Bukhari

Hadith Commentary:
At the end of this hadith, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) swore an oath and then said "in sha Allah." This means that saying "in sha Allah" after taking an oath is legislated (mashru‘).
By doing so, a person does not become a perjurer (hanith), provided that he utters the words "in sha Allah" immediately after taking the oath.
Merely intending or having the resolve does not establish the aforementioned ruling, nor is it valid for exception if the one taking the oath says "in sha Allah" after a considerable pause. Likewise, if the words "in sha Allah" are used merely for seeking blessing (tabarruk), while his intention was not to make an exception or the like, then if he acts contrary to his oath, the oath will be broken and he will have to offer expiation (kafarah).

Hadith Commentary:
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has brought this hadith here to establish that the Creator of the actions of the servant is Allah Ta'ala. Thus, when the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, "I did not provide you with the mount, rather Allah Ta'ala provided it," it is to affirm this very point.

Hadith Commentary:
1.
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has established from this hadith that a servant acquires his actions, but Allah, the Exalted, is the One who creates them. Because according to this hadith, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam provided them with mounts and said:
"These mounts have not been given by me, but rather Allah, the Exalted, has given them." Just as when a fasting person eats forgetfully, it is said:
"Allah, the Exalted, is the One who fed and gave him drink."
Since Allah, the Exalted, granted the spoils of war, in reality, it was Allah, the Exalted, who gave them the camels, because Allah, the Exalted, alone is the Creator of His servants’ actions.
Therefore, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam attributed his act of giving to Allah, because He alone is the Provider of means and the Creator of them.

2.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has written:
In this hadith, the act of giving mounts is attributed to Allah, the Exalted, even though it was the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam who provided them.
Since Allah, the Exalted, had provided its means,
therefore, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam attributed this act to Allah, the Exalted, just as the statement of Allah, the Exalted:
"And when you threw, it was not you who threw, but Allah threw." ().
(And see Fath al-Bari: 13/663)

Hadith Commentary:
It is understood that persisting in an oath is not a praiseworthy matter.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
From this hadith, it is understood that an oath taken in a state of anger becomes binding, and if it is broken, expiation (kaffarah) must be given, just as is evident from the noble practice of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) in the mentioned hadith. However, some narrations indicate that an oath taken in a state of anger does not become binding, as in a hadith narrated from Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu), the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:
“There is no consideration for an oath taken in a state of anger.”
(al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat by al-Tabarani, Hadith: 2029)
Regarding this, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) states that its chain of narration is weak.
(Fath al-Bari: 11/688)
(2)
In any case, an oath taken in a state of anger is also valid, and if it is broken, expiation (kaffarah) must be given.
And Allah knows best.
(3)
Ibn Battal says that this hadith refutes those who claim that an oath taken in a state of anger is idle (laghw) and that there is no expiation (kaffarah) for it.
(Fath al-Bari: 11/690)

Hadith Commentary:
Some people believe that the expiation (kaffarah) for breaking an oath should be given only after the oath has been broken, because expiation conceals a sin, and before breaking the oath there is no sin, so what is there to conceal? Therefore, according to them, it is not permissible to give expiation before becoming a violator (hanith) of the oath. However, the position of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah is that expiation can be given even before breaking the oath, because when one intends to break the oath, the intention of sin has already occurred. On this basis, there is no harm in giving the expiation beforehand. Accordingly, the following words are also narrated in the aforementioned narration of Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari radi Allahu anhu, that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“I give the expiation for the oath and then do that which is better.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Al-Ayman wa’l-Nudhur, Hadith: 6623)

Hadith Commentary: It is understood that to break an unbeneficial oath by offering its expiation (kaffarah) is the Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In another narration of Sahih Bukhari, it is mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) bought those camels from Sa’d (radi Allahu anhu) and gifted them to the Ash’ari companions, whereas according to this hadith, they were received by him as spoils of war (ghanimah). The answer to this is that the aforementioned camels were indeed from the spoils of war, but the camels that came into the share of Sa’d (radi Allahu anhu), the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) bought those and gifted them to the Ash’ari companions.
It is also possible that these were two separate incidents.
And Allah knows best.

