Appearance
Verses 87–89
These three verses together with the following ones (up to the verse 108) give details of various commandments related to branches of religion. This whole group is inserted between the verses describing the story of the Messiah and the Christians. These verses consist of various groups laying down diverse orders, each being independent and complete in its theme. As such, it is difficult to decide whether a given group was revealed separately or had accompanied other verses, because context supports neither alternative. As for the traditions showing reasons of revelation, important ones shall be quoted under Traditions.
The above comment is applicable to these three verses too, be- cause the third one is independent in its theme, and the first one too is independent; although they are not devoid of a sort of affinity, because one type of vain oath may be related to forbidding oneself the good things which have been made lawful by God. Perhaps this was the reason why some exegetes have narrated that all verses were revealed about vain oaths.
This applies to the first verse vis-à-vis the third. As for the second, it in a way completes the first verse, as evidenced by some factors in it; that is, the command to: fear God in Whom you believe, and the conjunction: and at its beginning, as well as the order to “eat of the lawful things,” forbidding which has been prohibited in the first one. In this way the two verses are harmonized, give the same order and have the same context.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تُحَرِّمُوا طَيِّبَاتِ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ ٨٧
(5:87) O you who believe! Do not forbid (yourselves) the good thing which Allah has made lawful for you and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
al-Rāghib says in al-Mufradāt: “al-Ḥarām denotes the forbidden thing, be it by divine subjugation or forcible obstruction; whether this prohibition is by reason or sharīʾah or by one whose orders are followed.”
Again he says: “al-Ḥill basically means to untie a knot; the verse: and loose the knot from my tongue (), is used in this meaning; and ḥalaltu means: ‘I descended’; this is based on the fact that one unties one’s luggage on dismounting, then it was used for dismounting and disembarkation in general, and in this sense they say: ‘He disembarked’; someone made him disembark, that is, hosted him. God says: or it will alight close by their abodes (); and made their people to alight into the abode of perdition (). When time to repay a loan comes, they say, the loan has arrived; al-ḥillah is used for the people who alight; the same is the meaning of ḥayy ḥallāl; al-maḥillah is the place of disembarking; ḥalla ḥillan means it is lawful—this metaphorical expression is derived from ‘untying the knot.’ God says: And eat of the lawful and good (things) that Allah has given you; also He says: This is lawful and this is unlawful ().”
Apparently the contraposition between ḥill (lawfulness) and ḥurmah (unlawfulness), and opposition between ḥill (area beyond a sanctuary) and ḥaram (sanctuary) or iḥrām (the robe worn when entering ḥaram) is based on imaginary tying of knot when forbidding something, that is, unlawfulness; then it (ḥurmah) is put opposite of ḥill (which is metaphorically used for lawfulness). The two words, ḥill, and ḥurmah were generally used for lawfulness and unlawfulness, respectively, even before Islam; it is not that sharīʾah or its followers have coined them.
The verse (under discussion) prohibits to the believers forbidding themselves what God has made lawful for them. This forbidding what has been made lawful by God can be done either by laying down a legislation contrary to divine legislation, or by forbidding others or abstention, that is, one leaves out a lawful thing by abstaining from it or prohibiting it to oneself or others. All this behavior is tantamount to forbidding what God has made lawful, and it is equal to fighting God in His Power; this transgression against Him is contrary to the belief in God and in His communication. That is why the verse begins with the phrase: “O you who believe!” it implies that you are believers in God and have submitted to His commandments; therefore you should not forbid to yourself what God has made lawful. This explanation is further supported by the end clause of the next verse: and fear Allah in Whom you believe.
… the good things which God has made lawful for you: The addition of the word, “good”,—although the sentence would be complete even without it—aims at completing the cause of prohibition: If the believers forbid themselves the things which God has made lawful for them, then it is not only that they commit transgression against God in His authority and defy the demands of their belief in, and submission to, God, but also go against the law of nature, which takes these lawful things as good without reservation. God has pointed to it where He says about His Prophet and the sharīʾah which he has brought: Those who follow the Messenger Prophet, the ummī, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel, (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful ().
