Topic: Expiation Of
View Aspects
لَا يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ ٱللَّهُ بِٱللَّغْوِ فِىٓ أَيْمَٰنِكُمْ وَلَٰكِن يُؤَاخِذُكُم بِمَا عَقَّدتُّمُ ٱلْأَيْمَٰنَ ۖ فَكَفَّٰرَتُهُۥٓ إِطْعَامُ عَشَرَةِ مَسَٰكِينَ مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ أَوْ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ ۖ فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ ثَلَٰثَةِ أَيَّامٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ كَفَّٰرَةُ أَيْمَٰنِكُمْ إِذَا حَلَفْتُمْ ۚ وَٱحْفَظُوٓا۟ أَيْمَٰنَكُمْ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ ءَايَٰتِهِۦ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ
دیکھئے نوٹ سورۂ بقرہ آیت ۲۲۶۔
2:226.
Oaths which are contrary to Islamic Law are mere wasted breath.
Ausat means both "middle" (average) and "the best."
2:226.
Commentary:
The verb عقد (‘aqqada) is the intensive form of عقد (‘aqada) for which see 5:2. It conveys the idea of greater deliberation and solemnity. Hence the expression بما عقدتم الایمان (oaths which you take in earnest) would really mean, oaths which you swear solemnly and deliberately.
The use of the word اوسط (average) means both 'middle', (i.e. average) and 'best' (see 2:144) and is thus meant to imply that an oath may be regarded as expiated if ten poor men are fed with food the expiator ordinarily provides for his family, but that it is better to feed them with the best food with which he feeds his own family.
The pronoun ھم (their) in کسوتھم (their clothing) may refer either to families or to poor persons. In the former case, the sentence would read, "the clothing (of ten poor men) with the average (or the best) kind of clothing which you provide for your families". In the latter case, it would simply mean, "the clothing of ten poor men".
The verse should not be taken as describing three different ways by which a person can expiate a broken oath. The different ways are intended to represent three progressive stages of expiation, the third alternative being better than the second, and the second better than the first.
The injunction to expiate oaths does not mean that they may be broken with impunity and then expiated. The prescription of penalties is merely meant to meet a possible eventuality. But oaths contrary to Islamic Law are no oaths. They must be broken. Then there are oaths that pertain to the rights of individuals. These cannot be expiated even by adopting any of the above-mentioned three courses. If, for instance, a man promises on oath to give to a person certain sum of money, and then breaks his oath, and makes the prescribed expiation, the expiation will not absolve him from his obligation to make the promised payment. He must pay the man the promised sum, notwithstanding the expiation. The expiation will only atone for the sin he committed against God by breaking his oath.
d
2:226.
393
اَوْسَطْ (Ausat) 既指 “中等” (平均), 又指 “最好”。
1
دیکھئے نوٹ سورۂ بقرہ آیت ۲۲۶۔
d
2:226.
717
Commentary:
The verb عقد (‘aqqada) is the intensive form of عقد (‘aqada) for which see 5:2. It conveys the idea of greater deliberation and solemnity. Hence the expression بما عقدتم الایمان (oaths which you take in earnest) would really mean, oaths which you swear solemnly and deliberately.
The use of the word اوسط (average) means both 'middle', (i.e. average) and 'best' (see 2:144) and is thus meant to imply that an oath may be regarded as expiated if ten poor men are fed with food the expiator ordinarily provides for his family, but that it is better to feed them with the best food with which he feeds his own family.
The pronoun ھم (their) in کسوتھم (their clothing) may refer either to families or to poor persons. In the former case, the sentence would read, "the clothing (of ten poor men) with the average (or the best) kind of clothing which you provide for your families". In the latter case, it would simply mean, "the clothing of ten poor men".
The verse should not be taken as describing three different ways by which a person can expiate a broken oath. The different ways are intended to represent three progressive stages of expiation, the third alternative being better than the second, and the second better than the first.
The injunction to expiate oaths does not mean that they may be broken with impunity and then expiated. The prescription of penalties is merely meant to meet a possible eventuality. But oaths contrary to Islamic Law are no oaths. They must be broken. Then there are oaths that pertain to the rights of individuals. These cannot be expiated even by adopting any of the above-mentioned three courses. If, for instance, a man promises on oath to give to a person certain sum of money, and then breaks his oath, and makes the prescribed expiation, the expiation will not absolve him from his obligation to make the promised payment. He must pay the man the promised sum, notwithstanding the expiation. The expiation will only atone for the sin he committed against God by breaking his oath.
e
2:226.
789
Oaths which are contrary to Islamic Law are mere wasted breath.
790
Ausat means both "middle" (average) and "the best."
قَدْ فَرَضَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ تَحِلَّةَ أَيْمَٰنِكُمْ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ مَوْلَىٰكُمْ ۖ وَهُوَ ٱلْعَلِيمُ ٱلْحَكِيمُ
The Holy Prophet had severely taken to heart his wives’ demand for amenities of life, and in order to show his extreme displeasure had sworn to keep away from them for one month. The present verse describes that a lawful thing does not become unlawful for a person merely by his swearing not to use it. In such a contingency he is required only to expiate his broken oath.
Commentary:
The Holy Prophet had severely taken to heart his wives’ demand for amenities of life, and in order to show his extreme displeasure had sworn to keep away from them for one month. The verse under comment prescribes that a lawful thing does not become unlawful to a person merely by his swearing not to use it. In such a contingency he is required only to expiate his broken oath.
4279
Commentary:
The Holy Prophet had severely taken to heart his wives’ demand for amenities of life, and in order to show his extreme displeasure had sworn to keep away from them for one month. The verse under comment prescribes that a lawful thing does not become unlawful to a person merely by his swearing not to use it. In such a contingency he is required only to expiate his broken oath.
3072
The Holy Prophet had severely taken to heart his wives’ demand for amenities of life, and in order to show his extreme displeasure had sworn to keep away from them for one month. The present verse describes that a lawful thing does not become unlawful for a person merely by his swearing not to use it. In such a contingency he is required only to expiate his broken oath.