Does swearing off or prohibiting something lawful render it forbidden (haram)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Oaths
Primary text
If a person swears an oath to abstain from something or declares it forbidden (*hurrima*), that thing does not become truly prohibited (haram). This view is supported by the permissibility of performing the act upon which the oath was taken when expiation is due. If the act were truly haram, allowing it upon expiation would involve a contradiction. Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) commanded that if one swears an oath and finds a better course of action, one should perform the better action and expiate the oath. Commanding the performance of an act implies it is permissible, and calling it 'better' implies it is not forbidden. The verse stating that what God has permitted should not be made unlawful (Quran 28:1) is interpreted to refer only to using the term 'haram' (forbidden) or self-prohibition, not actual legal prohibition, as demonstrated by the usage in Quran 9:37 and Quran 6:140.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa holds that swearing off or prohibiting a lawful thing does render it forbidden (haram). This is based on the Divine saying, "Why do you prohibit yourself what Allah has made lawful for you?" (Quran 28:1) and "Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths" (Quran 66:2). He argues that breaking an oath involves violating the sanctity of the revered name, thus making the act haram, and that prohibiting the lawful makes it forbidden, similar to prohibiting one's own wife. Consequently, in his view, expiation (kaffarah) can only follow the breach of the oath, and since fulfilling the oath requires committing an act he deems haram, this leads to a requirement where the haram act is necessitated by an ordained religious requirement (tahlah).