The above description supports the following:
First: Forbidding the good things that God has made lawful means abstaining, and making others desist, from lawful things.
Second: Lawful, as opposite of unlawful, includes the permissible and the commendable, even the obligatory things.
Third: Addition of “the good things” to that “which God has made lawful for you” aims at further elaboration of the same idea.
Fourth: Exceeding the limits (in “do not exceed the limits”) means transgression against God in His legislative authority; or overstepping the limits laid down by God by revolting against His obedience, refusing to submit to Him, and forbidding what He has made lawful. As God says, inter alia, describing the laws of divorce: These are the limits of Allah, so do not exceed them, and whoever exceeds the limits of Allah then these it is that are the unjust (). Likewise He says at the end of the verses of inheritance: These are Allah’s limits; and whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, He will cause him to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them; and this is the great achievement. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His limits, He will cause him to enter Fire to abide in it, and he shall have an abasing chastisement ().
As you see, the verses count uprightness and adherence to the sharīʾah in obedience to God and His Messenger as praiseworthy; and stepping out of obedience and submission to Him, and transgression and exceeding the limits of God as condemnable act that makes one liable to chastisement.
In short, the verse prohibits one from forbidding oneself what God has made lawful, by keeping away from it and avoiding it, because it goes contrary to the belief in God and His signs. Also it opposes the fact of their being lawful and good, and of their being free of impurity; otherwise, why should one abstain from them? It is nothing but exceeding the limits, and God does not love those who exceed the limits.
… and do not exceed the limits; surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits: You have seen and the context apparently shows that exceeding the limits connotes the self-imposed abstaining of the preceding sentence. As such the prohibition: “do not exceed the limits,” aims at emphasizing the one in: do not forbid (yourselves).
Some people have said: Exceeding the limits means overstepping the line of moderation regarding the lawful things, by throwing oneself down to enjoying them without restraint, contrary to discarding them abstemiously. So, the verse would mean: Do not forbid yourselves the good and tasteful things that God has made lawful for you. Do not intentionally avoid enjoying them abstemiously believing that it would bring you nearer to God. And do not exceed the limits by transgressing the line of moderation, going to extravagance and excess which would be harmful for your bodies or souls.
Or, exceeding the limits may mean overstepping the good and lawful things, indulging in bad and unlawful things. Then the connotation will be as follows: Do not avoid lawful thing and do not use unlawful things. In other words, do not forbid yourselves what God has made lawful for you and do not indulge in what God has forbidden you.
Although these two meanings are correct in themselves and the Qur’an clearly supports both themes, but neither fits the verse under discussion as its context and that of the following verse shows. Obviously, not every correct theme can be applied to every word without looking at its context and position.
وَكُلُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللَّهُ حَلَالًا طَيِّبًا ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذِي أَنْتُمْ بِهِ مُؤْمِنُونَ٨٨
(5:88) And eat of the lawful and good (things) that Allah has given you, and fear Allah in Whom you believe.
The conjunction, “And”, joins the imperative: “eat”, with the prohibition: do not forbid. As such, this verse apparently repeats and emphasizes the connotation of the preceding one. This is further supported by its opening phrase, “the lawful and good (things)” which stands parallel to the phrase in the preceding verse: the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and the preceding verse’s clause: O you who believe! as explained earlier.
Accordingly, the word: ‘eat’, coming after the prohibition: do not forbid, implies permission. Allowing one to eat in particular after the overall prohibition of forbidding is merely a verbal particularization, and the word: ‘eat’, implies unrestricted use of good bounties bestowed by God. Also, the word may mean only partaking of food or all aspects of usufruct and disposal. It has been repeatedly described that use of the word, eating, for general management and disposal is very common and widespread in literature.
Alternatively, the word ‘eat’ could have possibly been used here in its literal sense. Thus the two verses were revealed when some believers had forbidden themselves the good and tasty food, and the verses were sent down to stop them from it. The first verse is comprehensive and includes eating as well as other modes of management, and it covers things which are lawful to eat and lawful to use otherwise.
