If a person swears to refrain from something forbidden, is the expiation obligatory every time he falls into it?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May the peace of Allah, His mercy, and His blessings be upon you, and after that: If a person swears to refrain from something forbidden and then returns to it, there is no disagreement that the expiation is obligatory. But is the expiation obligatory anew every time he returns to doing that forbidden act? Please inform us, may Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : First, this questioner answered himself and cited the consensus on the matter when he said "there is no disagreement." It is not proper etiquette for a person who submits a question to a scholar to start with the answer if he already has the answer. What is the benefit? So, it is proper etiquette to say, "What do you say, so-and-so, about such-and-such," and he is the one who will elaborate. Do you understand? Whether here in this gathering or in another gathering.
... If I do such-and-such, there is no disagreement on such-and-such. Do not ask this. This is one thing, and it is very important regarding etiquette with the one being asked. Do you know that Jibril (peace be upon him), when he came to ask the Messenger about Islam, faith, and excellence in worship, how did he sit? Do you know? Well, all of this is part of etiquette before the teacher.
But in any case, the correct view with us is that a person is excused by ignorance, and perhaps this was missed by you. I say that if a person swears not to do something and then does it, he owes an expiation for the oath: yes, feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, or freeing a slave. If he does not find the means, then fasting for three days. And if he breaks the oath, that is it; the oath is dissolved as if he had not sworn. But we do not grant a dispensation to this man who swore to commit a sin. We do not grant him a dispensation to commit a sin; rather, he must repent and not return to it. Yes.
The Shaykh : First, this questioner answered himself and cited the consensus on the matter when he said "there is no disagreement." It is not proper etiquette for a person who submits a question to a scholar to start with the answer if he already has the answer. What is the benefit? So, it is proper etiquette to say, "What do you say, so-and-so, about such-and-such," and he is the one who will elaborate. Do you understand? Whether here in this gathering or in another gathering.
... If I do such-and-such, there is no disagreement on such-and-such. Do not ask this. This is one thing, and it is very important regarding etiquette with the one being asked. Do you know that Jibril (peace be upon him), when he came to ask the Messenger about Islam, faith, and excellence in worship, how did he sit? Do you know? Well, all of this is part of etiquette before the teacher.
But in any case, the correct view with us is that a person is excused by ignorance, and perhaps this was missed by you. I say that if a person swears not to do something and then does it, he owes an expiation for the oath: yes, feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, or freeing a slave. If he does not find the means, then fasting for three days. And if he breaks the oath, that is it; the oath is dissolved as if he had not sworn. But we do not grant a dispensation to this man who swore to commit a sin. We do not grant him a dispensation to commit a sin; rather, he must repent and not return to it. Yes.