and Ibn al-Mundhir. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said: There is nothing required for swearing by Hajj. From al-Sha'bi, al-Harith al-'Ukli, Hammad, and al-Hakam it is reported: There is nothing required for swearing by the charity of his property; because expiation is only binding when swearing by Allah the Almighty, due to the sanctity of the Name, and he did not swear by the Name of Allah. Furthermore, what he named is not obligatory because he did not present it as an act of devotion, but rather obligated it as a form of punishment, so it is not binding upon him. Abu Hanifah and Malik said: He is bound to fulfill his vow, because it is a vow, so he is bound to fulfill it like a vow of righteousness. A similar position is reported from al-Sha'bi. Our evidence is what 'Imran ibn Husayn narrated, saying: I heard the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) say: "There is no vow in anger, and its expiation is the expiation of an oath." It was narrated by Sa'id ibn Mansur and al-Juzjani in "Al-Mutarjam" (5). From 'Aishah, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Whoever swears by walking, or by a sacrificial animal (hady), or by giving his wealth in the path of Allah, or to the poor, or to the curtain (ritaj) of the Ka'bah (6), then his expiation is the expiation of an oath" (7). This is also the statement of those we named among the Companions, and there is no dissenter among them in their era. Furthermore, it is an oath, so it enters under the generality of the saying of the Almighty: {Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for what you have intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people} (8). The proof that it is an oath is that it is named as such, and the one who says it is called a swearer. It differs from the "vow of righteousness" because with that, he intended drawing near to Allah and righteousness, and did not present it in the form of an oath. Here, however, it is presented in the form of an oath, and he did not intend by it an act of devotion or righteousness. Thus, it resembles an oath in one respect and a vow in another, so he is given the choice between fulfilling it and the expiation. From Ahmad, there is a second narration that the expiation is mandatory and fulfilling his vow does not suffice him. This is a position of some of the companions of al-Shafi'i, because it is an oath. The first [narration] is more appropriate, because he only committed himself to perform what he vowed, so nothing more is required of him, just like the vow of righteousness. It differs from an oath by Allah the Almighty, because he swore by the sanctified Name (9), so if he violates it, the expiation is binding to honor the Name, unlike this case.