Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:89

"Allah will not call you to account for what is thoughtless in your oaths." Al-laghw (thoughtless) in an oath is that which is of no consequence and to which no legal ruling attaches. According to our [Hanafi] school, it is to swear regarding a past event, thinking it to be a certain way, whereas if one knew it to be otherwise, the oath is ghamūs (perjurious). This is also narrated from Mujahid.

According to Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy upon him), it is that which slips from the tongue without the intention of an oath. This is also narrated from Abu Ja'far, Abu 'Abd Allah, and 'Aishah (may Allah be pleased with them all). The arguments for both schools are elaborated upon in the branches (furu') and principles (usul), and a portion of the discussion has already been presented.

"In your oaths": This is either linked to al-laghw (as it is said, "He lagha in his oath," meaning he acted thoughtlessly), or it is linked to an omitted term serving as a state (hal) from it—i.e., "being or occurring within your oaths." It is also permitted that it be linked to "will call you to account," though it is said that its connection to the accountability is not apparent unless "in" (fi) is interpreted as causative, as in the statement: "A woman entered the Fire because of (fi) a cat."

"But He will call you to account for what you have 'aqqadtum (solemnized/contracted) the oaths": That is, for your contracting of the oaths and strengthening them through intention and resolve. Ma is a verbal source (masdariyyah). It is also said that it is relative (mawsulah), with the pronoun of reference omitted—i.e., "for what you have contracted the oaths upon." The first [interpretation] is favored because the speech is in contrast to al-laghw, and because it is free from the burden of omission. Some have said that such an omission is misplaced because a condition for omitting the governed relative pronoun is that it be governed by the same [preposition] as the relative noun, both in wording and meaning, and in the same relation; that which is here is not such—so reflect upon this. The meaning is: "But He will call you to account for the breaking of what you have contracted," or "He will call you to account for what you have contracted them [the oaths] upon if you break them," and that [the object] is omitted because it is known. The intended "accountability" is the accountability in this world, which is sin and the expiation. Thus, there is no issue in assuming the contextual object. The contracting of oaths, according to the Shafi'is, includes the ghamūs (perjurious) oath, and in their view, it carries an expiation; whereas according to us, there is neither expiation nor a breach [in such a case].

Hamzah, al-Kisa'i, and Ibn 'Ayyash (from 'Asim) read ‘aqadtum (contracted) with a light form (without stress). Ibn 'Amir (by way of Ibn Dhakwan) read ‘aqadtum (solemnized/covenanted). The mutual action (mufa'alah) here points to the essence of the verb, as does the stressed reading, for the recitations explain one another. It is said that this form is used for emphasis, considering that the contract is made by the tongue and the heart, not that there is any verbal repetition, as some have erroneously supposed. As Ibn Jarir narrates from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both), the verse was revealed when the people were forbidden from what they had done, so they said, "O Messenger of Allah, how shall we act regarding our oaths that we swore upon?" It is also narrated from Ibn Zayd that it was revealed concerning ‘Abd Allah ibn Rawahah, who had a guest; his wife delayed his meal, so he swore not to eat the food, the woman swore she would not eat if he did not eat, and the guest swore he would not eat if they did not eat. ‘Abd Allah ibn Rawahah then ate, and they ate with him. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was informed of this, and he said: "You have done well," and [this verse] was revealed.

"Its expiation": The pronoun refers either to the breach (hanth) understood from the context, or to the contract implied within the verb—by assuming a construct state—i.e., "the expiation for breaking it." Or, it refers to the relative pronoun ma with that same assumption. As for it referring to "oaths" because it is a singular [in meaning], like al-an'am according to Sibawayh, or interpreted as a singular, that is as you see it. The intended meaning of expiation is the verbal sense: the act whose nature is to cover the sin and veil it. The "veiling" refers to erasure, for what is erased is not seen, just as what is veiled is not seen. Through this, the femininity [of the word kaffarah] is justified. 'Isam al-Din mentioned that fa'alah is used for both masculine and feminine, but that which is uniform, like fa'il, when its described noun is omitted, is feminized for the feminine—like "I passed by a woman killed (qatilah) by the tribe of so-and-so," and one does not say qatil (masculine) because of ambiguity. He mentioned that the ta (feminine marker) might be for transfer or for emphasis.

