A beggar came to 'Adi b. Hatim and he begged him to give him the price of a slave, or some portion of the price of the slave. He ('Adi) said: I have nothing to give you except my coat-of-mail and helmet. I will, however, write to my family to give that to you, but he did not agree to that. Thereupon 'Adi was enraged, and said: By Allah, I will not give you anything. The person (then) agreed to accept that, whereupon he said: By Allah, had I not heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying:" He who took an oath, but then found something more pious in the sight of Allah, he should (break the oath) and do that which is more pious," I would not have broken the oath (and thus paid you anything).
The Book of Oaths
Sahih Muslim 1651 a
Narration Context
This hadith recounts the incident where 'Adi b. Hatim initially refused to give charity to a beggar, swearing an oath not to give anything. However, upon reflection and remembrance of the Prophet's teaching, he recognized that breaking his oath to fulfill the higher obligation of charity was more pious.
Scholarly Commentary
The primary legal ruling derived from this narration establishes that when a person swears an oath but subsequently discovers a course of action more pleasing to Allah, they should break the oath and perform the superior action. This demonstrates that Islamic jurisprudence prioritizes substantive piety over formal oath-keeping when they conflict.
Scholars explain that "more pious" refers to actions carrying greater religious merit or avoiding greater harm. Charity in this case outweighed maintaining the oath, as helping a needy Muslim fulfills a fundamental Islamic obligation.
The incident also illustrates the companions' meticulous adherence to Prophetic teachings and their constant self-correction when reminded of higher principles.
Legal Implications
Breaking such an oath requires expiation (kaffarah), typically feeding ten poor persons, clothing them, or freeing a slave. The wisdom lies in maintaining the sanctity of oaths while allowing flexibility for higher goods.
This ruling applies to oaths involving permissible matters. Oaths concerning obligatory acts or prohibitions follow different rules, as one cannot abandon obligations or commit prohibitions even if having sworn otherwise.