(2)
The relevance of this hadith to the chapter heading is as follows: according to this hadith, the manner in which the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) swore an oath is described, in that expiation (kaffarah) was given for it, and expiation is only due for an oath that is sworn by the name of Allah, therefore it is known that he would only swear by Allah, and it was not his practice to swear by other than Allah.
And Allah knows best. (Fath al-Bari: 11/653)

Hadith Commentary:

Abu Musa al-Ash'ari radi Allahu anhu’s heartfelt intention was that you too should break your oath and join in eating the chicken.

The chicken is not such an animal whose entire diet consists of filth; if it does eat filth, it also consumes pure things in abundance. Therefore, there is no doubt or uncertainty regarding its permissibility.

Hadith Commentary:
The intention of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari radi Allahu anhu was that you too should break your oath and join us in eating, and eat the meat of the chicken. The chicken is not such an animal whose entire diet consists of filth; even if it sometimes eats filth, it also frequently eats pure things. On this basis, there is not the slightest doubt regarding its permissibility (halal status).

Although some of our predecessors would feed a chicken that had eaten filth with clean food in their homes for three days, and then slaughter and eat it, as Ibn Abi Shaybah has narrated regarding Abdullah ibn Umar radi Allahu anhu.
(al-Musannaf li Ibn Abi Shaybah: 5/147, no. 24598)

In any case, this may be considered their precaution, but there is no dispute regarding its permissibility (halal status).
(Fath al-Bari: 9/802)

Hadith Commentary:
Abu Musa meant that the oath you have taken—that you will not eat chicken—is not a good oath, because chicken is a lawful (halal) animal.
Eat it freely, and offer the expiation (kaffarah) for your oath. The relevance to the chapter is that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) gave the Ash‘aris these camels from his share, that is, from the khums (one-fifth portion).
Abu Musa and his companions thought that perhaps the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had forgotten the oath he had taken—that he would not give them mounts—and that they themselves had not reminded him. It was as if, by a kind of deception, they had taken these camels. How could there be any good in such an action?
It was for this clarification that they returned, so that the matter would be made clear.

Hadith Commentary:
➊ The intention of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (radi Allahu anhu) was that taking an oath to not eat chicken is not good, because chicken is a lawful (halal) animal. Eat it and offer expiation (kaffarah) for your oath.

➋ From this hadith, it is understood that if someone swears an oath to do or not do something, but breaking the oath is better for him than upholding it, then the oath should be broken and expiation (kaffarah) for such an oath becomes obligatory.

➌ The purpose of Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) is to show that the fifth (khums) is for the needs of the Muslims, because the camels that came to the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) were from the wealth of khums, and the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) distributed them for the needs of the people. The spoils of war (mal-e-ghanima) were distributed among the warriors, and the khums was sent to the service of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), which he spent at his own discretion. And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
This incident pertains to the Battle of Tabuk, and the following verses were revealed in the context of this event:
"And there is no blame upon those who came to you so that you might provide them with mounts, but you said, 'I do not find anything upon which to mount you.' They turned back while their eyes overflowed with tears out of grief that they could not find something to spend." (al-Tawbah: 92/9)
(2)
In another narration, this incident is described in more detail. Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari radi Allahu anhu says that his companions sent him to the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to request mounts.
I went and submitted:
O Messenger of Allah! My companions have sent me to you to request mounts.
The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
"By Allah! I will not give you any mount."
At that time, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was angry, but I did not realize it.
I returned, saddened, and informed my companions of the refusal of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
I was grieved for two reasons: one, that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not provide us with mounts, and the other, that perhaps the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was displeased with me.
Hardly any time had passed after my return when I heard that Bilal radi Allahu anhu was calling me.
I responded, and he said:
Come, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is calling you.
I presented myself, and he said:
"Here are three pairs of camels which I have just purchased from Sa‘d. Take these six camels and tell your companions that these camels have been given to you for riding by Allah, or by the Messenger of Allah. Use them for your needs."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Maghazi, Hadith: 4415)

Hadith Commentary:
➊
When Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari (radi Allahu anhu) was sent as the governor of Kufa during the caliphate of ‘Uthman (radi Allahu anhu), this incident took place. The tribe of Jarm resided in Yemen, but later settled in Kufa. Due to this connection, Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari (radi Allahu anhu) honored and respected them.
(‘Umdat al-Qari: 12/349)