That it is in the verbal sense is indicated by the statement of Allah (Exalted is He): "Feeding ten poor people." The Shafi'is inferred from the apparent text of the verse the permissibility of performing the expiation with wealth before the breach, whether the breach is a sin or not. Restricting this—as al-Rafi'i did—to when it is not a sin is not relied upon in their view. The basis for this inference, as mentioned, is that He (Exalted is He) placed the expiation immediately after the oath without mentioning the breach, and said (Mighty is He): "That is the expiation for your oaths when you have sworn." They restricted this to wealth so as to exclude expiation by fasting, for in their view, it cannot occur except after the breach, because it is for when one is unable to do otherwise, and inability is not realized without a breach. They also drew an analogy from this to the advancement of Zakat before the completion of the lunar year. They also cited what Muslim narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Whoever swears an oath and sees another to be better than it, let him perform expiation for his oath and do that which is better."

We say: The verse contains the necessity of expiation upon the breach, and it is not obligatory before it. Thus, it is established that the meaning is "what you have contracted the oaths upon AND have breached." They all agree that the meaning of His saying (Exalted is He): "And whoever among you is ill or on a journey, then [let him fast] a number of other days," means "and breaks his fast, then [let him fast] a number of other days." So, this is the same. The hadith they cited is not suitable for argumentation, for after conceding the indication of the fa (the 'so' in fa-li-yukaffir) for immediacy without delay, it is said that what is contained within its scope is the sum of expiation and performing [the better deed], and there is no indication of the order between them. Do you not see that His saying (Exalted is He): "When the call is made for prayer on the day of Jumu'ah, hasten to the remembrance of Allah and leave trade," does not necessitate the precedence of hastening over leaving trade by consensus? Furthermore, it came in a narration: "Let him do that which is better, then let him perform expiation for his oath." Some of them reported from the Shafi'is that they reconcile the two narrations by saying that one is to show permissibility and the other to show obligation. 'Isam al-Din said: "The advancement of the expiation at one time and its delay at another indicates that advancement and delay are equal."

You know that the Shafi'is, like the Hanafis, assume in the verse what we pointed to earlier in its interpretation, except that in their view, it is a restriction for the obligation. Otherwise, arguing from the verse is extremely subtle, as is not hidden. Reflect upon this. "Feeding" is a verbal noun added to its object, which is implied by a preposition and a verb built for the active subject; the subject of the verbal noun is often omitted, and there is no necessity to assume the verb built for the passive, because—along with it being contrary to the principle of assuming it—it is also contrary to what al-Samin mentioned. Thus, the assumption here is: "Its expiation is that the breaker or the swearer feeds ten poor people." "From the middle of what you feed your families": That is, from the moderate in type or quantity. According to the Shafi'is, this is a mudd for every poor person, and according to us, it is half a sa' of wheat or a full sa' of barley.

Ibn Humayd and others narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that "the middle" is bread and dates, bread and oil, or bread and ghee. The best is, for example, bread and meat. From Ibn Sirin, he said: "They used to say the best is bread and meat, the middle is bread and ghee, and the lowest is bread and dates." The grammatical status of the prepositional phrase is that of the accusative, because it is an adjective for a second object of "feeding," since it governs two objects; the first of which is that to which it is added. The assumption is: "food or sustenance being from the middle." It is also said that it is an adjective for an omitted verbal noun—i.e., "a feeding being from that." It is also permitted that its status be the nominative as the predicate of an omitted subject—i.e., "their food is from the middle"—or as an adjective for "feeding" itself, or as a substitute for "feeding."

This was objected to on the grounds that the categories of substitution (badal) are not conceivable here. It was answered that it is a badal ishtimal (substitute of inclusion) by assuming a described noun. This is clear according to the school of Ibn al-Hajib, the author of al-Lubab, and their followers, because they suffice with a connection between the substitute and the original without requiring part-to-whole relationships. As for the view of the majority, they require the substitute to include the original—not like the inclusion of a container by its contents, but in terms of it pointing to it in a general way and requiring it in some manner, such that the mind remains longing for the mention of the second upon hearing the first. Then the second is brought to summarize what was generalized by the first and to clarify it. They count among this category the saying: "I looked at the moon, [at] its illumination," as clarified by Rukn al-Din in his commentary on al-Lubab. It is not hidden that "feeding ten poor people" points to food generally and requires it. Some researchers chose the view that it is a badal kul min kul (whole-for-whole) with the assumption of "feeding from the middle," like the expression: "The hosting of the guests pleased me—their hosting [being] of the best found." Ma is either a verbal source or a relative noun with an omitted pronoun—i.e., "from the middle of what you feed."

