In this chapter there are numerous subsidiary questions, yet the four issues just discussed form its foundation, for virtually every disagreement that arises here can be traced—more often than not—to a difference over one of those four. An illustration is their dispute concerning someone who swears, “I shall not eat any heads,” and then eats fish heads: does he become perjured or not? Those who defer to customary usage say that he does not, whereas those who go by the literal linguistic sense say that he does. The same applies to one who swears that he will not eat meat and then consumes fat: whoever restricts himself to the strict denotation of the word maintains that he does not break his oath, while whoever holds that a name can extend to what is generated from the named thing rules that he does.
In short, the divergences over the many derivative cases in this chapter go back to the four principles we have mentioned and, more broadly, to their differing views on the semantic force of the expressions invoked in oaths—whether the wording is ambiguous, apparent, or an explicit text.
Section Two: Removing the Violation (Expiation)
All scholars agree that the expiation for oaths consists of the four kinds Allah mentions in His Book in the verse, “Its expiation is …” (Q 5:89). The majority hold that when a person breaks his oath he may choose among three of them—feeding the poor, clothing them, or emancipating a slave—and that fasting is permitted only if he is unable to perform one of those three, in light of the Almighty’s words, “But whoever cannot find [the means] must fast three days” (Q 5:89). The lone exception is what is reported from Ibn ʿUmar: when he deemed an oath grave he would emancipate a slave or provide clothing, and when he did not deem it grave he would give food.
They then differed on seven well-known questions:
- The amount of food that must be given to each of the ten needy persons.
- The type and quantity of clothing if that option is chosen.
- Whether the three days of fasting must be consecutive.
- Whether the specific number—ten—must be observed in the needy recipients.
- Whether the recipients must be Muslims and free persons.
- Whether the slave who is emancipated must be free of bodily defects.
- Whether faith is a required condition in that slave.
The First Question
As for the amount of food: Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and the scholars of Medina say that each needy person is to be given one mudd of wheat, measured by the mudd of the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him. Mālik, however, adds that this mudd is particular to the people of Medina because of the narrowness of their livelihood; as for the inhabitants of other cities, they are to be given what represents the median level of their own expenditure. Ibn al-Qāsim says: the mudd standard applies in every