➋
The Ash‘ari companions did not have mounts to participate in the Battle of Tabuk, so they requested mounts. The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was displeased for some other reason, and coincidentally, he did not have any mounts at that time, so he refused. Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari (radi Allahu anhu) became very distressed by this refusal, thinking perhaps the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was displeased with him for some reason.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Maghazi, Hadith: 4415)

➌
From this narration, it is understood that camels from the spoils of war (ghanimah) came to the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), whereas in other narrations it is mentioned that he purchased them from Sa‘d (radi Allahu anhu).
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Maghazi, Hadith: 4415)
It is possible that Sa‘d (radi Allahu anhu) received camels as his share from the spoils of war, and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) purchased them from him.
And Allah knows best.

➍
There is also a difference of opinion regarding the number of camels: in some narrations it is five, in others six; in some narrations, it is mentioned that he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) gave them two by two. It is possible that the original number was five, and the sixth was given as an addition. Multiple incidents may also have occurred.
And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
(1)
Nastahmiluhu:
They were seeking a mount from you.

(2)
Zawad:
This term applies to three up to ten camels.

(3)
Ghur:
Plural of agharr; refers to something white.

(4)
Dhuri:
Plural of dhurwah; refers to the peak or highest part of anything, and here it means the hump.

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
(1)
Tilka:
Delay,
to act with hesitation.
(2)
Nahb Ibil:
Camels from the spoils of war.

Benefits and Issues: This individual from Taym Allah who entered is in fact Zuhdam al-Jurmi himself, because both Banu Taym Allah and Banu Jurm are clans from the tribe of Quda'ah. Therefore, Banu Zuhdam are sometimes also referred to as Banu Taym Allah. The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had acquired camels from Sa'd in exchange for camels from the spoils of war, with the understanding that when spoils would be obtained, camels would be given to him. Or, it may be that Sa'd himself had received these camels as part of the spoils, which is why they were described as camels from the spoils. These camels were six, although some narrators have mentioned them as five, or they were five and, by rounding up, they were referred to as six.

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
Buq‘ (بُقْعٌ) is the plural of abqa‘ (أَبْقَعُ),
meaning piebald,
that which has both blackness and whiteness,
and due to the predominance of whiteness, in general narrations they are referred to as ghar adh-dhira (غر الذري) instead of buq‘ adh-dhira,
therefore, in the text, the meaning has been rendered as "white humps."

(1) Ash'ar was a tribe, due to which Abu Musa is called Ash'ari. When these people reached the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), at that time he was in a state of anger for some reason. In any case, at that time he did not even have she-camels with him.

(2) "I did not give (them)"—that is, now Allah, the Exalted, has sent the camels which I have given to you. As for the oath, its answer is mentioned ahead.

(3) In this hadith, expiation (kaffarah) is mentioned before breaking the oath. The majority (jumhur) are of this view; however, the Hanafis do not consider it correct, arguing that when the cause for expiation has not yet occurred, how can expiation be given? However, when the intention to break the oath has been made, it is better to give the expiation beforehand so that expiation does not become obligatory, although giving it afterwards is also permissible.

Perhaps the reference to “from the earth” is to indicate that this is my method regarding worldly matters. As for religious deeds, all of them are inherently better; the question of abandoning them does not even arise. In worldly matters, if an oath has been taken regarding something less virtuous, then one should abandon it and do the better deed, and offer expiation (kaffarah) for the oath. However, if a lawful matter has been agreed upon between two parties, and a person has sworn to fulfill it, but later sees that the benefit or profit is going to the other party and he himself is incurring a loss, then in this situation he cannot violate the oath, because the other party also has a right which would be infringed upon. Thus, the method mentioned in the hadith applies to personal actions, not to matters involving the rights of others; otherwise, this would be selfishness.

Benefits and Issues:
(1)
There are three types of oaths:

(a) Laghw (unintentional): In which the word of oath is uttered but there is no intention of making an oath, such as when some people, out of habit, utter words of oath without intending it. There is no accountability for this, however, it is better to avoid it.