Abu al-Baqa' permitted its being in the genitive by min (from)—i.e., "you feed from it." Al-Samin examined this and argued that a condition for the omitted relative pronoun governed by a preposition is that it be governed by the same as the relative noun, in wording, meaning, and relation. Here, even if the prepositions agree in one aspect, the relation differs, because the second min is linked to "you feed," and the first is not. Then he said: "If you say the relative noun is not governed by the genitive in the construct state, the answer is that the noun added to the relative pronoun is like the relative pronoun in its status." We have already presented a similar observation earlier. Some answered this by saying that the omission is gradual. It is not hidden that this is a great extension of the distance. Ahlun is the plural of ahl contrary to the rule, like ard and ardun (earth/earths), as the condition for this plural is that it be a proper noun or an adjective, and ahl is a solid noun. It is said that what allowed this is that it was used frequently in the sense of "deserving," so it resembled an adjective. It is narrated from Ja'far al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that he read ahalikum (your families) with the ya sukun-ed, according to the dialect of those who make it static in all three cases, like the alif. It is also a plural of ahl contrary to the rule, like layalin (nights) in the plural of laylah.

Ibn Jinni said: Their singular is laylah and ahlah. This is possible, as it was said that his intent might be that they have an assumed singular that is what he mentioned, or that his intent is that they have a verified singular heard from the Arabs, which is that. It is said that ahali is a plural of ahlun, but this is of no value. "Or their clothing": This is a conjunction, as Abu al-Baqa' said, to "feeding," and several have held this view. Al-Zamakhshari chose that it is a conjunction to the place of "from the middle." He justified his view regarding what is attributed to him by stating that "from the middle" is a substitute for the "feeding," and the substitute is the intended meaning; thus, the original is as if it were set aside. It is as if it were said: "Its expiation is from the middle of what you feed..." The author of al-Taqrib justified his turning away from the apparent text by saying that kiswah (clothing) is a name for a garment, not a verbal noun. Al-Raghib said: Kisa' and kiswah are clothing, so it does not befit it to be conjoined to the preceding verbal noun, especially since both relate to the poor. Furthermore, it leads to leaving out the description of how the clothing should be—which is that it should be "middle" [quality]. Then he said: "It is possible to answer the first by saying that kiswah is either a verbal noun, as the speech of al-Zajjaj suggests, or a verbal noun is implied, like ilbas (clothing/dressing). Regarding the second, it could be that one implies 'or their clothing [should be] from the middle of what you clothe [them with],' and that this was omitted because of the context of its mention in the conjoined-to. Or that it is left in its general sense, either by intending its generality or by referring the explanation to others." Furthermore, conjoining to the place of "from the middle" does not provide this intended meaning, which is estimating the "middle" for the clothing, so the requirement is shared. It also leads to the correctness of substituting it for the conjoined-to, which is not sound.

Some researchers also objected to what was attributed to al-Zamakhshari, stating that conjoining to the substitute requires the conjoined also to be a substitute, and substituting clothing for "feeding" would only be an error due to the lack of relevance between them. A "substitute of error" does not occur in eloquent speech, let alone the most eloquent. Denying that it occurs is something not to be turned toward. Many have made this conjunction a case of: "I fed her hay and cold water." As if it were said: "Feeding is the middle of what you feed, or dressing is their clothing," in the sense that feeding is the feeding of the middle, and dressing is the dressing of clothing. There is ambiguity and explanation in both places. It was objected that the conjunction in this case is to the original, not the substitute. It was answered that the intent is that, looking at the apparent wording, it is conjoined to the substitute, and it is as you see. Al-Shihab objected to the claim that the reason for al-Zamakhshari turning from the apparent text to the choice of conjoining to the place of "from the middle" was to achieve proportionality between the types of expiation related to the poor, by saying: "How can that be achieved when he has made the conjunction to 'from the middle' based on the assumption of its being a substitute, and on that assumption, it is an adjective for an implied 'feeding'?"