The clause: “that God has given you”, is object of the verb: ‘eat’; and the words: “the lawful and good (things)”, are its circumstantial phrases—in this way, both verses do conform to each other.
Some others have said that, the words: “the lawful and good (things),” are the object of the verb: ‘eat’; and the clause: “that God has given you,” is attached to that verb; alternatively this clause might be a circumstantial phrase connected with the words: “the lawful and good (things)”, and has preceded the connecting clause (the lawful ) because it is a common noun; as a second alternative, the words: “the lawful and good (things),” might be adjectives to an omitted verbal noun, sustenance: And eat of the lawful and good sustenance … There may also be some other interpretations.
Some people believe that sustenance includes lawful and unlawful both, and have argued for it by the adjective: “lawful”, attached to it here. Reply: The “lawful and good” is not a circumspection condition for keeping out unlawful and bad sustenance; it is rather an explanatory condition and has the same connotation as the word explained—in this case, sustenance. The reason why it has been added here is that its being lawful and good does not leave any excuse for anyone for avoiding and keeping aloof from it, as explained earlier. We have elaborated the meaning of sustenance under the verse 27 of the chapter of “The House of ‘Imrān”, in the third volume of this book.
لَا يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ اللَّهُ بِاللَّغْوِ فِي أَيْمَانِكُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ يُؤَاخِذُكُمْ بِمَا عَقَّدْتُمُ الْأَيْمَانَ ۖ فَكَفَّارَتُهُ إِطْعَامُ عَشَرَةِ مَسَاكِينَ مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ أَوْ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ ۖ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ ثَلَاثَةِ أَيَّامٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ كَفَّارَةُ أَيْمَانِكُمْ إِذَا حَلَفْتُمْ ۚ وَاحْفَظُوا أَيْمَانَكُمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ ٨٩
(5:89) Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths; so its expiation is the feeding of ten poor men out of the average (food) you feed your families with, or their clothing, or the freeing of a neck; but whosoever cannot find (means) then fasting for three days; this is the expiation of your oaths when you swear. And guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His signs, that you may be grateful.
al-Laghw (inconsequential action); al-aymān is plural of al-yamīn (vow, oath). al-Rāghib says:
“al-Yamīn in context of oath is an allusion to the (right) hand, keeping in view what the parties of treaty or agreement do (that they shake their right hands at the conclusion of the agreement). God says: Or have you received from Us an agreement confirmed by an oath extending to the Day of Resurrection … (); And they swear by Allah with the strongest of their oaths, … (); Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, … ().”
al-Ta’qīd puts emphasis on al-‘aqd (to tie); it is also recited without intensified pronunciation; “in your oath” is related to “does not call you to account”, or to “what is vain”, and this is nearer.
The clause, “what is vain in your oath,” has been placed face to face with, “the making of deliberate oaths”; it shows that the vain oath is the one regarding which the maker of oath is not serious, his heart is not in it, he merely uses the formula of oath by force of habit, as they generally say—and particularly in trade dealings—‘No, by God!’ ‘Certainly by God!’ It is a far cry from serious deliberation when one declares on oath that: ‘By God! I’ll most certainly do it’, or ‘By God! I’ll most certainly not do it.’
This is what appears from the verse. But the sharīʾah also counts it as vain oaths if someone says: “By God! I’ll do this unlawful deed”; or, “By God! I’ll not do that obligatory deed”; it is because the Supreme Legislator has counted it as vain oath when it is used for something that has no preference in sharīʾah. This rule is added to the above Qur’anic one by the sunnah; and it is not necessary that the Qur’an should speak about everything that is affirmed by the sunnah particularly.
As for the clause: “but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths,” it includes only that oath which is endorsed by the sharīʾah, as it says at the end: And guard your oaths. Inevitably it refers to such oaths, and obviously the order to guard your oaths cannot point to that oath which God has declared vain. In short, a vain oath is that one which is not taken with deliberation; and the one made seriously is endorsed by sharīʾah.
