Tafsir of Al-Ma'idah 5:89

Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread): Verse 89

The second type of ruling mentioned here is the Almighty's saying: {Allāhu lā yu'ākhidhukum bi-l-laghwī fī aymānikum} (Allah will not call you to account for what is unintentional in your oaths).

We have previously mentioned that the Almighty clarified various types of laws and rulings in this passage. It remains to be asked: What is the connection between this ruling and what preceded it, making its mention appropriate immediately after?

We reply: We mentioned that the reason for the revelation of the first verse was that a group of the Companions forbade certain foods and clothing for themselves, choosing monasticism and swearing oaths to that effect. When Allah forbade them from this, they said, "O Messenger of Allah, what shall we do concerning our oaths?" Then Allah revealed this verse.

Know that the discussion regarding what constitutes an oath of laghw (unintentional utterance) was covered exhaustively in Surah Al-Baqarah, in the exegesis of the verse: {Allāhu lā yu'ākhidhukum bi-l-laghwī fī aymānikum wa lākin yu'ākhidhukum bi-mā kasabat qulūbukum} (Allah will not call you to account for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts have earned) (Al-Baqarah: 225). Thus, there is no need for repetition.

Then the Almighty said: {wa lākin yu'ākhidhukum bi-mā 'aqad-tum al-aymān} (but He will call you to account for what you have intentionally bound by oaths). In this, there are several issues:

• Nāfi', Ibn Kathīr, Abū 'Amr, and Ḥafṣ from 'Āṣim recited {‘aqad-tum} (عَقَدْتُمْ) with a shaddah (doubling) on the qāf (ق), without an alif.
• Ḥamzah, Al-Kisā'ī, and Abū Bakr from 'Āṣim recited {‘aqad-tum} (عَقَدْتُمْ) with a takhfīf (lightening) of the qāf, without an alif.
• Ibn 'Āmir recited {‘āqad-tum} (عَاقَدْتُمْ) with an alif and takhfīf.

Al-Wāḥidī said: It is said, ‘aqada fulān al-yamīn wa-l-‘ahd wa-l-ḥabl ‘aqdan (so-and-so bound the oath, the covenant, or the rope) meaning he strengthened and confirmed it. Similarly, ‘aqada with shaddah means he confirmed, and ‘āqada with alif is similar.

Knowing this, we say: As for those who recited with takhfīf (lightening), it applies to few or many instances; one says, ‘aqada Zaydun yamīnuhu (Zayd bound his oath) and ‘aqadū aymānahum (they bound their oaths).

As for those who recited with shaddah (doubling), know that Abū ‘Ubaydah deemed this recitation weak, saying that shaddah implies repetition, time after time. Therefore, the recitation with shaddah would necessitate the dropping of the expiation for a single oath because it was not repeated.

Al-Wāḥidī, may Allah have mercy on him, responded to this in two ways:

1. Some scholars said that ‘aqada with takhfīf and shaddah are identical in meaning.
2. Even if it implies repetition, as in the verse {wa ghulliqat al-abwāb} (and the doors were closed) (Yūsuf: 23), this repetition is achieved when one binds it with the heart and the tongue. Whenever the heart and tongue are combined, repetition is achieved. But if one binds the oath with one but not the other, he is not considered to have bound it.

As for the one who recited with alif (‘āqad-tum), it is derived from the mufā‘alah form, which is specific to a single action, like ‘āfāhu Allāh (Allah cured him), ṭāraqt an-na‘l (I struck the sandal together), and ‘āqabtu al-liṣṣ (I punished the thief). Thus, this recitation is like the recitation of the one who used takhfīf.

The word {mā} (what) combined with the verb is equivalent to a verbal noun (maṣdar). The meaning is: "But He will call you to account for your binding, or your confirming, or your mutual binding of oaths."

There is an omission in the verse. The meaning is: "But He will call you to account for what you have bound if you break them." The time of accountability was omitted because it was known to them, or [it means]: "But He will call you to account for breaking what you have bound," in which case the object (al-maḍūf) is omitted.

As for how Al-Shāfi‘ī used this verse as evidence that the yamīn al-ghumūs (perjurious oath) necessitates expiation, we have already mentioned that in Surah Al-Baqarah.

