majority of the jurists, the Malikis in the sound view, the Shafi'is in the position of the school, and the Hanbalis hold that it is not formed except through speech, and the vow is not binding through intention alone, nor through inner speech: if he intends the vow in his heart without pronouncing it, it is not formed, like the oath, for it is a commitment, and it is not formed other than through speech (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 3/93, Rawdat at-Talibin 2/745, Mughni al-Muhtaj 6/254, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 12/7 and 8, al-Ashbah wa-n-Naza'ir 1/33, al-Mughni 10/88, Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/346, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/437, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 6/421).
The Malikis in one view, and the Shafi'is in the earlier position (al-qadim), hold that speech is not a condition of the vow: the intention of the vow, or inner speech, suffices, even without pronouncing it (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 3/93, Rawdat at-Talibin 2/745).
… As for rational proof: the Muslim needs to draw near to Allah (exalted be He) through a type of intended acts of devotion which he is permitted to leave, because of the praiseworthy outcome attached to them: the attainment of the highest degrees and the greatest happiness in the abode of honor. His nature does not cooperate with him in securing them; rather it prevents him from them because of the immediate harm they contain, namely hardship; and there is no necessity in leaving them. He therefore needs to acquire a cause that brings him out of the license to leave them and joins him to the prescribed obligations: that is achieved through the vow, for obligation drives him to secure them out of fear of the harm of leaving them, and his purpose is thereby attained (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/90).
The jurists differed on the ruling of the vow: is it recommended, disliked, or merely permissible? There is detail among the jurists on this.
The Hanafis hold that the vow is a legislated act of devotion: an act of devotion because of the acts of piety accompanying it, such as fasting, prayer, pilgrimage, emancipation, charity and the like; and legislated because of the commands transmitted concerning its fulfillment. Allah the Most High says:
"And let them fulfill their vows"
Surah al-Hajj, 29
And the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Fulfill your vow"; he said: "Whoever makes a vow and specifies it, fulfilling what he specified is due from him"; and he said:
"Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him."reported by al-Bukhari 6700
… among other texts besides (al-Ikhtiyar 4/89 and 90, Hashiyat Ibn 'Abidin 3/375).
The Malikis: the absolute vow is recommended; it is the one neither suspended upon anything nor repeated: what one makes obligatory upon oneself in gratitude to Allah the Most High for a blessing that has occurred, without suspending it upon anything, such as one whom Allah healed, or whom He blessed with a child or a wife, and who vowed to fast or to give charity. The repeated vow is disliked, such as vowing to fast every Thursday, because of the burden it places upon the soul, so that it becomes closer to other than obedience. The vow suspended upon something other than disobedience is disliked in the correct view of the school, contrary to Ibn Rushd who held it permissible, for example: "If Allah heals my sick one, or if Zayd returns from his journey, I owe such-and-such in charity", for it is like requital and exchange, not pure devotion; likewise if what it is suspended upon is an obedience, such as: "If I perform the pilgrimage, I owe such-and-such for Allah", for it is equivalent to: "If Allah grants me the ability for the pilgrimage, I will surely requite it with such-and-such." If he suspends the act of devotion upon a disobedience, that is forbidden and abandoning it is obligatory; if he does it, he sins, and what he named of the act of devotion or of anything else becomes binding upon him, for example: "If Allah heals my sick one, I owe a charity of one hundred dinars or a camel": the one hundred dinars or the camel is due from him (Mawahib al-Jalil 4/461 and 462, at-Taj wa-l-Iklil 2/348 and 349, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 3/93, al-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 2/457, Tahbir al-Mukhtasar 2/422, Hashiyat al-Sawi 4/268 and 269).
The Shafi'is have four views on the vow. The first: it is disliked, because of what was transmitted through Sufyan and Shu'ba, both from Mansur, from Abdullah ibn Murra, from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
"He forbade the vow and said: it repels nothing, but it is a means of extracting something from the miser."reported by al-Bukhari 6608 and 6693, and Muslim 1639
This is the wording of Sufyan; the wording of Shu'ba has: "it brings no good" in place of "it repels nothing" and "it is a means of extracting something from the miser" (reported by Muslim 1936).
The second view: it is contrary to what is preferable. The third: it is an act of devotion; al-Mutawalli, al-Ghazali and ar-Rafi'i affirmed it, as did an-Nawawi in his commentary on al-Muhadhdhab, because of the word of Allah the Most High:
"And whatever you spend of expenditure, or vow of vows, indeed Allah knows it"
Surah al-Baqara, 270
that is: He requites it.