(b) Ghamus (perjurious): That is, a false oath which is taken to deceive someone. This is a major sin; one should repent and seek forgiveness for it and make every effort to avoid it in the future. However, there is no expiation (kaffarah) required for it.

(c) Mu'aqqadah (binding): Which is taken with intention and resolve in speech to emphasize and affirm the intention to do something in the future. If this type of oath is broken, it is necessary to pay expiation (kaffarah). (See: Tafsir Ahsan al-Bayan by Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf, Surah al-Ma'idah 5:89).

(2)
The expiation (kaffarah) for breaking an oath is to feed ten poor people, or to clothe them, or to free a slave. (Surah al-Ma'idah: 89)

(3)
As food for one person, one mudd (approximately six hundred grams) is sufficient, because the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) gave fifteen sa’ of dates to be distributed among sixty needy people for a man who had intercourse during Ramadan while fasting. And in one sa’ there are four mudd. According to some scholars, in food and clothing, local custom (‘urf) is considered, i.e., what common people would say is considered as having fed someone. This is also indicated by the Noble Qur’an, as Allah the Exalted says:
﴿مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ﴾ (al-Ma'idah, 5:89)
“Of the average (quality) that you feed your own families.”
That is, its quantity is not fixed. One should give simple or good food or clothing according to one’s ability.

(4)
It is also impermissible to take an oath not to do a good deed or to commit a sin. Expiation (kaffarah) must also be paid for this. Allah the Exalted has said:
﴿وَلَا تَجْعَلُوا اللَّـهَ عُرْضَةً لِّأَيْمَانِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوا وَتَتَّقُوا وَتُصْلِحُوا بَيْنَ النَّاسِ﴾ (al-Baqarah, 2:224)
“And do not make Allah, by your oaths, an obstacle to being righteous and fearing (Him) and making peace among people.”

(5)
The expiation (kaffarah) for an oath not to do something may be given either before carrying out the act or after.