Then the Almighty said: {fa-kaffāratuhū iṭ‘āmu ‘asharati masākīna min awsaṭi mā tuṭ‘imūna ahlīkum aw kiswatuhum aw taḥrīru raqabah} (The expiation for it is the feeding of ten poor people with the average of what you feed your families, or clothing them, or freeing a slave).

Know that the verse indicates that the obligation in the expiation of an oath is one of these three things, chosen by the person (on the basis of choice). If one is unable to perform all three, then another obligation is due, which is fasting.

In the verse, there are issues:

The meaning of the obligatory choice is that one is not required to perform each of these three actions, nor is it permissible to abandon all of them. When one performs any one of these three that he chooses, he fulfills the obligation. When these three conditions are met, that is the obligatory choice.

Some jurists said that the obligation is "one, but not specified" (al-wāḥid ghayr mu‘ayyan). This statement can be interpreted in two ways:

1. It could mean that what is obligatory is for him to bring into existence one of these three, but not a specific one. This is logically impossible because a thing that is not intrinsically specified is inherently impossible to exist, and what is like that is not intended for legal obligation.
2. It could mean that what is obligatory is one specific thing in itself and in the knowledge of Allah, but its identity is unknown to the actor. This is also impossible because the fact that this thing is obligatory in itself in Allah's knowledge means it cannot be abandoned under any circumstances. Yet, the Ummah has agreed that it is permissible for him to abandon it provided he performs another. Combining these two views is to combine negation and affirmation, which is impossible. The full discussion on this is found in Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence).

Al-Shāfi‘ī, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The share for each poor person is one mudd, which is two-thirds of a ṣā‘. This is the view of Ibn ‘Abbās, Zayd ibn Thābit, Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Al-Ḥasan, and Al-Qāsim.

Abū Ḥanīfah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The obligation is half a ṣā‘ of wheat, or a ṣā‘ of other grains.

The Argument for Al-Shāfi‘ī: The Almighty did not mention the phrase {min awsaṭi mā tuṭ‘imūna ahlīkum} (from the average of what you feed your families) concerning the feeding aspect. This "average" must refer either to what is average by custom (‘urf) or what is average by religious law (shar‘).

• If it means average by custom, then two-thirds of a ṣā‘ of wheat, whether made into flour or bread, approximates one mudd, which is sufficient for one day's sustenance outwardly.
• If it means average by religious law, there is no specific measure mentioned in the Law except in one instance: the report concerning one who broke his fast during Ramadan, where the Prophet (PBUH) ordered him to feed sixty poor people without specifying the measure. The man brought an ‘irq containing fifteen *ṣā‘*s, and the Prophet (PBUH) told him, "Feed this." This indicates that the measure for feeding a poor person is one-quarter of a ṣā‘, which is one mudd. The expiation for an oath is not bound by the wording of charity (ṣadaqah) which is absolute regarding the measure, unlike feeding the family. Therefore, its measure should be considered relative to the Ṣadaqat al-Fiṭr (Charity of Breaking the Fast), which is established by explicit text to be measured by the ṣā‘, not the mudd.

The Argument for Abū Ḥanīfah: The Almighty said: {min awsaṭi mā tuṭ‘imūna ahlīkum}. The "average" (al-awsaṭ) is the most just (al-a‘dal). What Al-Shāfi‘ī mentioned is the minimum that suffices. However, the most just measure includes a side dish (idām). This is also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās, may Allah be pleased with them both: a mudd accompanied by its side dish, and the value of the side dish usually amounts to the value of another mudd or more.

Al-Shāfi‘ī’s Response: The phrase {min awsaṭi mā tuṭ‘imūna ahlīkum} can mean moderation in quantity. A person might eat very little, needing only one loaf, or eat a lot, needing two mans. However, the generally accepted average amount of bread is close to one mudd. It can also mean moderation in value—not being overly expensive like sugar, nor cheap like bran or corn. The average items are wheat, dates, raisins, and bread. It can also mean moderation in pleasantness and taste. Since the wording is ambiguous, we must adhere to what we mentioned for two reasons:

1. The side dish (idām) is not obligatory by consensus (ijmā‘), so the wording must refer to moderation in the quantity of the main food.
2. This quantity [the mudd] is obligatory with certainty, while the rest is doubtful because the wording does not explicitly indicate it. Therefore, we mandate certainty and discard doubt. And Allah knows best.

