'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful' His saying - glorified and exalted is He -: ﴿And eat from what Allah has provided for you, that which is lawful and good, and fear Allah in whom you believe.﴾ ﴿Allah does not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He imposes blame upon you for what your hearts have earned. And the expiation thereof is feeding ten needy persons from the average of that which you feed your own families, or clothing them, or freeing a neck. But whoever cannot find [the means] - then a fast of three days. That is the expiation for your oaths when you have sworn. And protect your oaths. Thus Allah makes clear the verses [of the Qur'an] to you that you may be grateful.﴾ 'Eat'; in this verse is an expression of: 'Enjoy eating; and drinking; and clothing; and riding; and similar to that'; and eating was specifically mentioned because it is the greatest of the intended purposes; and the most specific of the benefits to humanity. And provision, according to the people of the Sunnah, is what is valid for benefiting from it; and the Mu'tazilah said: 'Provision is everything that is valid for ownership'; and that which is forbidden is not provision because it is not valid for ownership; and it is responded to them that it follows that the one who consumes what is forbidden is not provided for by Allah, the Exalted; and some of the nobles have reported that what is forbidden is provision based on His saying, the Exalted: ﴿Eat from the provision of your Lord and be grateful to Him. A good land and a Forgiving Lord.﴾ [Saba: 15]; he said: So he mentioned forgiveness, indicating that provision may contain what is forbidden; and Abu al-Ma'ali responded to the Mu'tazilah in 'Al-Irshad' that if they say: 'Provision is what you own'; it follows that whatever is owned is provision; and Allah's ownership of things cannot be said to be provision for Him. Qadi Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: 'And this which was imposed is not a necessary consequence; so reflect upon it'; and the remainder of the verse is clear. And the saying has preceded in Surah 'Al-Baqarah' in the similar saying of the Exalted: ﴿Allah does not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths.﴾ And His saying, the Exalted: ﴿For what you have contracted your oaths﴾; its meaning is: You have tightened. And Nafi', Ibn Kathir, and Abu Amr read: 'You have contracted' with the qaf being emphasized; and Asim - in the narration of Abu Bakr - and Hamzah and al-Kisai read: 'You have contracted' with the qaf being light; and Ibn Amer read: 'You have made a contract' with an alif, on the pattern of 'fa'al'tum'; Abu Ali said: Whoever emphasized the qaf has two possibilities: one of them is that it is for the intensification of the action; because he addressed a group; and the other is that it is 'contracted' like 'weakened'; it is not intended for intensification; just as 'to double' is not intended for an action of two; and whoever read: 'You have contracted' with a light qaf, it is permissible that it is intended for much of the action; and little; and the contract of the oath is like the contract of the rope; and the covenant; and al-Hutay'ah said: A people, when they make a contract for their neighbor, they tighten the rope and tighten above it the saddle.

(p-240) And whoever reads "عاقَدْتُمُ" it can have two meanings: one of them is that it is like "طارَقْتُ النَعْلَ"; and "عاقَبْتُ اللِصَّ"; and the other is that it is meant by it "فاعَلْتُ"; which necessitates two doers; as if the meaning is: He will hold you accountable for what you have contracted upon the oaths; and "عاقَدَ" is transitive with "عَلى"; for what is in the meaning of "عاهَدَ"; Allah, the Most High, said: ﴿And who fulfills what he has promised Allah﴾ [Al-Fath: 10]; and this is like how it was transitive in ﴿You called to prayer﴾ [Al-Ma'idah: 58] with "إلى"; and its type is that you say: I called Zayd; ﴿And We called him from the side of the right side of the mount﴾ [Maryam: 52]; but when it was in the meaning of: "I called to such and such"; as His saying, the Most High: ﴿And who is better in speech than one who calls to Allah﴾ [Fussilat: 33]; "نادى" is transitive with "إلى"; then it is expanded in His saying, the Most High: "عاقَدْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ الأيْمَانَ"; so the preposition is omitted; and the verb reaches the object; then the pronoun that refers back to the relative is omitted; and its estimation is: "He will hold you accountable for what you have contracted the oaths upon"; as it was omitted from His saying, the Most High: ﴿So proclaim what you are commanded﴾ [Al-Hijr: 94].

And the oaths: is the plural of "يَمِينٌ"; and it is the arm; it was called "يَمِينًا"; because their custom was to clap with the right hands of each other upon the arm.

And His saying, the Most High: ﴿"فَكَفّارَتُهُ";﴾ its meaning is: "So the expiation for it is to feed..."; and the pronoun - according to grammatical construction - refers back to "ما"; and "ما" in this position can mean "الَّذِي"; and it can be a verbal noun; and it refers back - with the meaning we mentioned - to the sin of the breaking of the oath; and there is no correct mention of it; but the meaning necessitates it.

