Breaking Oaths in Islam: Muhammad's Convenient Solution
In Islamic law, oaths and vows carry significant weight—they're sworn promises made before Allah. Yet the Quran and hadith provide a mechanism for breaking these sacred commitments: kaffarah (expiation), which typically involves fasting, feeding the poor, or freeing a slave. While presented as a way to show seriousness about oaths while recognizing human fallibility, the actual practice reveals a convenient system where commitments can be abandoned with minimal consequence, and Muhammad himself used it to escape inconvenient promises.
The Quranic Teaching on Oaths
The Quran addresses oath-breaking in several passages:
"Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for what your hearts have earned. And Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing." (Quran 2:225)
"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)
Notice the convenient escape clause: an oath can be broken as long as you perform expiation. The oath isn't truly binding; it's more like a contract with a buyout clause.
Muhammad's Personal Use of Oath-Breaking
The most revealing example of oath-breaking in Islam involves Muhammad himself and the incident with his wife Hafsa and slave-girl Mariyah:
"O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise." (Quran 66:1-2)
What was Muhammad prohibiting himself from? According to tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and hadith, Muhammad had been caught by his wife Hafsa having sexual relations with her slave-girl Mariyah (or in some accounts, with his other wife Maria the Copt) in Hafsa's bed on Hafsa's day. To appease Hafsa's anger, Muhammad swore an oath that he would not touch Mariyah again.
However, Muhammad apparently found this oath inconvenient. Conveniently, Allah revealed verses not only permitting him to break his oath but essentially commanding him to do so ("why do you prohibit yourself from what Allah has made lawful?"). The passage explicitly states that Allah has "ordained the dissolution of your oaths."
The hadith confirms this interpretation:
"The Prophet made a vow not to approach one of his wives for one month due to his anger with her. When twenty-nine days had passed, he went to her. Someone said: 'O Messenger of Allah, you made a vow not to approach her for one month.' He said: 'The month is twenty-nine days.'" (Sahih Bukhari 5203)
In another account, he simply broke the oath and performed expiation.
The Convenient Revelation
This incident reveals a troubling pattern in Muhammad's life: whenever he faced a personal difficulty or domestic dispute, conveniently-timed revelations would appear to resolve the issue in his favor. Regarding oath-breaking specifically:
- Muhammad swears not to touch his slave-girl to appease his wife
- He regrets this oath (whether because of sexual desire or because it implies a free woman can limit a man's access to his slave)
- Allah reveals that Muhammad should break the oath and that Allah has ordained oath dissolution
- Muhammad breaks the oath with divine sanction
For ordinary Muslims, breaking oaths requires expiation. For Muhammad, breaking oaths came with divine encouragement.
The Hadith on Oath-Breaking
Muhammad's own teaching normalized oath-breaking when convenient:
"By Allah, if Allah wills, I will not take an oath and then see something else better than it but I will do that which is better and make expiation for my oath." (Sahih Muslim 1650)
"The Prophet said: 'If you take an oath and then see that something else is better, then do that which is better and make expiation for your oath.'" (Sahih Bukhari 6622)
This teaching explicitly encourages oath-breaking: if you swear to do something but then decide something else is more beneficial, simply break the oath and pay the expiation. The oath becomes not a sacred commitment but a provisional statement with an attached fine for changing your mind.
The Problem with Expiation
The expiation for breaking an oath (feeding ten poor people, clothing them, freeing a slave, or fasting three days) sounds significant, but it's actually quite minimal:
For the wealthy: Feeding ten people or providing them clothing is trivial. A rich man could break oaths daily without any real consequence.
For the poor: Fasting three days is uncomfortable but hardly a serious deterrent, especially for someone accustomed to Ramadan fasting.
The "punishment" for oath-breaking is so minimal that it hardly discourages the practice. It's less like a serious moral failing and more like a parking ticket—an inconvenience that won't actually change behavior for someone who finds oath-breaking convenient.