You have known that this is an opinion held by some. In sum, there is weakness in what al-Zamakhshari inclined toward, to the point that al-‘Ilm al-‘Iraqi said: "It is an error; the correct view is conjunction to 'feeding'." Al-Halabi said: "What al-Zamakhshari mentioned only works on one view: that 'from the middle' is the predicate of an omitted subject indicated by what precedes it—the assumption being 'their food is from the middle.' The speech is complete on this reading at His saying (Exalted is He): 'ten poor people,' and then he began another statement that the food is of such-and-such middle quality. But when we say that 'from the middle' is the second object, it is impossible to conjoin 'their clothing' to it due to their difference in grammatical declension." The intended meaning of clothing is what covers the general body, according to what is narrated from the Greatest Imam (may Allah be pleased with him) and Abu Yusuf. Therefore, trousers do not suffice in their view, because the wearer is called naked by custom. However, what does not suffice for clothing may suffice for feeding in terms of value. There are two narrations regarding whether intention is required at that time. The apparent view of the school is that it suffices whether he intended it or not. It is also narrated that if he gives trousers to a woman, it is not permissible, but if he gives them to a man, it is, because what is considered is shielding the nakedness to the extent that prayer is valid, and that is what achieves covering the ‘awrah. Anything beyond that is a bonus for adornment or the like, so it is not obligatory in clothing, just as condiments are not in food. It is narrated from Muhammad that what suffices for prayer suffices absolutely. The correct view relied upon by us is the first. It is required that this be of a type suitable for the moderate person and beneficial for over three months. From Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), a cloak (‘aba'ah) sufficed in those days. From Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), a shirt, a wrap, or a garment suffices. From al-Hasan, it is two white cloths. The Imamiyyah narrated from al-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that it is two cloths for every poor person, and one cloth suffices in case of necessity. Our companions stipulated that the poor person must be an adolescent or older; thus, a non-adolescent does not suffice, according to what al-Haskafi mentioned in transmission from al-Bada'i' regarding the expiation for zihar. We will discuss later, God willing, in the verse of zihar expiation, that the meaning of food is enabling the person to consume it, and the verification of the discussion in that regard in the most perfect way. It was read as kiswatuhum with the kaf damah-ed; it is a dialect like qudwah in qudwah and uswah in uswah. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab and al-Yamani read kaswatihim with the kaf of resemblance entering upon uswah, which is, as al-Raghib said, the state a person is in when following another, whether it be good or bad. The hamzah, as others have said, is a substitute for a waw because it is from muwasah (consolation/sharing). The prepositional phrase is the predicate of an omitted subject—the assumption being "or their food is like the uswah (example/standard) of your families." Al-Sa'd said: The kaf is redundant—i.e., "or their food is the uswah of your families." It is said that the first is better: the assumption being "food [that is] like their uswah," so it is also a conjunction to "from the middle." According to this reading, the choice is between feeding and freeing [a slave] in His saying (Exalted is He): "or the freeing of a slave" only, and the clothing is established by the Sunnah. Abu Hayyan claimed that the verse negates the clothing, but that is of no value. Abu al-Baqa' said: The meaning is "like the uswah of your families in clothing," so the verse is not void of clothing. There is an observation here, as there is nothing in the speech that points to that assumption.

The meaning of "freeing a slave" is the emancipation of a human being in any condition. Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy upon him) stipulated faith therein, carrying the absolute mention here to the restricted one in the expiation of killing. With us, it is not carried over due to the difference in the cause. Some Shafi'is argued for this by saying that the expiation is a right of Allah (Exalted is He), and the right of Allah (Exalted is He) cannot be directed to an enemy of Allah—like Zakat. We say: What is explicitly stated is "freeing a slave," and that has been realized. The intent of emancipation is for the emancipated to be enabled for obedience by his freedom from the service of a master, then his committing a sin and remaining in disbelief is referred back to his own evil choice. It was objected that a person could say: "Yes, his committing a sin is referred back to what was mentioned, but why would the conception of that from him not be a barrier to directing [the expiation] to him, as in Zakat?" It was answered that by analogy, the permissibility of directing Zakat to him would also be the case, for it includes consolation for the slaves of Allah (Exalted is He) as well. But his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: "Take it from their rich and return it to their poor" removed them from the recipient category. Some of our companions mentioned a standard for what is permissible to emancipate in expiation and what is not. They said: "Whenever he emancipates a slave, fully owned, in his possession, accompanied by the intention of expiation, and the type of benefit intended from him exists without a substitute, it is permissible. If not, it is not permissible." Is it permissible to emancipate a deaf person or not? There are two views. In al-Hidayah: "A deaf person is permissible, but the analogy is that it is not," which is a narration in the Nawadir, because the nature of the benefit is lost. However, we have chosen the permissibility as a matter of istihsan (juridical preference) because the essence of the benefit remains, for if he is shouted at, he hears. Even if he were in a state where he does not hear at all, such as if he were born deaf—and the mute—it would not suffice.

The meaning of "or" is the obligation of one of the three traits absolutely, and the choice of the accountable person in designating it. It is attributed to some Mu'tazilah that the obligation is the collection [of all three], and one is dropped. It is said that the obligation is designated with Allah (Exalted is He), which is what the accountable person performs, so it differs relative to the accountable persons. It is also said that the obligation is one designated thing that does not differ, but the falling of the obligation occurs through it and the other. Their disparity in magnitude and reward does not contradict the choice, which is delegated to [the person's] motivation and the intention to increase reward, for clothing is greater than feeding, and freeing is greater than both. He (Exalted is He) began with feeding to facilitate it for the servants. More than one of our companions mentioned that if the accountable person performs all of them together or in order, and does not intend [expiation] until after completing them, one of them counts—which is the one highest in value. If he leaves all of them, he is punished by one, which is the lowest in value, because the obligation falls with the lowest. The verification of this is in the usul.

