The oath's kaffara in practice: feeding, clothing or fasting

The expiation for an oath (al-Ma'ida 5:89) offers 3 ways: feeding 10 poor persons, or clothing them, or freeing a slave; whoever cannot fasts 3 days. The jurists agree on the choice among the 3 ways in case of ability and diverge on the exact measures and borderline cases.

May one give the monetary value?

Hanafis: yes, value (qima) is valid for food as for clothing: the aim is the poor person's benefit, reached by money as by the thing; value is admitted in zakats by texts and reason, and no one has distinguished between them; giving someone means to buy his food and clothing is, in usage, having fed and clothed him. Proof: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fixed the sadaqat al-fitr then said: "Enrich them on this day": the aim is their sufficiency, not the quantity of food itself (Ahkam al-Qur'an 4/119; Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/105).

The majority of jurists (Malikis, Shafi'ites, Hanbalites): value is not valid, for "feeding 10 poor persons... or their clothing" is explicit on the thing itself: whoever does not deliver what Allah ordered him has not fulfilled the duty; and Allah gave a choice between 3 things: were value valid, the choice would not be limited to 3, and were values equal, choosing between them would be meaningless.

Expiating for another without his permission

Malikis (the known view): expiating for another, with or without his order, is valid. Al-Bukhari titled a chapter: "A man's slaughtering a cow for his wives without their order"; from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman: Aisha said: "On the day of sacrifice he brought us beef meat. What is this, said I. It is the sacrifice the Messenger of Allah offered for his wives" (al-Bukhari 1623).

Ibn Battal relates from al-Muhallab: this hadith grounds that whoever expiates for another (oath, dhihar, compensation for killing), or sacrifices, or pays a debt for him without his order: all this is valid, for the Prophet's wives did not know what he discharged for them.

The majority (Hanafis, Shafi'ites, Hanbalites, and Ashhab among the Malikis per Ibn Abd al-Barr): with his order, valid; without it, not: expiation is an obligation fulfilled only with intention, and absence of authorization prevents the owner's intention: what the substitute paid falls back on himself.

Giving the expiation to one's relatives

Ibn Qudama: "He gives to those of his relatives whom he may give from his zakat. So said ash-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr, and we know of no dissent: expiation is a financial right due to Allah, following zakat as to eligible recipients." All whom zakat forbids (the rich, the non-Muslim, the slave) cannot receive it; the Banu Hashim: 2 views (they are barred: it is an obligatory sadaqa, "sadaqa is not lawful for us"; or not: it is not due by the primary text, resembling voluntary charity).

Mixing food and clothing

Malikis, Shafi'ites and one Hanbalite view: mixing is invalid: feeding 5 poor and clothing the other 5 does not suffice, being 2 types of expiation, as freeing half a slave and feeding 5 poor does not. Hanafis and Hanbalites (the madhhab's version): mixing is valid: Allah gave the choice between food and clothing, so choice returns to the payer over the 10 or part of them.

Advancing the expiation before the perjury

The people of knowledge agree: perjury before expiation is lawful and even preferable, per: "Whoever swore an oath then sees something better than it: let him do the better and expiate his oath" (Muslim 1650). Ibn Abd al-Barr: they agree that perjury before expiation is lawful, good, and even preferable. An-Nawawi: they agree expiation is not due before perjury, that delaying it after is allowed, and that it cannot precede the oath itself.

Three views on advancing it between the oath and the perjury:

First view (Malikis in the known position, Hanbalites, the majority and 14 Companions): valid, per Abd ar-Rahman ibn Samra's hadith: "If you swore an oath and see better than it: expiate your oath and do the better" (Muslim 1652), and: "I never swear an oath and see better than it without expiating my oath and doing the better, or doing the better and expiating my oath" (al-Bukhari 6249 and 6340; Muslim 1649): choice is established. Expiation is stronger than the exception: it lifts the oath whether detached or attached.

Second view (Hanafis; Malik in Ashhab's version): invalid: a financial right tied to a cause owed to Allah cannot precede its due time, like other expiations; perjury is what obligates it: before it, it has no status; it covers a fault, and there is no fault before perjury.

Third view (Shafi'ites): advancing is valid for food, clothing and freeing, not for fasting: a bodily worship not advanced before its time, like prayer and Ramadan fasting; financial rights are advanced like an advanced zakat. Ash-Shafi'i: "If he intends perjury, it is preferable to me that he not expiate until he perjures; if he expiates before by food, I hope it is valid; by fasting before perjury, it is not"; and he grounds advanceable financial rights on the Prophet's advance of a year's sadaqa requested from al-Abbas, and sadaqat al-fitr given before the break. Ibn Rushd: the cause of divergence: the 2 hadith versions ("do the better and expiate" / "expiate and do the better"), and substantively: does expiation prevent the fault or lift it? Whoever says it prevents, advances it; whoever says it lifts, delays it (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/307).