… so its expiation is the feeding of ten poor men … or the freeing of a neck: al-Kufr (to cover, to hide); al-kaffārah (an action which somehow hides or covers the evil of disobedience). God says: … We will expiate from you your (small) sins … (). al-Rāghib says:
“al-Kaffārah is that which covers the sin; and from it is the kaffārah (expiation) of oath.”
The words: “so its expiation”, have branched out from the description of oath, keeping in view some omitted but understood words; for example: Then if you break your oath, so its expiation … It is because the word: “expiation”, points to a disobedience which demands expiation; and that disobedience cannot be the oath itself, otherwise the end section of the verse would not have said: guard your oaths, because there is no sense in guarding an act of disobedience. Obviously, expiation is related to the breaking of oath, not the oath itself.
It also shows that the calling to account mentioned in the sentence: but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths, is related to the breaking of, not the making of the oath. This calling to accounts is related to oaths because it points to its breaking. The word, its expiation, branches from its breaking because the sentence, He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths, points to it. Similar explanation applies to the sentence: this is the expiation of your oaths when you swear, that is, when you swear and break it.
The clauses: “the feeding of ten poor men out of the average (food) you feed your families with, or their clothing, or the freeing of a neck”, mention three items of expiation, any one of which may be chosen by the person concerned—because of the conjunction, ‘or’; that is, all three are not to be joined together.
The clause: but whoever cannot find (means) then fasting for three days, prove that the above three items are matters of choice, without looking at their sequence. Otherwise, the clause: but whoever cannot find …, would be meaningless, as in case of sequential expiation, it should have been, “or fasting for three days.”
The verse contains many legislative details, for which reference should be made to Jurisprudence.
… this is the expiation of your oaths when you swear: As mentioned earlier, it means: when you swear and break it.
The demonstrative pronouns, dhālika (this is) and kadhālika (thus) are of second person singular, while the pronouns that follow them in: “your oaths”, and, clear to you, are second person plural. In a way, the speech turns from the Prophet to the believers. Probably, it is because the divine elaboration reaches the people through the Prophet, as God has said: … and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect ().
Thus does Allah make clear to you His signs, that you may be grateful: He makes clear to you, through His Prophet, His commandments, so that you may express your gratitude to Him by learning those commandments and acting on them.
Examining Narrations
- al-Qummī narrates under the verse: O you who believe! Do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you. Narrated to me my father, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, from some of his men, from Abū ʿAbdillāh, that he said, “This verse was revealed about the Leader of the Faithful, Bilāl and ʿUthmān b. Maẓ’ūn. As for the Leader of the faithful, he had sworn that he would never sleep at night; and as for Bilāl, he had sworn that he would never eat during daytime (that is, would always keep fast); and as for ʿUthmān b. Maẓ’ūn, he had sworn that he would never indulge in sexual relation.
“Then ʿUthmān’s wife came to ‘Āishah—and she was a beautiful woman. ‘Āishah said to her, ‘Why do I see you without make-up?’ She said, ‘For whom should I make myself up? By God! My husband has not come near me since a long time, because he has become a monastic, wears course clothes, and has become an ascetic.’
“When the Messenger of God, entered (the house) ‘Āishah informed him of it. So, he came out, and call was given for congregational prayer. People assembled and (the Prophet) ascended the pulpit. He thanked God and praised Him; then said, ‘What has happened to (some) people that they have forbidden themselves good things? Well, surely I sleep at night, and establish sexual relation and eat during day time; so whoever dislikes my sunnah, he is not from me.’
“Then people stood up and said, ‘But O Messenger of God! We have sworn to it. Then God revealed to him: Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths; so its expiation is this is the expiation of your oaths when you swear.” (al-Tafsīr)
Author’s comment: It is not clear how the sentences: Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths, could refer to their oaths; and some explanation of it has been given earlier. al-Ṭabrisī has narrated the story in Majmaʾ al-bayān from Abū ʿAbdillāh and that narrative does not have the last paragraph; so meditate over it.
