An Oath He Believed to Be True
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Fatwa No. ( 343 )
Q1: He had a sum of one hundred riyals belonging to one of his friends, so he gave him fifty riyals from it. After a while, his friend denied that he had given him the fifty, and said to him: “By the forbidden (haram) of my family, I gave you the fifty.” And he is, to this present time, of the belief that he gave him the fifty. He asks: Does anything become incumbent upon him if it becomes clear to him that his belief was mistaken?
A1: If the matter is as the questioner described, that he swore by the forbidden (haram) of his family that he handed the fifty riyals to his friend from the original amount, based on his belief that he had actually handed it over, then he has not broken his oath, even if it later becomes clear that he was mistaken in his belief. This is due to the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Ahzab 33:5] , and the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Sunan ad-Daraqutni 23:30 ; and because he did not
intend to contradict the truth, so he has not broken his oath. This is the opinion of a group of scholars, and it is the apparent position of the school of al-Shafi'i, and he preferred it in (Al-Khalasa). He said in (Al-Furu'): “This is the more apparent view.” And he said in (Al-Insaf): “This is the correct view.” And Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyyah chose it.
Q2: There was a dispute between him and his cousin regarding an incident that his cousin caused in a shared country between them. He said to him: “By the forbidden (haram), do not remove the incident.” Then he reconciled with his cousin on the condition of leaving the incident as it was. He asks: What becomes incumbent upon him regarding that prohibition?
A2: If the matter is as the questioner described, that he said to his cousin: “By the forbidden (haram), do not remove the incident,” and then he reconciled with his cousin on the condition of leaving the incident as it was, then he has broken his oath and has become obligated to pay the expiation for an oath: feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, or freeing a believing slave. If he finds none of these, then he must fast for three days, and it is better that they be consecutive. And since the questioner did not mention his family in his prohibition, but only said: “By the forbidden, do not remove the incident,” this prohibition has no effect on his cohabitation with his wife. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his Companions.
Q1: He had a sum of one hundred riyals belonging to one of his friends, so he gave him fifty riyals from it. After a while, his friend denied that he had given him the fifty, and said to him: “By the forbidden (haram) of my family, I gave you the fifty.” And he is, to this present time, of the belief that he gave him the fifty. He asks: Does anything become incumbent upon him if it becomes clear to him that his belief was mistaken?
A1: If the matter is as the questioner described, that he swore by the forbidden (haram) of his family that he handed the fifty riyals to his friend from the original amount, based on his belief that he had actually handed it over, then he has not broken his oath, even if it later becomes clear that he was mistaken in his belief. This is due to the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but [only for] what your hearts intended
وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا أَخْطَأْتُمْ بِهِ وَلَكِنْ مَا تَعَمَّدَتْ قُلُوبُكُمْIndeed, Allah has pardoned my ummah for mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they were forced to do
إن الله تجاوز لأمتي عن الخطأ والنسيان وما استكرهوا عليهintend to contradict the truth, so he has not broken his oath. This is the opinion of a group of scholars, and it is the apparent position of the school of al-Shafi'i, and he preferred it in (Al-Khalasa). He said in (Al-Furu'): “This is the more apparent view.” And he said in (Al-Insaf): “This is the correct view.” And Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyyah chose it.
Q2: There was a dispute between him and his cousin regarding an incident that his cousin caused in a shared country between them. He said to him: “By the forbidden (haram), do not remove the incident.” Then he reconciled with his cousin on the condition of leaving the incident as it was. He asks: What becomes incumbent upon him regarding that prohibition?
A2: If the matter is as the questioner described, that he said to his cousin: “By the forbidden (haram), do not remove the incident,” and then he reconciled with his cousin on the condition of leaving the incident as it was, then he has broken his oath and has become obligated to pay the expiation for an oath: feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, or freeing a believing slave. If he finds none of these, then he must fast for three days, and it is better that they be consecutive. And since the questioner did not mention his family in his prohibition, but only said: “By the forbidden, do not remove the incident,” this prohibition has no effect on his cohabitation with his wife. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his Companions.
Source
www.alifta.gov.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.