Mālik, namely that a large quantity of food or drink in liquid form is not rendered impure by a small amount of filth; its ruling is the same as that of water.

He said:
The scholars are unanimous that if someone vows to commit a sin, he is not allowed to fulfill it.
They differ, however, over whether he must make expiation for that or not.
They also disagree about an unrestricted vow that is not linked to any condition, and about a vow uttered in the form of an oath: is it binding or not, and does it carry expiation or not?
They agree that whoever vows something that involves neither obedience nor sin bears no liability. (1)

I said:
Indeed, the debate over whether expiation is required when one abandons a vow concerning something merely permissible is just like—indeed even stronger than—the debate over a vow to commit a sin. The apparent stance of Aḥmad is that expiation is obligatory in all of these cases, and this is likewise the view of most of the early scholars. It is also the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfa and others, though it is reported from him that this applies only when the vow was intended as an oath.

He said:
The scholars agree that it is unlawful for a person to avert harm from himself by wronging someone who has not wronged him, doing so intentionally. For example, if an enemy of the Muslims descends upon a people and demands, “Give us So-and-so’s wealth,” or “Hand over So-and-so,” when he has no right to it under Islamic law; or he says, “Give us So-and-so’s wife or bond-maid,” or “Do such-and-such of what is forbidden in Islam,” there is no disagreement among Muslims that such a demand must not be met, even if refusing leads to the destruction of them all. (2)

I said:
Asserting consensus on so wide-ranging a matter—which encompasses many different situations—is not grounded in a transmitted agreement from the scholars. Rather, it rests on the transmitter’s own conviction that such conduct is oppressive and forbidden, and that no scholar would allow it. Yet some issues that fall under this heading are in fact disputed and require clarification, as when the unbelievers use Muslim captives as human shields