- Imam al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī (peace be on both) said to Mu’āwiyah and his companions inter alia, in a ḥadīth:
“I adjure you by God, do you know that ʿAlī was the first among the companions of the Messenger of God, to forbid the desires to himself; then God revealed: O you who believe! Do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you. (al-Iḥtijāj)
(al-Ṭabrisī) writes under the above-mentioned verse: The exegetes have said, “The Messenger of God, sat one day and reminded the people and described the resurrection. The people were overwhelmed and cried; and ten companions gathered in the house of ʿUthmān b. Maẓ’ūn al-Jumaḥī, and they were: ʿAlī, Abū Bakr, ʿAbdullāh b. Mas’ūd, Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī, Sālim mawlā Abū Ḥudhayfah, ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar, al-Miqdād b. al-Aswad al-Kindī, Salmān al-Fārisī and Mu’qil b. Muqrin. They agreed among them-selves that they would fast in the day and stand (for worship) in the night, would not sleep on bedding; would not partake of meat or fat, nor would go near women or perfume. (They decided) to wear coarse fabrics, discard the world and roam into the earth; some of them even intended to cut off their genitals.
“This news reached the Messenger of God. He went to the house of ʿUthmān (b. Maẓ’ūn) but did not find him there. So he said to his wife—her name was Ḥawlā’ and she was a perfume vendor—’Is it true what I have been informed about your husband and his companions?’ She did not like to tell lie to the Messenger of God nor did she like to speak against her husband; so she said, ‘O Messenger of God! If ʿUthmān has told you so then he has told you the truth.’ So the Messenger of God returned. When ʿUthmān entered (his house) she informed him about it. So, he and his companions came to the Messenger of God; and the Messenger of God said to them, ‘Have not I been informed that you have agreed on such and such?’ They said, ‘Certainly, O Messenger of God! And we did not intend except good.’ The Messenger of God said, “I have not been ordered this. Then he said, ‘Surely your souls have rights on you; so keep fast and eat, stand (at nights) and sleep. Certainly, I stand (at nights) and sleep, and keep fast and eat, and I partake of meat and fat, and I go to women; and whoever dislikes my sunnah, is not from me.’
“Then he gathered the people and spoke to them; and said, ‘What has happened to some people that they have forbidden themselves women, food and perfume, as well as sleep and desirable things of the world? Well, certainly I have not ordered you to become monks, because it is not in my religion to abstain from meat or women, nor (to live in) hermitages; and surely the wandering of my ummah is fast, and their monasticism is jihād. Worship God and do not associate anything with Him; perform ḥajj and ‘umrah, establish prayer, pay zakāt and keep fast of Ramaḍān; and remain straight, it will remain right for you. Those who were before you fell in perdition only because of zealotry. They put heavy burdens on themselves, so God intensified their load. So, these are their remnants in hermitages and monasteries. Then God revealed this verse.’” (Majmaʾ al-bayān)
Author’s comment: It appears by referring to the traditions that this narrative is a synopsis of traditions on this topic; there are a lot of such traditions, and al-Ṭabrisī has written it here after combining them together and abridging them into one tradition.
As for those numerous narrations, none of them mentions names of those companions together. The most comprehensive of them says, ʿUthmān b. Maẓ’ūn and his companions; some others say, a group of the companions of the Prophet; still others say, some people among the companions of the Prophet. Likewise, the different sentences of the Prophet’s talk and his detailed sermon are found scattered in various traditions. In the same way, the narratives do not say clearly that each of those companions had intended to avoid all those good things. Rather some traditions clearly show that various companions had wanted to leave out various things. al-Bukhārī and Muslim narrate from ‘Āishah that some companions had asked the wives of the Prophet about his life in secret. Then some of them said: “I’ll not eat meat”; some said: “I’ll not go to women”; and some others said: “I’ll not sleep in bedding.” This news reached the Prophet, so he said, “What is the matter with the people, that some of them say this and this? But as for me, I keep fast and eat, sleep and stand (in prayer), and eat meat and go to the women; so whoever dislikes my sunnah is not from me.”
Probably, when al-Ṭabrisī says that “they agreed among them- selves that they would fast …”, he does not mean that each of them had intended to do all those things; he only means that those people among themselves had decided to do one or the other of those things.
