I say: Rather, it too comes close to disbelief.

Al-Qurtubi then related that the scholars interpreted the prohibition mentioned in the report as indicating disapproval. He said:

“What appears to me is that it is prohibited in the case of one for whom this corrupt belief is feared. His undertaking it would therefore be forbidden, whereas it is disliked in the case of one who does not hold that belief.”

This is a sound distinction, supported by the account of Ibn Umar—the narrator of the hadith concerning the prohibition of vows—for it concerns a conditional vow.

I say: By “the account,” he means what al-Hakim transmitted (4/304) through Fuleih ibn Sulayman, from Sa'id ibn al-Harith, who said that he heard Abdullah ibn Umar when a man from Banu Ka'b, named Mas'ud ibn Amr, asked him: “O Abu Abd al-Rahman, my son was in the land of Persia among those who were with Umar ibn Ubayd Allah. A severe plague broke out in Basra, and when news of it reached me, I vowed: ‘If Allah brings my son back, I shall walk to the Ka'bah.’ He returned sick and then died. What do you think?” Ibn Umar replied: “Were you not forbidden from making vows?! Indeed, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘A vow neither brings anything forward nor delays it; rather, it only draws from the miser.’ Fulfil your vow.”

Al-Hakim said: “Authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim.” Al-Dhahabi agreed with him.

I say: Al-Bukhari also recorded it, without the account, by this route. Regarding Fuleih, al-Hafiz says in al-Taqrib: “Truthful, but frequently mistaken.”

I say: Thus, there is no harm to the basis of his hadith so long as he is not its sole narrator. And Allah knows best.

In sum, the hadith warns the Muslim against undertaking a conditional vow. People must therefore be aware of this, lest they fall into what has been prohibited while supposing that they are doing good.