The measure of food per poor person

Hanafis: for each poor person, half a sa' of wheat, or a sa' of dates or barley, per Umar's order to Yasir ibn Numayr: "I swear not to give such people anything, then it appears to me to do so: feed for me 10 poor persons, each poor person half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of dates or barley" (Ibn Abi Shayba 12194; Abd ar-Razzaq 16075; at-Tahawi 3/121; al-Bayhaqi 19763). In the textual species, equivalence of another species, even of higher value, is invalid (half a sa' of fine dates worth half a sa' of wheat does not suffice); outside them, value is valid. Giving one mann of wheat or 2 mannawat of dates or barley is valid (same genus). Feeding by meals: 2 filling meals per poor person (noon and evening, or 2 noons, or 2 evenings) are valid; a weaned child does not count; barley bread requires condiment, wheat bread does not.

Feeding 5 at noon and 5 others in the evening is invalid: he must sate one of the 2 groups with another meal.

Malikis: the measure is a Hashemite mudd of the average food of his household, or 2 ratl of dates, raisins or meat; or satiety twice (noon and evening, in one day or more). Shafi'ites: a mudd of the grain valid for sadaqat al-fitr, of the commonest grain of the land, with transfer of ownership ("take it"); gathering 10 poor and feeding them is invalid: the grain was not transferred, and one does not know whether each ate his share. Hanbalites: in all expiations, a mudd of wheat per poor person, or half a sa' of dates or barley: the 'araq hadith (basket of 15 sa') for the day-of-Ramadan offender ("take it and give it in charity"), the Bayada woman bringing half a wasq of barley: "2 mudds of barley in place of a mudd of wheat" (Ahmad; al-Bayhaqi 7/392), Khuwayla: half a wasq of dates for 60 poor: the 'araq = 15 sa', 2 'araq = 30 sa': half a sa' per poor; Ibn Qudama: this is the text, and the view of Zayd, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar and Abu Hurayra without dissent among the Companions.

Wheat goes out in grain (best), or flour with a supplement, or weighed (an Iraqi ratl and a third per mudd); bread is invalid in one version (left grain and storage), valid in the other (al-Mughni: the better view, it is of the middle of what you feed your families; giving condiment with it is recommended).

Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim: the measure is fixed not by Law but by custom: "of the middle of what you feed your families": the Companions said: the middle = bread and milk, bread and butter, bread and dates; the higher = bread and meat (Majmu' al-Fatawa 35/349-351). Ibn al-Qayyim: the Qur'an commands feeding (it'am), not transfer of ownership: the Prophet told the offender and the mudihir "feed 60 poor" without fixing a mudd or ratl; and Allah named the genus and number of the fed without fixing the quantity (Zad al-Ma'ad 5/493-499).

The measure of clothing

Hanafis: clothing 10 poor: a garment to each and more; the minimum: what is valid for prayer; for the woman, add the khimar (her head is a nakedness to cover). A single garment worth 10 does not suffice; if its value equals feeding 10 poor, it stands in place of feeding. Malikis: only what is valid for prayer: for the man, a garment covering the body to the ankle (not izsar and turban alone); for the woman, a long dress and a khimar. The small child receives the grown person's garment (one view: to his measure).

Shafi'ites: whatever bears the name of kiswa: shirt, turban, trousers, cloak, izsar, woman's miqna'a or khimar; not valid: boots, gloves, shoes, belt, skullcap, ring, cord; fur and felt worn in the land are valid; new is recommended (Al Imran 3:92); worn-out cloth whose strength is not gone is valid; one long cloth given to 10 as a single piece is invalid, cut into 10 shares it is valid.

Feeding one poor person 10 days

The jurists agree: feeding each day a poor person until completing 10 is valid. Divergence on one poor person fed 10 days: Hanafis: valid, if he receives each day 2 filling meals or the ration (half a sa' of wheat or a sa' of dates): the aim is filling the need, and the need renews daily: giving the second day equals giving to another; but 10 days' food given in one day counts only for that day (distribution is required by "feeding 10 poor"). Ibn Qudama (Hanbalite) relates the incapacity rule: whoever cannot find the 10 poor repeats over those he finds: one poor person, 10 days; 2 poor, 5 days; and so on: the view of ath-Thawri and the choice of most companions (of the madhhab); another version from Ahmad: only the complete 10 are valid (view of Malik and ash-Shafi'i); and al-Awza'i allowed giving it to a single poor person; Abu Ubayd: to a needy household, per: "feed your family" said to the needy offender.