Ikhlaf (breaking a promise or a covenant)

Ikhlaf means, in the lexicon, failing to keep a covenant. Al-Zajjaj held that 'aqd (a contract) is stronger than 'ahd (a covenant), since a covenant is a binding and a contract is a binding made firm and secure. The jurists use the word in this sense. ¹

Some jurists equate lying with breaking a promise; others distinguish them, making lying concern the past and present and breaking a promise concern the future. ¹

It applies to promises and to covenants. Some jurists treat promise and covenant as one; others separate them, confining covenant to what God has required or forbidden and leaving promise for the rest. ^{1 2}

On the distinction between covenant and promise, breaking a covenant is forbidden. For a promise to something not forbidden, the scholars agree it should be kept, but differ whether that is obligatory or recommended. The Shafi'is, Abu Hanifa and the majority hold it recommended: one who leaves it loses merit and does a strongly disliked act, without sin. A group holds it obligatory; Ibn al-Arabi, the Maliki, names Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz among them. ² The Malikis distinguish: if the promise is tied to a cause, as in saying "marry, and you will have such-and-such", it must be kept; if it is absolute, it is not obligatory. Those who do not require it argue that a promise is like a gift, which by the majority is not binding until it is handed over, while for the Malikis it binds before handover. ² One who promises while intending to break it is certainly sinful and shows a branch of hypocrisy, as in the well-known hadith that counts breaking a promise among three signs of the hypocrite. ²

The Hanafis hold that a promise is not binding in judgement unless it is conditional. The Malikis hold, in one narration, that a promise to contract binds the promisor in judgement when the promisee has taken on a financial obligation because of it, as in saying: demolish your house and I will lend you what you need to rebuild; if the promisor breaks it, he is compelled to perform, given the conditions. ² The Hanbalis state that a promise is not binding in judgement, meaning outwardly, and this is the sound view among them. The Shafi'i ruling that breaking a promise is disliked implies that the promisor is not compelled. ² A stipulation is normally binding; if it is broken, that counts as a breach of the contract or gives the other party an option, except for some stipulations that do no harm in marriage in particular, which some jurists treat as void from the moment they are made. ²