They said: "The prohibition transmitted concerning it is an emphasis upon its command and a warning against treating it lightly once it has become obligatory." He said: "If its meaning were deterrence from doing it, that would entail the nullification of its ruling and the dropping of the obligation to fulfill it, since through the prohibition it would become a disobedience and would not bind." He said: "The meaning of the hadith is that he informed them that it is a matter bringing them no immediate benefit, turning no harm away from them, and repelling no decree. He said: do not vow on the understanding that you attain by the vow something Allah has not decreed, or that you repel from yourselves what the decree has brought upon you. If you have vowed without holding this belief, then discharge it through fulfillment, for what you have vowed is binding upon you" (Tarh at-Tathrib 6/36 and 37).
It may be that the cause of the prohibition of the vow is that the vower becomes bound by it and performs it with strain, without zeal.
It may be that its cause is that he performs the act of devotion he committed to in his vow in the manner of an exchange for the thing he sought, so that his reward diminishes, whereas the quality of worship is that it be purely for Allah the Most High.
It may be that the prohibition is because some of the ignorant may think that the vow repels fate and prevents the decreed from coming to be; so he forbade it out of caution lest an ignoramus hold that belief, and the course of the hadith supports this.
It may be that the prohibition is borne by one known from his condition not to stand by what he committed himself to, in reconciliation of the proofs, for the word of Allah the Most High: "And whatever you spend of expenditure, or vow of vows, indeed Allah knows it" (Surah al-Baqara, 270) entails the recommendation of the vow.
The fourth view: distinction: the vow of freewill devotion is recommended, the one not suspended upon anything; the suspended one is not recommended. Ibn ar-Rif'a chose it, and al-Khatib ash-Shirbini said: "this is the sounder view" (Mughni al-Muhtaj 6/253 and 254, an-Nahj al-Wahhaj 10/95 and 96, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj 12/5 and 6, Tarh at-Tathrib 6/36 and 37).
The Hanbalis, in the position of the school, hold that the vow is disliked, not recommended: it brings no good and repels no decree, because of what was transmitted through Sufyan and Shu'ba, both from Mansur, from Abdullah ibn Murra, from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
"He forbade the vow and said: it repels nothing, but it is a means of extracting something from the miser."reported by al-Bukhari 6608 and 6693, and Muslim 1639
This is the wording of Sufyan; the wording of Shu'ba has: "it brings no good" in place of "it repels nothing" and "it is a means of extracting something from the miser" (reported by Muslim 1936). And the prohibition expresses dislike, not forbiddance, because Allah the Most High praised those who fulfill it; for their blameworthiness for committing the forbidden would be weightier than their obedience consisting in fulfilling it; and were it recommended, the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his Companions would have practiced it. Ibn Hamid said: "The position of the school is that it is permissible." And a group among the people of hadith forbade it (al-Mughni 10/67, al-Inshaf 11/117, Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/346, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 6/438, Manar as-Sabil 3/439).
… It has also been said: "the commitment to an act of devotion not binding in origin under the Law" (an-Najm al-Wahhaj 10/95, Mughni al-Muhtaj 6/253, al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya al-Kubra 4/281). The Hanbalis said: "the vow, legally: the binding imposed by a legally competent person, of his own choice, upon himself, of something not impossible, toward Allah the Most High, by any wording indicating it" (ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 2/614).
The difference between the vow and the oath containing suspension: the vow aims at drawing near, while the oath aims at restraint from the suspended thing, or encouragement to perform it, or affirmation of its occurrence, as has preceded, unlike the vow.
Hence, in an oath, it is valid to precede it with a swearing by Allah. You say, for restraint: "By Allah, I shall not enter the house; if I enter it, such-and-such will be due from me", the aim being restraint from entering it; you say, for commitment: "By Allah, I shall most surely enter the house; if I do not enter it, such-and-such will be due from me", the aim being entry; you say, for affirming the reality of a thing: "By Allah, Zayd has stood; if he did not stand, such-and-such will be due from me". Unlike the saying: "If Allah heals my sick one, such-and-such is due from me": it does not serve as a preceding oath, except by way of seeking blessing or reinforcing the statement (Hashiyat al-Sawi on al-Sharh as-Saghir 4/263).