(p-241) And "إطْعامُ عَشَرَةِ مَساكِينَ"; its meaning is: to satisfy them once; Al-Hasan ibn Abi Al-Hasan said: If he gathers them, he satisfies them with one satisfaction; and if he gives them, he gives them one by one; and the ruling for these is that none of them should be repeated in the expiation of one oath; and it does not matter whether they fed individuals; or a group at one time; and a dhimmi is not sufficient in any of that; and if a child is fed [he is given a large share]; and it is not permissible to feed a slave; nor a relative whose maintenance is obligatory; and if he is from those whose maintenance is not obligatory for the expiator, Malik said: I do not like for him to feed him; but if he does; and he was poor; it suffices him; and it is not permissible for a rich person to be fed from it; and if he was fed out of ignorance of his wealth; then in "المُدَوَّنَةُ"; and another book; it does not suffice; and in "الْأسَدِيَّةُ" it suffices.

The people have differed in the meaning of His saying: ﴿ 'from the middle' ﴾. Malik - may Allah have mercy on him - and a group with him saw this middle as being in quantity; and a group saw that in type. The correct view is that the term 'middle' encompasses both quantity and type. Malik believed that a poor person should be fed in Medina one mudd, which is the measure of the Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him -; and that is a ratal and a third of flour. This is due to the tight living conditions in Medina. He believed that in other places it should be more generous; and for this reason, he preferred lunch and dinner. Ibn Wahb issued a fatwa in Egypt of one and a half mudd; and Ashhab of one mudd and a third. Ibn al-Mawaz said: One mudd and a third is a middle measure of the sustenance of the people of the cities for lunch and dinner. Ibn Habib said: Bread alone does not suffice; but it should be with a sauce of oil, or milk, or meat, or something similar. In the explanation of Ibn Muzain, it is stated that plain bread suffices. Those who say: 'The middle in type' believe that the person providing should avoid the least that people eat in the land and refrain from the best; and provide with what is middle among that. The view of 'Al-Mudawwana' is that the provider should consider the sustenance of the land; and in the book of Ibn al-Mawaz, it is stated that the sustenance of his own people is what should be considered.

And it seems that the verse - according to the first interpretation - means: 'from the middle of what you feed, O people, your families in general; from a city or region'; and according to the second interpretation, it means: 'from the middle of what a person feeds his family.'

The majority read: 'your families'; and this is the plural of 'family' in its correct form. Ja'far ibn Muhammad read: 'from the middle of what you feed your families'; and this is a broken plural. Abu al-Fath said: 'Ahal' is like 'layal'; as if its singular is 'ahlāt' and 'laylāt'. The Arabs say: 'ahl' and 'ahlāt'; and from it is the poet's saying:

And the people of affection, I have disavowed their affection.

And it is said: 'layla' and 'laylata'; and I recite the verse of Ibn al-A'rabi:

In every day and every night, Until one who sees him says when he sees him: Woe to him from a camel, how burdensome it is.

The majority read: ﴿ 'or their clothing' ﴾ with a kasra on the kaf, meaning clothing of garments. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, Abu Abdur-Rahman, and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i read: 'or their clothing' with a damma on the kaf. Sa'id ibn Jubayr and Muhammad ibn al-Samifa al-Yamani read: 'or like their clothing' from 'the clothing'. Abu al-Fath said: It is as if he said: or with what is sufficient for them; thus it is on the omission of the added, estimating: 'or like the sufficiency of their clothing'; he said: and if you wish, you can consider the clothing as the sufficiency, and there is no need to omit an added.

(p-243) The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: In this there is a consideration; and the reading is contrary to the text of the mushaf; and its meaning is contrary to what the people of knowledge have interpreted, that the one who breaks an oath by Allah, the Most High, has a choice in feeding; or clothing; or freeing a slave; and the scholars agree that freeing a slave is the best of that; then clothing; then feeding; and Allah, the Most High, began His servants with what is easier first; and there may be a time of need and hunger in which feeding is better than freeing a slave; but that is rare and not customary; and the ruling is for the majority.