The Implications for Trust
When a religious system permits oath-breaking with minimal consequence, it undermines the entire concept of binding commitments. If a Muslim swears an oath to you, you cannot be certain it will be kept because:
- Islamic law explicitly permits breaking oaths when "something better" comes along
- The penalty is minimal and easily paid
- Muhammad himself modeled this behavior
- Allah revealed verses specifically authorizing oath dissolution
This creates a society where oaths cannot function as reliable commitments, because everyone knows they can be abandoned with minor consequences.
The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah: Oath-Breaking in Action
The most significant historical example of Islamic oath-breaking is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. In 628 CE, Muhammad signed a ten-year peace treaty with the Quraysh of Mecca. The treaty included provisions that appeared to favor the Quraysh, and many Muslims were upset.
However, only two years later, Muhammad broke the treaty and conquered Mecca. Islamic apologists claim a minor infraction by a Quraysh ally justified this, but the historical record suggests Muhammad broke the treaty when he had gathered sufficient military strength to do so.
The Quran itself seems to provide justification for breaking treaties when advantageous:
"If you [have reason to] fear from a people betrayal, throw [their treaty] back to them, [putting you] on equal terms. Indeed, Allah does not like traitors." (Quran 8:58)
The phrase "if you fear betrayal" is subjective enough to justify breaking almost any treaty—you simply claim you feared the other party might betray you, even if they hadn't actually done so.
The Deeper Problem: Allah's Character
The most troubling aspect isn't just that Muhammad broke oaths, but that Allah is presented as actively encouraging this behavior. Quran 66:2 states: "Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths."
This suggests that oath-breaking isn't just permitted as a human weakness; it's divinely ordained. Allah isn't portrayed as reluctantly forgiving oath-breaking but as actively establishing a system for it.
What does this reveal about Allah's character? In human relationships, we understand that people who help others escape commitments are often enabling irresponsibility. A god who "ordains the dissolution of oaths" appears less concerned with human integrity and more interested in providing escape hatches from inconvenient promises.
Islamic Marriage Vows
The weakness of Islamic oath-keeping has direct implications for marriage. While Islamic marriage involves vows, the ease of divorce (particularly for men) reflects the broader attitude toward commitments:
"The Prophet said: 'Of all the lawful acts the most detestable to Allah is divorce.'" (Sunan Abu Dawud 2178)
Yet Islamic law permits a man to divorce his wife by simply saying "I divorce you" three times (talaq). The oath taken at marriage can be dissolved with minimal difficulty.
For women, the situation is even worse: not only can their husbands easily divorce them, but husbands can also take up to four wives, making the marriage vow of exclusive commitment entirely one-sided.
Biblical Contrast: The Sanctity of Oaths
The Bible takes a much more serious view of oaths and vows:
"If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth." (Numbers 30:2)
"When you make a vow to God, do not delay to fulfill it. He has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill your vow. It is better not to make a vow than to make one and not fulfill it." (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5)
"You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:12)
Jesus took it even further, teaching his followers to avoid oaths altogether because our word should be sufficiently trustworthy without them:
"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Matthew 5:34-37)
The biblical principle is clear: your word should be so reliable that oaths are unnecessary. And when you do make a vow, breaking it is a serious sin, not a minor infraction fixable with a small payment.
The biblical God is described as one who keeps his covenants:
"God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)
The biblical God's character is established by his absolute faithfulness to his promises, not by ordaining systems for dissolving commitments.
Questions to Consider
- If Allah "ordained the dissolution of oaths," how can oaths maintain any sacred significance in Islamic practice?
- Why would Allah reveal verses specifically permitting Muhammad to break an oath made to his wife, unless Allah's revelations serve Muhammad's personal convenience?
- If breaking an oath simply requires feeding ten people or fasting three days, isn't this making serious commitments trivial?
- How can you trust someone's word when their religion explicitly teaches they can break oaths when "something better" comes along?
- If Muhammad could break the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah after only two years, what does this teach Muslims about keeping agreements with non-Muslims?
- Why would the pattern of convenient revelations solving Muhammad's personal problems not raise questions about whether those revelations were divine or self-serving?
- How does a god who ordains oath-breaking compare to a god who declares "God is not human, that he should lie"?
- If your religion teaches that commitments can be easily dissolved, how does this affect the reliability of marriage vows, business contracts, and peace treaties?