And whoever makes a vow involving disobedience, its expiation is the expiation of an oath. Whoever makes a vow he cannot bear, its expiation is the expiation of an oath. And whoever makes a vow he can bear, let him fulfill what he vowed to God (6). If he pays the expiation, and the thing vowed was other than fasting, nothing else is binding upon him. If it was fasting, there are two narrations from Ahmad. One of them: he is bound to feed a poor person for every day. Al-Qadi said: This is more correct, because it is a fast whose cause for obligation was specifically established; thus, when he is unable to perform it, he is bound to feed a poor person for every day, just like the fasting of Ramadan. Furthermore, the absolute terms used by people are interpreted according to what is customary in the Sharia. If one is unable to perform the fast prescribed by law, he feeds a poor person for every day (7), and likewise (8) when he is unable to perform a vowed fast. The second narration: he is not bound by anything else in terms of food (9) or anything else, due to his (peace and blessings of God be upon him) saying: "Whoever makes a vow he cannot bear, its expiation is the expiation of an oath." This implies that the expiation of an oath constitutes his entire expiation. Also, because it is a vow for which he was unable to fulfill, it entails the expiation of an oath, like other vows. And because the necessary consequence of a vow is the same as that of an oath, except when fulfillment is possible and it is an act of devotion. It is not valid to draw an analogy to the fasting of Ramadan for two reasons: First, one is fed for on behalf of the missed fasting of Ramadan in the event of death, so it is the same during life, while this is different. Also, the fasting of Ramadan is more emphatic, as evidenced by the obligation of expiation for sexual intercourse during it and the gravity of the sin of breaking the fast without an excuse. Second, comparing a vowed act to a vowed act is more appropriate than comparing it to something made obligatory by the fundamental principles of the Sharia. Additionally, an expiation has already been made mandatory for this, so it suffices on its behalf, unlike the prescribed fast. Regarding their claim that the absolute terms of people (10) are interpreted based on what is customary in the Sharia, we say: This is not absolute; it is a specific vow. It may be inferred that an expiation is not binding upon him in the event of inability, as [if he were unable to perform] (11) that which is obligatory by the original principles of the Sharia.

Section: If he is unable to perform it due to an incidental cause that is hoped to be removed, such as illness or the like, he shall wait for it to be removed, and no expiation or anything else is binding upon him; because the time has not elapsed, so he resembles a patient during the month of Ramadan. If his inability continues until it is no longer hoped to be removed, he moves to the expiation and the ransom, according to the disagreement we have mentioned. If the inability, for which removal is hoped, relates to a specific fast whose time has elapsed, he waits for the possibility to perform it. Is he bound by an expiation for the time elapsing? There are two narrations, which Abu al-Khattab mentioned. One of them: the expiation becomes mandatory; because he failed to perform what he vowed as intended, so the expiation became binding upon him, as if he had vowed to walk to the Sacred House of God and was unable. Also, a vow is like an oath; if one swore that he would definitely fast this month and then broke the fast due to an excuse, an expiation would be binding upon him, so it is the same here. The second: it is not binding upon him; because he performed the fasting that sufficed for his vow without any negligence on his part (14), so no oath expiation is binding upon him, just as if he had fasted what he had specified.

Section: If he vowed something other than fasting and was unable to perform it, such as prayer or the like, there is nothing upon him except the expiation; because the Sharia has not provided a substitute for it to which one may turn, so the expiation became mandatory due to his violation of his vow only. If he was unable to perform it due to an incidental cause, its ruling is the same as that of fasting in all the details we have clarified.

1855 - Issue; He said: (And if one vows to fast and does not mention a number, and did not intend it, then the minimum of that is the fasting of one day, and the minimum for prayer is two units [Rak'ahs]).

As for when one vows to fast absolutely, the minimum of that (1) is the fasting of one day; there is no disagreement regarding this, because there is no single, individual fast in the Sharia less than a day, so it is binding upon him (2) because it is the certainty. As for prayer, there are two narrations regarding it. One of them: one unit (Rak'ah) suffices him. Isma'il ibn Sa'id transmitted it, because the minimum of prayer is one unit, for the Witr is a prescribed prayer, and it is a single unit. It was narrated from Umar, may God be pleased with him, that he performed a voluntary prayer of a single unit (3). The second: only two units suffice him. Abu Hanifa held this view as well, because the minimum of a prayer that is obligatory...