What is the ruling if an obligor fulfills an oath requiring delay before the specified time arrives?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Expiations
Primary text
If an oath requires the completion of an act (such as repayment of a debt) before a certain time, fulfilling it earlier than required does not constitute a breach of the oath (break of the vow, *hanith*). The act is considered fulfilled because the requirement implied by the oath is to delay the completion until the specified time (the next day), and completing it earlier exceeds the requirement positively. Furthermore, oaths are founded upon intention (*niyyah*); if the intention of this oath was to avoid hastening the completion before the specified time, fulfilling it earlier satisfies that intention. If no specific intention exists, the ruling reverts to the cause of the oath. If the cause implies immediacy, the ruling follows the intention.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa, Muhammad, and Abu Thawr argue that fulfilling the oath before the specified time does not incur a breach because the obligor has chosen to perform the act, just as if they performed it after the time limit. Al-Shafi'i states that if the obligor performs the act before the time, they are not absolved because they intentionally abandoned performing what the oath demanded at the stipulated time. Al-Qadi holds that the obligor is absolved in all cases because the purpose of the oath is to urge action, and hastening the action fulfills the objective. The first opinion is stronger unless the custom surrounding this specific type of oath (repayment) implies immediacy, in which case the absolute oath is directed toward immediate fulfillment.