The people of knowledge agreed upon the validity and legitimacy of the vow in general, and upon the obligation of fulfilling it; they supported its established legitimacy with the Quran, the Sunna, consensus and reason.
The Quran: the word of Allah the Most High:
"They fulfill their vows"
Surah al-Insan, 7
The word of Allah the Most High:
"And let them fulfill their vows"
Surah al-Hajj, 29
The word of Allah the Most High:
"And fulfill the covenant; indeed the covenant will be questioned"
Surah al-Isra, 34
The word of Allah (exalted be He):
"And fulfill the covenant of Allah when you have made a covenant"
Surah an-Nahl, 91
The vow is a kind of covenant from the vower with Allah (exalted be He), so fulfilling what he has covenanted is binding upon him. The word of Allah (magnified be He):
"Fulfill the contracts"
Surah al-Ma'ida, 1
that is: the covenants. And the word of Allah (mighty be His majesty):
"And among them are those who made a covenant with Allah: 'If He should give us from His bounty, we will surely give charity and be among the righteous.' But when He gave them from His bounty, they were stingy with it and turned away while refusing. So He caused hypocrisy to follow in their hearts until the day they meet Him, because they failed Allah in what they promised Him, and because they used to lie"
Surah at-Tawba, 75 to 77
Fulfillment of the covenant was imposed where He threatened upon its abandonment.
The Sunna: from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him; and whoever vows to disobey Allah, let him not disobey Him."reported by al-Bukhari 6700
And from Imran ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased with them both): the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The best of you are my generation, then those who follow them, then those who follow them." Imran said: I do not know whether the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) mentioned, after his generation, two generations or three. The Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"After you there will come a people who betray and are not to be trusted, who testify without being called to testify, who vow and do not fulfill, and in whom corpulence will appear."reported by al-Bukhari 2508 and Muslim 2535
Consensus: the scholars agreed upon its permissibility in general. Imam Ibn Battal, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The scholars agree that fulfilling the vow, when it is an obedience, is a binding obligation upon whoever is able" (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 6/154). Imam Ibn Qudama, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The Muslims agreed upon the validity of the vow in general and upon the obligation of fulfilling it" (al-Mughni 10/67). An-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, after mentioning the hadith of Imran, said: "It contains the obligation of fulfilling the vow, which is obligatory without disagreement" (Sharh Sahih Muslim 16/88). Imam al-Kasani, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Upon it is the consensus of the community" (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/90). And Imam Ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "They agreed upon the bindingness of the absolute vow in acts of devotion, except what was related from some companions of al-Shafi'i, that the absolute vow is not valid; rather they agreed upon the bindingness of the absolute vow when it is in a spirit of contentment, not in a spirit of contention and anger, and when it is explicit with the very word vow, not when it is not explicit; whether the vow explicitly names the thing vowed or not; and they likewise agreed upon the bindingness of the vow that takes the form of a condition, when it is a vow of an act of devotion" (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/309).
… or carrion": he is not then considered a swearer, for it is a disobedience whose committer does not become a disbeliever, and because carrion has been permitted in case of necessity. But if he says: "If I do such-and-such, I hold wine lawful, or carrion, or usury", he is considered a swearer, for whoever believes that is a disbeliever: it is as if he said: "then I am a Jew" (al-Ikhtiyar 4/62 and 63, al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 6/20 and 21, al-Lubab 2/386, al-Mughni 9/400 and 401, al-Kafi 4/383, Sharh az-Zarkashi 3/305, al-Mubdi' 9/273 and 274, al-Inshaf 11/32, Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/305, Manar as-Sabil 3/420).
The jurists differed concerning one who says: "I owe a vow" or "I owe Allah a vow": is it counted as an oath for which expiation is offered, or is there no expiation in it?
The Hanafis, the Malikis and the Hanbalis hold that whoever says: "I owe a vow", or vows for Allah, has made an oath: the expiation of an oath is due from him, because of the hadith of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him): the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"Whoever makes a vow without naming it: its expiation is the expiation of an oath; whoever makes a vow in disobedience: its expiation is the expiation of an oath; whoever makes a vow he cannot bear: its expiation is the expiation of an oath; and whoever makes a vow he can bear, let him fulfill it."weak as a Prophetic statement, reported by Abu Dawud 3322 and Ibn Majah 2128
And from Uqba ibn Amir (may Allah be pleased with him): the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"The expiation of the vow, when it has not been named, is the expiation of an oath."weak hadith reported by al-Tirmidhi 1528