And the scholars disagreed regarding the limit of clothing; some considered the same wording; so if the one who breaks the oath is clothed and the poor person is clothed, the obligation is fulfilled; and this rank can be achieved with one garment; any garment it may be; after the consensus of the people that a cap alone does not suffice in the expiation of the oath; Mujahid said: One garment suffices in the expiation of the oath; and whatever is more; and Al-Hasan said: The clothing is a garment for each poor person; and this was said by Tawus; and Mansur said: The clothing is: a garment; a shirt or a cloak or a waist-wrapper; this was said by Abu Ja'far; and Ata; and Ibn Abbas; and he said: The cloak may suffice in the expiation; and likewise the shawl; and Al-Hasan ibn Abi Al-Hasan said: The turban suffices in the expiation of the oath; and Mujahid said: Everything suffices except for the undergarment; and it was narrated from Salman - may Allah be pleased with him - that he said: "What a good garment is the undergarment"; Al-Tabari narrated it; and Al-Hakam ibn Utaybah said: A turban suffices if he wraps it around his head. And some considered the customary attire and recognized clothing; so some of them said: One garment does not suffice unless it is comprehensive; of what may be worn; like a cloak; and a mantle; Ibrahim Al-Nakha'i said: A comprehensive garment suffices; and not the shirt and the armor; and the headscarf is not a comprehensive garment.

The judge Abu Muhammad - may Allah have mercy on him - said: The complete shirt may be comprehensive; and attire; and some of them said: The clothing in the expiation is: a waist-wrapper; and a shirt; and a cloak; this was said by Ibn Umar - may Allah be pleased with them both -; and it was narrated from Al-Hasan; and Ibn Sirin; and Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari; that the clothing in the expiation is two garments for each poor person; and Malik - may Allah have mercy on him - conditioned the ruling with what suffices in prayer; and this is the best consideration; he said: One garment suffices for a man (p-244); and Ibn Habib said: He should be clothed with a shirt; or a waist-wrapper; that is sufficient for him to wrap himself in; and the words of Ibn Habib are an explanation; Malik said: A woman should be clothed with armor; and a headscarf; and Ibn Al-Qasim said in "Al-Utbiya": And if he clothes a young female child, then armor and a headscarf; like the adult; and the expiation is one and is not diminished for the young; Ibn Al-Mawaz said about him: And I do not like the clothing of wet nurses in any case; as for the one who is commanded to pray, he should be clothed with a shirt; and it suffices him; Ibn Al-Mawaz said from his opinion: Rather, the clothing of an adult man; otherwise it would not suffice; Ashhab said: A female should be given a man's garment if she has not reached the prayer age, and it suffices.

And His saying: ﴿Or the freeing of a neck﴾; freeing is the removal from bondage; and it is used in captivity; and the hardships; and the toil of the world; and similar to it. From this is His saying, glorified and exalted is He, about the mother of Mary: ﴿Indeed, I have dedicated to You what is in my womb, free﴾ [Al-Imran: 35]; meaning from the burdens of the world. And from that is the saying of Al-Farazdaq:

"O sons of Ghudana, indeed I have freed you ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ and I have gifted you to Atiyyah ibn Jihal."

Meaning: I have freed you from the insult; and the neck is specified from the human because it is the part in which the bond is; and the binding is often from the animal; for it is the place of ownership; so freeing is attributed to it.

And the people differed regarding the description of the freed one in the expiation: how it should be? A group of scholars said: This is a neck that is unrestricted and not bound by oaths; thus, it is permissible in the expiation of the oath to free a disbeliever; and this is the view of Al-Tabari and a group of scholars. And a faction said: Every unrestricted term in the Qur'an regarding this refers back to the restricted in the freeing of the neck; in the case of unintentional killing; thus, a disbeliever does not suffice in any of the expiations; and this is the saying of Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, and a group with him. And Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: A blind person does not suffice; nor a leper; nor a madman. And Ibn Shihab and a group said; and regarding the one-eyed, there are two sayings in the school; and likewise in the deaf; and in the castrated; and among the scholars, there are those who see that all of this suffices; and Al-Nakha'i differentiated and permitted the freeing of one who performs his work and service; and prohibited the freeing of one who does not work; like the blind; and the crippled; and the one with paralyzed hands. Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The non-Arab is sufficient for me from the limitation of the expense; and another is more beloved to me. Sahnun said: He means after he responds to Islam; and if the non-Arab does not respond except that he is among those who are compelled to Islam; like the elder from the Magians; and the young from the belligerent People of the Book; Ibn al-Qasim said: His freeing suffices even if he does not convert to Islam; and Ashhab said: It does not suffice until he converts to Islam; and it does not suffice according to Malik for one who has a share of freedom like the one who is a freed slave; and the mother of the child; and similar to them.

And His saying, exalted is He: "So whoever does not find"; its meaning is: he does not find in his possession one of these three from feeding; or clothing; or freeing a slave. The scholars differed regarding the condition of this person who does not find until it is valid for him to fast. Al-Shafi'i - may Allah have mercy on him - and a group of scholars said: If the one who must atone does not own anything except his sustenance and the sustenance of his family for his day and night; then he is allowed to fast. If he has - in addition to that - what feeds ten poor people; then feeding is obligatory upon him. This is also the view of Malik and his companions. Malik said in