"And whoever does not find": That is, anything of the mentioned matters. "Then fasting three days": That is, his expiation is that. Continuity (wala') is required according to us, and it is invalidated by menstruation, unlike the expiation for breaking the fast. Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both), Mujahid, Qatadah, and al-Nakha'i went to the requirement of continuity.

Ibn Marduyah narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both) that he said: "When the verse of expiations was revealed, Hudhayfah said: 'O Messenger of Allah, are we free to choose?' He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'You are free to choose; if you wish, you emancipate, if you wish, you clothe, and if you wish, you feed. And whoever does not find, then fasting three days consecutively.'" Ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Humayd, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Dawud in al-Masahif, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Hakim (who authenticated it), and al-Bayhaqi narrated from Ubayy ibn Ka'b that he used to read: "Then fasting three days consecutively." Most of these also narrated from Ibn Mas'ud that he also used to read it likewise. Sufyan said: "I looked in the copy of al-Rabi' and saw in it: 'And whoever does not find anything, then fasting three days consecutively.'" Through the sum of this, the requirement of continuity is established in the most perfect way. Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy upon him) permitted separation, and he does not consider the anomalous [readings] as evidence; perhaps others were not established in his view.

We consider the lack of finding and inability regarding what was mentioned at the time of performance. Even if he gave away his wealth and delivered it, then fasted, then returned and reclaimed his gift, the fasting suffices for him, as in al-Mujtaba. It is attributed to Shafi'i (may Allah be pleased with them) that he considers inability at the time of the breach. It is required that the inability continue until the completion of the fast. If the incapacitated person fasts two days, then before completing it—even if by an hour—becomes wealthy, or if he becomes wealthy through the death of a testator, the fast does not suffice for him, and he must restart with the wealth. If he fasted while forgetting about it, it would not suffice according to the correct view. There is disagreement regarding what constitutes a "finder." Abu al-Shaykh narrated from Qatadah who said: "If he has fifty dirhams, he is one who 'finds,' and feeding is obligatory upon him; if he has less, he is one who 'does not find,' and he fasts." From al-Nakha'i: "If he has twenty dirhams, it is upon him to feed for the expiation." Abu Hayyan reported from Shafi'i, Ahmad, and Malik that whoever has excess beyond his food and the food of those whose support is upon him for his day and night, and beyond his clothing, to the extent that he can feed or clothe, he is a "finder." From Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him): "If he does not have a nisab (the taxable threshold), he is not a finder."

"That": That is, what has passed in mention, "is the expiation for your oaths when you have sworn"—that is, and have breached. The details of this have passed. "When" (idha), according to what al-Samin said, is merely for time-specification and does not have the meaning of a condition. It is permitted that it be conditional, and its answer is omitted according to the Egyptians, the assumption being: "When you have sworn and breached, that is the expiation for your oaths." This is indicated by what preceded, or it is what preceded according to the Kufans. The disagreement between the two groups is famous.

"And guard your oaths": That is, observe them, so that you may perform the expiation for them if you breach them; or guard yourselves from breaching them, even if the breach is not a sin; or do not offer them repeatedly, as His saying (Exalted is He) suggests: "And do not make Allah an object for your oaths." This is supported by the poet's saying: "Little in his swearing, guarding his oath; if the oath slips from him, he fulfills it." Or guard them and do not forget how you swore, through carelessness. Al-Shihab authenticated the first. The second was objected to because it has no meaning, for one is not forbidden from breaching if the act is not a sin, and he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Let him do that which is better and perform expiation," and He (Exalted is He) said: "Allah has appointed for you the dissolution of your oaths." Thus it is established that breach is not forbidden if it is not a sin, so "guard your oaths" cannot be a prohibition of breach. The third is rejected and weak, because how can the command to guard the oath be a prohibition of the oath? Is it not like saying "Guard the wealth" meaning "do not earn it"? As for the verse, there is no evidence in it, for the meaning of "guarding his oath" is observing it by performing the expiation. If its meaning were as mentioned, it would be redundant with what preceded—i.e., "little in his swearing." The fourth was objected to as being far-fetched. Reflect upon this.

"Thus": That is, that marvelous explanation, "Allah makes clear to you His verses"—that is, He announces His law and rulings, not a clarification less than that. The advancement of "to you" over the direct object is for what we have mentioned repeatedly.