Islamic Fiqh > Oaths and vows > Bar and hanth of the oath
Bar (conforming performance) and hanth (breaking): when each applies according to the oath's content, and the position of coercion.
Contents
Updated on 06 October 2026 at 10:50 PM
Consensus of the scholars: the expiation attaches to the oath about a future act. Ibn Abd al-Barr wrote that the oath carrying the expiation by consensus of the Muslims is the one about the future. If the sworn act is done or omitted deliberately, the expiation is due; forgetting and error follow the deliberate act among Hanafis, Malikis (well-known position), Shafi'is (one view) and Ahmad (one narration). Coercion changes the rule: no breaking for the one who acts under coercion: "Allah has pardoned my community for the mistake, the forgetfulness and what they are forced to do" (Ibn Majah 2043).
Whoever swears to do a good deed must do it: his oath binds him and the expiation does not replace its execution. Ibn Taymiyya states it: whoever swears to do a good deed is bound to do it and cannot expiate instead.
It must not be done:
"Whoever swore an oath and sees better elsewhere, let him do the better and expiate his oath."
Muslim 1650
The majority of the scholars deduce: break this oath and pay the expiation. If he nonetheless commits the sin, he is guilty, and no expiation covers the disobedience itself. Shafi'is except the collective obligation: whoever swears not to pray over a deceased while the prayer is not his duty does not sin by this oath and does not have to break it.
Swearing to do a supererogatory act or to leave a disliked one: better to keep one's oath, and breaking requires the expiation (text of Shafi'is and Hanbalis, meaning held by Hanafis and Malikis). Swearing to leave a supererogatory act ("by Allah, I will not pray the nafila, I will not fast voluntarily, I will not visit the sick, I will not attend funerals") or to do a disliked act: the 4 schools indicate to break it, to do the good and to expiate. Malikis: whoever swears to give up the duha prayer or the visit of a righteous man breaks it preferably. Shafi'is: the oath is disliked, its breaking recommended and the expiation due; they cite the word of Allah revealed about Abu Bakr who had sworn not to support Mistah, then said: "Yes, by my Lord, I do it" (sura an-Nur 22).
No disagreement among the jurists: whoever swears to do a permissible act (enter a house) or to leave one (not wear such a garment) keeps the choice. If he does what he swore to do or leaves what he swore to leave: neither sin nor expiation. If he violates his oath: the expiation is due. Ibn Qudama answers the objection drawn from "and do not break the oaths after their confirmation" (sura an-Nahl 91): this verse targets covenants and pacts, whose execution is binding even without an oath.
Malikis sum up the reading of an oath in 4 elements: the intention, the triggering cause (bisat), the lexical usage and the purpose intended by the Law. The intention specifies the general and restricts the absolute when the wording allows it: whoever swears "I will not wear wool" and wants the white may wear the black; whoever swears "I will not eat meat" and means a specific meat is believed in fatwa by common agreement. The basis is the hadith:
"A man has only what he intended."
al-Bukhari 1
Before swearing, ask whether the commitment is lawful and useful. If something better appears later, the Sunna invites to break, to do the better and to expiate. Coercion cancels the breaking, forgetting and error require the expiation according to the majority, and the oath is read according to the intention of the swearer whenever the wording allows it.
Bada'i al-Sana'i by al-Kasani · Hanafi school
...the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) expiated before the transgression (hinth), and that is because when he saw Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him), the master of martyrs, disfigured and grievously wounded, that weighed heavily upon the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and he swore to do such-and-such to such-and-such persons of Quraysh; then came down the prohibition of fulfilling that, and he expiated his oath. That was an expiation before the transgression, for the transgression in such an oath is only realized at the time when good can no longer (be done) in reality, and that is at his death. This therefore proves the validity of expiation before transgression for the community, since he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is a model; and for us, the cause is what leads to the effect, for in the language it is the name of what is chained.
Al-Hawi al-Kabir by al-Mawardi · Shafi'i school
Chapter: the unintentional oath (laghw), this subject, and the disagreement between Malik and al-Shafi'i. Question: al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Malik informed us, from Hisham ibn Urwa, from his father, from Aisha, that she said: "The unintentional oath is the word of a man: no, by Allah; yes, by Allah."" Al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, said: laghw, in the Arabs' tongue, is speech upon which one has not taken an engagement, and the whole of laghw is error; laghw is as Aisha described, and Allah knows best. That, when there is obstinacy, anger and haste; and the engagement of the oath is to affirm it upon a specific thing.
Al-Mawardi said: the origin of this is the word of Allah, the Most High: "Allah will not take you to task for the unintentional in your oaths" (al-Baqara, 2).