Benefit:
This hadith proves that the chicken is a lawful (halal) animal. Its meat and its egg are permissible to eat. This hadith is also found in Sahih Muslim, al-Darimi, al-Bayhaqi, and Musnad Ahmad. Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah has established a chapter on this «بــاب لـحـم الدجاج» and Imam al-Tirmidhi also says: «باب ما جاء فى اكل الدجاج»
The Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam would only eat pure (tayyib) food and would not even approach food in which there was any dislike (karahah). The fact that the Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ate chicken meat is a clear proof of its lawfulness. After this, it is not permissible for anyone to declare chicken meat unlawful (haram), merely on the suspicion that its feed contains unlawful (haram) substances. Because in matters of lawfulness and unlawfulness, the animal’s feed is not considered; rather, what is considered is the ruling of the Shari’ah. For there are some animals whose feed consists of fruits, vegetables, and lawful things, yet they are still unlawful, such as the jackal, monkey, etc. Eating such animals is never lawful, even though their feed is pure, but the Shari’ah has declared them unlawful.
If we accept the cause (‘illah) of lawfulness and unlawfulness to be the animal’s feed, that is, if the feed is pure, its meat is lawful, and if the feed is impure and unlawful, its meat is unlawful, then suppose someone raises a piglet from birth in his home and provides it with only lawful and pure food—would it become lawful? If someone bases his judgment on his own intellect in this matter, then according to that, it would be lawful, because it never ate anything unlawful or impure. But if he refers his judgment to the Shari’ah, then it will be unlawful.
From all these evidences, it is clear that in matters of lawfulness and unlawfulness, the animal’s feed is not considered; rather, the ruling of the Shari’ah is considered.
Refutation of the Doubt... Those who declare broiler chicken unlawful (haram) do so by analogy with jallalah, which the Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam declared unlawful, as is found in the hadith of Abdullah ibn Umar radi Allahu anhuma:
« نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عـن أكل الجلالة والبانها ۔ » (Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah)
“The Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam forbade eating jallalah and drinking its milk.”
This hadith does not establish the absolute unlawfulness of jallalah; rather, its use is only prohibited until the foul odor from its filthy feed disappears, as is established from Abdullah ibn Umar radi Allahu anhuma:
«إنـه كـان يـحبس الدجاجة الـجـلالـة ثـلاثـا»
“Abdullah ibn Umar radi Allahu anhuma would confine a jallalah chicken for three days (then would use it).” [رواه ابن ابي شيبه]
Allamah Nasiruddin al-Albani rahimahullah has declared its chain authentic. (Irwa’ al-Ghalil: 8/151)
He would do this only so that its stomach would be cleansed and the foul odor would leave its meat. If the unlawfulness of jallalah were due to the impurity of its meat, then meat that was nourished on unlawful things would never become pure under any circumstances. As Ibn Qudamah has said, if jallalah were impure, then even after confining it for two or three days, it would not become pure. (al-Mughni: 9/41)
From this authentic narration of Abdullah ibn Umar radi Allahu anhuma, it is clear that the unlawfulness of jallalah is not due to its meat being impure and filthy, but rather the cause is the presence of foul odor, etc., in its meat. As Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah says:
“*What is considered in the permissibility of eating jallalah is the disappearance of the odor of impurity by feeding it something pure, according to the correct view*.” (Fath al-Bari: 9/565)
That is, the thing considered in the permissibility of eating jallalah is the disappearance of the odor of impurity, etc. That is, when the odor disappears, its consumption is permissible.
Allamah San‘ani also says:
“It is said that what is considered is the odor and foulness.” That is, in the lawfulness of jallalah, the disappearance of the odor is what is considered. (Subul al-Salam: 3/77)
There is also no harm in knowing the statements of the linguists regarding jallalah. Most linguists have written:
“*Al-jallalah is the cow that follows impurities*.” (Lisan al-‘Arab: 2/336, al-Sihah by al-Jawhari: 4/1258, al-Qamus al-Muhit: 1/591)
Ayn al-Manzur al-Ifriqi writes:
“*Jallalah is the animal that eats human excrement, etc.*” (Lisan al-‘Arab: 2/336)
According to this statement, the broiler chicken, which people declare unlawful, does not even become jallalah, because it does not eat human excrement. Therefore, it cannot be declared jallalah, because the cause of jallalah is not found in it, and when the cause is absent, the ruling of jallalah cannot be applied to it.
Therefore, the broiler chicken, whose feed is prepared from a mixture of lawful and unlawful things, is lawful, and there is no doubt in it. Its feed is not considered; rather, the ruling of the Shari’ah is considered.
Finally, it should also be well remembered that the blood, carrion, and other unlawful things that are added to the chicken’s feed, although these are unlawful for humans, they are not unlawful for animals, because animals are not legally responsible (mukallaf). However, Allah Ta‘ala and His Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam have declared the buying and selling of those things unlawful for humans which are unlawful to eat (with the exception of a few animals), as is found in the authentic hadith. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
« لـعـن الـلـه اليهود - ثلاثا أن الله حرم عليهم الشحوم فباعوها و أكلوا أثمانها و إن الله إذا حرم على قوم أكل شيى حرم عليهم ثمنه »
“Allah cursed the Jews. He sallallahu alayhi wa sallam repeated these words three times, then said: Allah made fat unlawful for them, so they sold it and consumed its price. Indeed, when Allah makes something unlawful for a people, He also makes its price unlawful for them.” [صحيح سنن ابي داؤد للالباني : 667/2 و أحمد]
And in another narration, these words are found:
« إن الـلـه حـرم الـخمر وثمنها وحرم الميتة و ثمنها و حرم الخنزير و ثمنه »
“Indeed, Allah has declared wine, carrion, and swine unlawful, and their prices are also unlawful.” [صحيح ابوداؤد : 666/2]
From these statements of the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, it is clear that the buying and selling of those things which are unlawful for humans to eat is also unlawful (except for a few animals, such as the domestic donkey). Whoever does so is committing disobedience to Allah Ta‘ala and is engaged in consuming and accumulating unlawful earnings. Our brothers should avoid buying and selling unlawful things in preparing chicken feed. Instead of adding carrion and blood to the feed, they should add fish meal. When there is sufficiency in buying and selling lawful things, then what is the need for the unlawful? May Allah Ta‘ala grant all Muslims the ability to act upon the Qur’an and Sunnah. «هـذا ما عندي والله اعلم بالصواب» (Aap ke Masail aur Unka Hal by Mufti Mubashir Ahmad Rabbani).