Al-Shāfi‘ī said: The obligation is the transfer of ownership of the food. Abū Ḥanīfah said: If he feeds ten poor people breakfast or dinner, it is permissible.

Al-Shāfi‘ī’s Argument: The obligation in this expiation is one of the three: feeding, clothing, or freeing a slave. We have agreed that the obligation in clothing is the transfer of ownership. Therefore, the obligation in feeding must also be the transfer of ownership.

Abū Ḥanīfah’s Argument: The verse indicates that the obligation is feeding (iṭ‘ām). Providing breakfast or dinner is feeding, as evidenced by the Almighty’s saying: {wa yuṭ‘imūna aṭ-ṭa‘āma ‘alā ḥubbihi} (and they give food out of love for Him) (Al-Insān: 8). He also said: {min awsaṭi mā tuṭ‘imūna ahlīkum}. Feeding the family is done by making the food available (tamkīn), not by transferring ownership. In common usage, it is said, "So-and-so feeds the poor" if he presents food to them and allows them to eat it. Since it is established that he is commanded to feed, it must be sufficient.

Al-Shāfi‘ī’s Response: The obligation is either one mudd or more. Breakfast and dinner might be less than that, so the obligation is only fulfilled with certainty. And Allah knows best.

Al-Shāfi‘ī said: It is not sufficient unless he feeds ten poor people. Abū Ḥanīfah said: If he feeds one poor person for ten days, it is permissible.

Al-Shāfi‘ī’s Argument: The basis of this matter is a ritual act (ta‘abbud) whose meaning is not rationally understood. In such cases, reliance must be placed on the explicit text.

In language, kiswah means covering, anything worn. What suffices for expiation is the minimum that can be called clothing: an izār (loincloth), a ridā’ (upper garment), a shirt, trousers, a turban, or a head covering—one garment for each poor person. This is the view of Ibn ‘Abbās, Al-Ḥasan, and Mujāhid, and it is the doctrine of Al-Shāfi‘ī, may Allah have mercy on him.

The term raqabah (neck) refers to the whole person. It is said that the origin of this metaphor is that captives in Arabia used to have their hands tied to their necks with a rope. When they were freed, this rope was untied, so the release was called fakk ar-raqabah (loosening the neck), and this term later came to mean manumission.

The view of the Ahl al-Ẓāhir (Literalists) is that freeing any slave suffices. Al-Shāfi‘ī, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The slave sufficient for expiation is any sound slave, free from defects that prevent work, whether young or old, male or female, provided they are a believer. It is not permissible to free a female disbeliever for any expiation, nor a muktāb (a slave contracted for his freedom), nor to purchase a relative [for the purpose of freeing them for expiation]. We have mentioned these issues in the verse concerning Ẓihār.

One might ask: What is the benefit of mentioning feeding before freeing a slave, given that freeing a slave is undoubtedly superior?

We offer several responses:

1. It is intended to indicate that this expiation is obligatory based on choice, not sequence. If it were obligatory sequentially, one would have to start with the most severe option.
2. Feeding is mentioned first because it is easier, as food is more generally available. This is intended to indicate that the Almighty considers leniency and ease in obligations.
3. Feeding is superior in one sense: a free poor person might not find food, and no one might give him food, leading him into distress. However, a slave is already the obligation of his master to feed and clothe.

Then the Almighty said: {fa-man lam yajid fa-ṣiyāmu thalāthati ayyām} (But whoever cannot find [means for that], then [it is] three days of fasting). In this, there are issues:

Al-Shāfi‘ī, in his soundest opinion, said: If one possesses his sustenance and the sustenance of his dependents for the day and night, plus a surplus sufficient to feed ten poor people, the expiation by feeding is incumbent upon him. If he does not possess this amount, fasting is permissible for him.

Abū Ḥanīfah said: Fasting is permissible for him if he possesses wealth upon which zakāh is not due. He equates the one who does not owe zakāh with the one who is destitute.

Al-Shāfi‘ī’s Argument: The Almighty conditioned the permissibility of fasting upon the lack of ability to perform the three options. What is conditioned upon a condition is void when the condition is absent. Therefore, when the ability to perform the three is absent, fasting should not be permissible. We set aside this ruling when one possesses his own sustenance and that of his family for a day and night because that is like a necessity (muḍṭarr). We have seen in the Law that whenever there is a conflict between one's own right and the right of another, prioritizing one's own right is obligatory. Therefore, the verse must remain operative in all cases other than this one.

