Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:225

"Allah will not hold you accountable for the vain (laghw) in your oaths": Laghw refers to that which is dropped and not relied upon from speech and other things. According to Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with him), the laghw of an oath is that which flows from the tongue without intent, or what is in that category where an oath was not intended, such as the Arabs saying "No, by Allah" or "Yes, by Allah" merely for emphasis. This is what has been narrated from Aisha, Ibn Umar, and others in the majority of reports. The meaning is: Allah will not hold you accountable at all for oaths in which you had no intent.

"But He will hold you accountable for what your hearts have earned": That is, for the oaths you intended and in which your hearts agreed with your tongues. There is no contradiction between this verse and the statement of Allah Almighty in Surah al-Ma'idah: "Allah will not hold you accountable for the vain in your oaths, but He will hold you accountable for what you have bound your oaths, so its expiation is the feeding of ten needy persons," etc. This is because the implication of being held accountable for laghw is ambiguous—as it is an act of the heart's earning—while the other verse implies the absence of such accountability. Laghw in that verse is contrasted with the "bound oath" (al-mun'aqidah), which is an oath sworn regarding a future matter to do or not to do something, as evidenced by His saying: "For what you have bound your oaths."

Thus, [the term] encompasses the "perjured oath" (al-ghammus), which is swearing to a past matter while intentionally lying. Its status as laghw is due to the lack of "fulfillment" (barr) within it, which is the legal benefit of an oath. This is because al-Shafi'i interpreted "what you have bound" as the "earning of the heart," meaning: "what you have resolved upon," rather than the reverse. This is because the term 'aqd (binding) is general—it could mean the binding of the heart or the tying of one thing to another—while "earning" (kasb) is explicit, and it is a fundamental principle to interpret the general by the explicit. When interpreted this way, it includes the perjured oath, and laghw becomes that for which there is no intent, [there being] no "bound oath." Thus, the two verses are unified in holding one accountable for the perjured oath and not holding one accountable for laghw.

However, if the negated verb [in the verse] has a universal application, then both verses negate accountability for what has no intent, whether via punishment or expiation, and affirm accountability—in some capacity—via one or both [penalties] for what involved intent. If it does not have a universal application, then the absolute accountability in this verse is interpreted by the accountability restricted by expiation in the verse of al-Ma'idah, based on the unity of the incident and the ruling, and the fact that the verse was revealed to clarify the expiation; thus, there is no repetition. The universal application is supported by what Ibn Jarir narrated from al-Hasan: that the Prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) passed by a group of people practicing archery, and with him were some of his companions. A man from the group shot and said, "I hit it, by Allah!" then, "I missed it, by Allah!" The one with him said, "The man has broken his oath, O Messenger of Allah." He replied, "No, the oaths of archers are laghw; there is no expiation for them and no punishment."

Imam Abu Hanifa held that laghw here is what lacks the intent to lie, either because there was no intent at all, or because it was sworn under the assumption of its truthfulness. He interpreted the accountability as being "otherworldly," based on the fact that the abode of accountability is the Hereafter, and an absolute term is directed toward the complete [realization of the concept]. This accountability was coupled with "earning," for there is no consideration for intent or lack thereof in the obligation of expiations, which are worldly accountabilities. There is no doubt that merely swearing an oath without breaking it does not result in otherworldly accountability for a "bound oath," so one cannot apply "what [your hearts] have earned" in its absolute sense. Thus, it must be restricted to the perjured oath. Consequently, it is derived from this verse that there is otherworldly accountability for the perjured oath—but not worldly accountability (i.e., expiation), which is the point of disagreement with al-Shafi'i—and no otherworldly accountability for other [oaths] where there was intent based on the assumption of truth, nor for those where there was no intent at all (on which there is agreement with al-Shafi'i).

He interpreted the accountability in the verse of al-Ma'idah as "worldly" due to the context of His saying, "so its expiation..." and interpreted "what you have bound" as the "bound oath," because the immediate understanding of 'aqd is the tying of one thing to another, which is apparent in the "bound oath." Therefore, laghw in that verse refers to everything other than that, such as the perjured oath and others. From this, it is derived that there is no worldly accountability (expiation) for other than the bound oath (which is the perjured oath), while there is accountability for it in the Hereafter, as is known from the verse of al-Baqarah. As for swearing without intent, or with it while assuming truth, there is no accountability for them in the Hereafter, as is also known from that [verse]. The worldly accountability is [restricted to] the bound oath, the ruling of which in the Hereafter is not taught by the two verses, for it is apparent from the application of worldly accountability upon it. Thus, there is no contradiction between the two verses according to him either, because the requirement of the first is the realization of otherworldly accountability for the perjured oath, and the requirement of the second is the absence of worldly accountability for it. From this, it is known that what is in al-Hidayah and what has become common in the books of our companions regarding the Imam—where he said: "Oaths are of three types: the perjured oath, the bound oath, and the laghw oath," and he explained the latter as swearing to a past event assuming it to be one way while it is the opposite, and it is established in some narrations from Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) and others that "it is nothing"—if the intent of what is in the commentary is "exclusivity" rather than "exemplification" for laghw, it is inappropriate for the structure, as "what you have earned" should be a direct contrast to laghw without an intermediary between them. By intending "exclusivity," the oath that lacks intent remains an intermediary without a name or definition, which is something that barely exists, as is not hidden from the fair-minded. So let one reflect, for it is something that has escaped many people.

"Allah is Forgiving": In that He does not hold you accountable for laghw. "Forbearing": In that He does not make [a binding] oath a cause for accountability for a sincere intention. This sentence acts as a conclusion to the two preceding sentences; its benefit is the expression of favor upon the believers and the inclusion of benevolence toward them. The Halim (Forbearing) is derived from haluma, meaning to delay by postponing punishment. The root of hilm is composure. As for halam (with a fatha), it refers to the decay of leather; as for hulm (with a damma), it refers to seeing something in a dream. The verbal noun of the first is hilm (kasra), the second is halam (fatha), and the third is hulm (damma of the ha and damma of the lam, or with a sukun).