Is it permissible to pay the monetary value of the expiation for breaking an oath instead of food or clothing or is it necessary to strictly adhere to the apparent meaning of the text?

Allah Almighty legislated the expiation for breaking an oath to preserve the sanctity of oaths from being trivialized, to deter carelessness in taking oaths, and to compensate for the breach of an oath. The expiation serves as a lawful means established by Allah to discharge oneself from the obligation of fulfilling the oath. Allah says, “Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths” (Quran, 66:2).

The expiation for a broken oath

The expiation for a broken oath consists of a choice of one of the following:

1. To feed ten poor individuals with food similar to what one provides for their own family.
2. To provide them with clothing considered sufficient according to customary standards.
3. To free a believing slave.

 However, if the person making the expiation is unable to do any of the above, they must fast for three days. The expiation must be observed in this sequence, with fasting reserved strictly as a last resort, not as a matter of preference, as clearly stated by Allah Almighty, “Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So, its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave. But whoever cannot find [or afford it] – then a fast of three days [is required]. That is the expiation for oaths when you have sworn. But guard your oaths” (Quran, 5:89). Imam Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir wrote in Al-Ishraf ‘ala Madhahib Al-‘Ulama` (7:128), “The scholars unanimously agreed that the one who breaks their oath is given a choice: if they wish, they may feed the poor; if they wish, they may clothe them; or if they wish, they may free a slave. Any of these, if performed, suffices to fulfill the obligation.”

Paying the monetary value of the expiation for a broken oath

The majority of Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali jurists adhere to the apparent meaning of the Quranic verse regarding the prescribed form of expiation. Accordingly, they prohibited the replacement of the prescribed acts with their monetary value since the expiation is a financial act with specific requirements. Its forms and amounts have been clearly set out by Islamic law, and therefore, they maintained that it may not be altered based on personal opinion or ijtihad (independent juristic reasoning). Imam Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr, the Maliki scholar, observed in Al-Kafi (1:453), “Whoever swears an oath by Allah Almighty to do [or refrain from something], must make expiation … it is not permissible to pay its monetary value.” The Shafi’i scholar, Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi adopts the same position in Kashf Al-Qina’ (15:301), stating, “It is impermissible to pay the monetary value of food in expiation.” This position is echoed by the Hanbali scholar, Imam Abu al-Sa’dat al-Buhuti in Kashf Al-Qina’ (5:388), “The monetary value of the expiation does not suffice, as the obligation is to provide food [for the poor], and giving the [equivalent] value is not considered the same as feeding.”

In contrast, the Hanafis and Imam al-Awza’i, permitted the payment of the monetary value in expiation, considering it as fulfilling the obligation provided it is equivalent to the cost of feeding or clothing the poor. For them, the determining factor is fulfilling the purpose of the act — not adhering to its outward form. The essential goal is ensuring the benefit reaches the poor rather than merely following the prescribed forms of expiation. Imam al-Sarakhsy mentioned in Al-Mabsut (2:156), “Paying the monetary value in lieu of the prescribed zakat, charitable donations, tithes, and expiation is permissible in our view.”

The opinion chosen for fatwa

The position of the Hanafis, which Imam al-Awza’i endorsed, carries greater weight in our opinion and is the closest to fulfilling the objective of the Legislator in prescribing feeding and clothing as expiation, for two reasons:

1- The objective of expiation is to provide for the poor and meet their essential needs. This can be achieved by monetary payment just as by giving food and clothing. In fact, in many cases, paying the monetary value can be more effective in meeting the needs of the poor and the needy who are entitled to the expiation and more beneficial for them, as stated in Al-Mabsut (2:157) by Imam al-Sarakhsy.

2- There is nothing in language or customary practice that forbids describing someone who gives money to the poor — enabling them to purchase food or clothing — as having “fed” and “clothed” them. This usage is widely accepted and falls within the broad scope of the Quranic wording, capturing their true meaning without falling outside its purview.

Moreover, if a poor person receives food or clothing but does not eat or wear them, and instead chooses to sell them, this is unanimously accepted as valid expiation, despite the fact that the acts of feeding and clothing, in their outward form, have not been fulfilled. This clearly indicates that the true purpose is not the mere transfer of food or clothing, but rather ensuring that a certain amount of financial support reaches the poor and needy. Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas highlights this view in Ahkam Al-Quran (2:575).

The ruling

Based on the above, it is permissible for the one who breaks their oath to pay the monetary value of the expiation in lieu of food or clothing.

And Allah Almighty knows best.