Al-Shāfi‘ī, in his soundest opinion, said: He fasts three days, consecutively or separately, as he wishes.

Abū Ḥanīfah said: Consecutive fasting is obligatory.

Al-Shāfi‘ī’s Argument: The Almighty obligated fasting for three days. One who fasts three days separately has fulfilled the obligation of fasting three days, so he should be absolved.

Abū Ḥanīfah’s Argument: This is based on what is narrated from the recitation of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b and Ibn Mas‘ūd: "Then [he must fast] three consecutive days." Their recitation does not differ from their narration.

The Response: The irregular recitation (qirā’ah shādhdhah) is rejected because if it were part of the Qur'an, it would have been transmitted by tawātur (mass transmission). If we allowed that the Qur'an could be transmitted without tawātur, it would open the door for the Shi'a and heretics to attack the Qur'an, which is false. Thus, we know that the irregular recitation is rejected and cannot serve as evidence. Furthermore, it is narrated that Ubayy ibn Ka‘b recited: "Then [he must fast] a number of other days consecutively," even though consecutiveness was not a condition there. They responded by saying that it is narrated from the Prophet (PBUH) that a man asked him about making up missed Ramadan days, asking if he could do them separately. The Prophet (PBUH) replied, "What if you owed a debt and paid one dirham, would that suffice you?" He said, "Yes." He replied, "Then Allah is more deserving of pardoning and forgiving."

We say: Although this Ḥadīth was an answer regarding Ramadan fasting, its wording and reasoning are general for all fasts. It is established in the principles that the generality of the wording takes precedence over the specificity of the occasion. Therefore, this is the strongest evidence for the permissibility of separation here as well.

If someone fasts six days for two oaths, it suffices him, whether he specified which three days were for which oath or not. The evidence is that the Almighty obligated three days of fasting upon him, and he performed them, so he must be absolved.

Then the Almighty said: {dhālika kaffāratu aymānikum idhā ḥalaftum} (That is the expiation for your oaths when you swear). The word {dhālika} (that) refers to what was previously mentioned: feeding, clothing, or freeing a slave. Meaning: What has been mentioned is the expiation for your oaths when you swear and break them, because expiation is not due merely upon swearing. However, the mention of breaking the oath (ḥinth) is omitted because it is known, just as He said: {fa-man kāna minkum marīḍan aw ‘alā safarin fa-‘iddatun min ayyāmin ukhar} (And whoever is ill or on a journey, then [he must fast] a number of other days) (Al-Baqarah: 184), meaning, if he breaks his fast.

Al-Shāfi‘ī used this verse as evidence that expiating before breaking the oath is permissible. He said: The verse indicates that each of the three things is an expiation for the oath upon the occurrence of swearing. If one performs it after swearing but before breaking the oath, he has fulfilled the expiation for that oath. If so, he must be absolved. He added that the phrase {idhā ḥalaftum} (when you swear) contains a subtlety: it indicates that presenting the expiation before swearing is not permissible, but it is permissible after swearing and before breaking the oath.

Then the Almighty said: {wa-ḥfaẓū aymānakum} (And guard your oaths). There are two interpretations:

1. It means: Reduce the number of oaths and do not multiply them. Ka‘b said:

   Few are the oaths, O keeper of his oath, / Even if an oath escapes him, it is fulfilled. His saying, "Even if an oath escapes him," indicates that his saying, "O keeper of his oath," is a description of him as one who does not swear.

2. It means: Guard your oaths when you swear them against breaking them, lest you need to perform expiation. The wording allows for both interpretations. However, under this second interpretation, it would be restricted by the Prophet's saying: "Whoever swears an oath and sees something else better than it, let him do what is better, then let him perform the expiation for his oath."

Then the Almighty said: {kadhālika yubayyinu Allāhu lakum āyātihi la‘allakum tashkurūn} (Thus does Allah make clear to you His signs so that you may be grateful). The meaning is clear, and the discussion regarding the word la‘alla (so that) has preceded many times.

Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread): Verse 90

{Yā ayyuhā alladhīna āmanū innamā l-khamru wa-l-maysiru wa-n-nuṣubu wa-l-azlāmu rijsun min ‘amali sh-shayṭāni fa-jtanibūhu la‘allakum tufliḥūn} (O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing to] stone altars, and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful.)