It is the opinion of the scholars of Iraq, and the manifest view of the Shafi'i school. Some of his companions stated: It is not binding to fulfill it, because Abu Umar, the servant of Tha'lab, said: A vow among the Arabs is a promise conditioned on something. Also, because what an individual commits to with a consideration (compensation) becomes binding upon him by the contract, such as sold or leased items, whereas what he commits to without a consideration does not become binding upon him by the mere contract, such as a gift.

The third type: A vow of obedience that has no basis of obligation in the Shari'ah, such as i'tikaf (seclusion) and visiting the sick. Fulfilling it is binding [according to the general body of scholars. It is narrated from Abu Hanifah that it is not binding to fulfill it]; because a vow is a derivative of what is legislated, so it cannot necessitate what does not have an equivalent mandated by the original Shari'ah. Our evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him): "Whoever vows to obey God, let him obey Him." And his condemnation of those who make vows and do not fulfill them, and the saying of God Almighty: {And among them are those who made a covenant with God: If He gives us from His bounty, we will surely give charity and we will surely be among the righteous. But when He gave them from His bounty, they were stingy with it and turned away, while they were refusing. So He penalized them with hypocrisy in their hearts until the day they meet Him because they failed God in what they promised Him and because they were lying}. It has been authentically established that Umar said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him): "I vowed to seclude myself (i'tikaf) for a night in the Sacred Mosque." The Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) said to him: "Fulfill your vow." Also, because he bound himself to an act of closeness (qurba) by way of righteousness, so it becomes binding upon him, like the instances of consensus, and as if he bound himself to a sacrifice, or made a sacrificial animal (hady) obligatory, or as in i'tikaf and 'Umrah, for they (the opponents) have conceded these, even though they are not obligatory according to them. What they mentioned is invalidated by these two principles. What they narrated from Abu Umar is not correct; for the Arabs call that which is bound by a commitment a "vow" (nadhr), even if it is not conditional. Jamil said: "Would that the men who vowed my blood to you, and intended my killing, O Buthaynah, had met me." And a reward-based commission (ja'alah) is a promise with a condition, and it is not a vow.

The third category: The indeterminate vow. This is for one to say: "It is incumbent upon me to fulfill a vow for the sake of God." This necessitates the expiation of an oath, according to the majority of scholars. This is reported from Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas, Jabir, and Aisha. It is also the view of al-Hasan, Ata, Tawus, al-Qasim, Salim, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i, Ikrimah, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Malik, al-Thawri, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. I know of no dissenter in this except al-Sha'fi'i, who said: His vow does not take effect, and there is no expiation for it; because some vows do not require expiation.