But Ibn Abbās cited it as evidence because Islam had endorsed blood money, which is compensation for a life. He therefore held that this compensation could take the place of the life itself as a ransom. He then prescribed a ram as the ransom, following the account of Abraham, which is more fitting.

The other report from Ahmad holds that he must offer the expiation for an oath, as with other vows to commit a sin. Marwān’s ruling that nothing is required of him is also the view of al-Shāfiʿī, of Ahmad according to one report, and of everyone who holds that a vow to commit a sin entails no obligation.

On its face, this vow appears to have been an oath-like vow. Yet the established position of Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbās is that such a vow is an oath for which expiation must be offered. It thus becomes clear that this was a devotional vow, like the vow of Abd al-Muttalib. Mālik and other scholars of Medina, however, do not distinguish between the two categories, so they related the account according to their own understanding of its meaning.

He—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—also said:

Section

I have written in “The Principle of Covenants and Contracts”—the principle concerning religious covenants being included among the general principles, and that concerning worldly contracts among the jurisprudential principles—and also in “The Book of Vows,” that when something is obligatory under the Sharia, and a person vows to perform it, makes a covenant with Allah to do so, pledges allegiance to the Messenger or the imam on that basis, or joins a group in mutually swearing to do so, then these covenants