Although the traditions vary in their themes and there are weak, mursal and reliable ones among them, yet meditation on all of them creates a certainty that a group of the companions had decided to adopt that type of abstinence and asceticism, and ʿAlī and ʿUthmān b. Maẓ’ūn were among them, and that the Prophet had said to them, “Whoever dislikes my sunnah is not from me.” And God knows better. You should refer to the books of exegesis which explain the Qur’an with the help of traditions, like al-Tafsīr of al-Ṭabarī, al-Durru al-manthūr, Fatḥ al-qadīr and so on.
- It has been narrated by al-Tirmidhī (who said that it was good), Ibn Jarīr, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Ibn ‘Udayy (in al-Kāmil), al-Ṭabarānī and Ibn Marduwayh, from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said, “A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of God! Whenever I eat meat I become roused and overcome by sexual desire; and I have forbidden meat to myself.’ Then the verse was revealed: O you who believe! Do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.” (al-Durru al-manthūr)
- Ibn Jarīr and Ibn Abī Ḥātim have narrated from Zayd b. Aslam that he said, “Verily ʿAbdullāh b. Rawāḥah had a guest from among his relatives; and he (ʿAbdullāh) was near the Prophet. Then he returned to his family and found that they had not given food to their guest, waiting for him (to return). So he said to his wife, ‘You detained my guest because of me, this (food) is unlawful to me.’ So his wife said, ‘It is unlawful to me’; the guest said, ‘It is unlawful to me. When (ʿAbdullāh) saw this, he put his hand (in food) and said, ‘Eat you in the name of God.’ Then he went to the Prophet and informed him. The Prophet said, ‘You did right.’ Then God revealed: O you who believe! Do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you. (ibid.)
Author’s comment: Possibly, the two reasons mentioned in the last two traditions are the narrators’ attempts to fit an event on the verse, and this is very common in the reasons of revelation. Also, possibly there may be several reasons for a single verse.
- ʿAbdullāh b. Sinān said, “I asked him (the Imam) about a man who said that his wife would be divorced, or his slaves would be free, if he drank any unlawful or lawful (drink). (The Imam) said, ‘As for the unlawful he should not go near it, whether he swore the oath or did not swear; and as for the lawful he should not leave it, because he has no right to forbid what God has made lawful, because God says: O you who believe! Do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you; therefore, there is nothing on him regarding his oath concerning lawful things.’” (al-Tafsīr, al-ʿAyyāshī)
- (al-Kulaynī) narrates through his chain from Mas’adah b. Ṣadaqah that he heard Abū ʿAbdillāh saying about the words of God: Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths: “al-Laghw (vain) is the word of a man, ‘No, by God’, and ‘Certainly, by God’, while he has no serious thought of anything.” (al-Kāfī)
Author’s comment: al-ʿAyyāshī has narrated in his al-Tafsīr a similar ḥadīth from ʿAbdullāh b. Sinān; and another similar one from Muḥammad b. Muslim with one difference at the end where it says, “no serious thought on it.”
- Ibn Jarīr has narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said, “When the verse: O you who believe! Do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, was revealed regarding those who had forbidden women and meat to themselves, they said, ‘O Messenger of God! What should we do with the oaths which we have made?’ Then God revealed: Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths.” (al-Durr al-manthūr)
Author’s comment: This tradition resembles the end part of the first tradition, which we have quoted in the beginning. The trouble is that it does not fit the apparent meaning of the verse, because making oath for avoiding an obligatory or permissible action is not devoid of deliberate serious thought; the verse has put: what is vain in your oaths, opposite the clause: making of deliberate oaths; it shows that a vain oath is that which is devoid of deliberation and thinking. This apparent meaning agrees with the ḥadīth which explains vain oath as someone’s saying, ‘No, by God’, and ‘Certainly, by God’ without any serious thought on it. As for that oath which is nullified by the sharīʾah, it is, or was, made with deliberate seriousness. Therefore it is imperative to ascribe its nullification to the sunnah, not the Book.
Moreover, the context of the verse is the strongest proof that it aims independently at describing the expiation of breaking of oath, and orders to preserve its sanctity; and it is not just an aside, as that explanation would make it.