If we say that a man saying to his wife
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: Regarding Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) holds that a man saying to his wife: "If you do such-and-such, you are divorced," this is an oath, and likewise saying: "The divorce is upon me," and other such formulations
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner: So what is the basis for calling this formulation an oath, when it does not contain an oath, but is merely conditional?
The Shaykh: Yes, what I see is that Shaykh al-Islam treated this conditional or suspended divorce as an oath based on intention, because the one who pronounces a divorce conditional on a condition intends by this divorce, intends by the oath, the divorce, which is to prevent himself from doing a certain act or to compel himself to do a certain act; and this issue actually returns to what we mentioned earlier of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):Sahih al-Bukhari 1 Therefore, my consideration of intention in such a divorce conditional on a condition or suspended on a condition, I say that not every divorce suspended on a condition can be treated as an oath of divorce, because we can imagine in some situations that when a person pronounces a divorce suspended on a condition, he means to effect the divorce... there is a great difference between one who says to his wife, "If, for example, you bring your brother or your father or one of your relatives into your house, you are divorced"; here we can fully imagine that he does not intend the divorce, but intends by it to prevent this woman from doing an action he does not approve of; so this is a divorce like an oath of divorce, because its purpose is to prevent the wife from doing a certain act. The formulations can, of course, be enumerated and depicted in various ways. What concerns us now is the opposite formulation to this, which can be attributed to divorce rather than to an oath of divorce, such as a man who one day, God forbid, saw his wife in a suspicious, strange situation, and said to her: "If I see you again talking to your neighbor or so-and-so, you are divorced." Here, we imagine that he does not intend merely the woman, but because the matter concerns honor, if he actually sees her fall into the same first prohibition again, then at that time we imagine that he meant the divorce and not merely preventing the woman from falling into such a violation; because here the intention was the intention of divorce, and it was not the intention of an oath of divorce or a prescribed oath, which is by one of the names of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He).
The phone rang.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Peace be upon you
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah
The questioner: How are you, our Shaykh?
The Shaykh: I praise Allah to you, how are you?
The questioner: Praise be to Allah, how is your health?
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, I am well
The questioner: Some of the young men decided to go on a trip one hour before Fajr, and it is known that this causes the congregation to be missed and this causes the ghusl to be missed, with the understanding that ghusl is obligatory
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: So what is your opinion if this going out is not a journey and we do not call it a journey, what do you say?
The Shaykh: I say there is no harm in traveling before the adhan of Jumu'ah, as is well known, so they may depart as long as their trip is permissible and prescribed, but we do not allow them to not perform ghusl absolutely, rather we say if they go out before Fajr and it does not become easy for them to perform the ghusl of Jumu'ah, there is no harm in that, because the command is lifted in cases of hardship, as is well known from the principles of the Shari'ah. We do not tell them not to perform ghusl absolutely just because they left their houses, for example, before the journey, rather we say: if it does not become easy for them to perform ghusl, there is no harm in that, because hardship is lifted.
The questioner: O Shaykh, did you notice it is not a journey.
The Shaykh: I am not speaking about a journey.
The questioner: Yes, yes, I mean...
The Shaykh: And the word journey did not come in my speech. Yes, that is right.
The questioner: Yes, I was afraid I had not heard you...
The Shaykh: No, I heard you and understood you, and may Allah reward you with good.
The questioner: ... it is not a journey
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you as well.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : Welcome.
The questioner : Peace be upon you
The Shaykh: And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. So what I understand from the words of Ibn Taymiyyah is that he considers the intention in a divorce suspended on a condition; so if his intention in that is what is intended by an oath of divorce, its ruling is the ruling of an oath, otherwise not; is that clear, if Allah wills?
The questioner: It is clear, O Shaykh, but the oath, did he swear by the divorce?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: He did not swear by the divorce, but he swore, there is no oath in this wording, he said "If you do such-and-such, you are divorced," even if he intended the divorce, there is no oath in it?
The Shaykh: I did not say an oath by the divorce, I only said what is intended by the divorce.
The questioner: And the vow upon me, is it not a vow?
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: His saying "The divorce is upon me," is it not a vow?
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: And the vow is expiated with the expiation of an oath?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) holds that a man saying to his wife: "If you do such-and-such, you are divorced," this is an oath, and likewise saying: "The divorce is upon me," and other such formulations
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner: So what is the basis for calling this formulation an oath, when it does not contain an oath, but is merely conditional?
The Shaykh: Yes, what I see is that Shaykh al-Islam treated this conditional or suspended divorce as an oath based on intention, because the one who pronounces a divorce conditional on a condition intends by this divorce, intends by the oath, the divorce, which is to prevent himself from doing a certain act or to compel himself to do a certain act; and this issue actually returns to what we mentioned earlier of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):
The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended.
إنما الأعمال بالنيات وإنما لكل امرئ ما نوىThe phone rang.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Peace be upon you
The Shaykh : And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah
The questioner: How are you, our Shaykh?
The Shaykh: I praise Allah to you, how are you?
The questioner: Praise be to Allah, how is your health?
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, I am well
The questioner: Some of the young men decided to go on a trip one hour before Fajr, and it is known that this causes the congregation to be missed and this causes the ghusl to be missed, with the understanding that ghusl is obligatory
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: So what is your opinion if this going out is not a journey and we do not call it a journey, what do you say?
The Shaykh: I say there is no harm in traveling before the adhan of Jumu'ah, as is well known, so they may depart as long as their trip is permissible and prescribed, but we do not allow them to not perform ghusl absolutely, rather we say if they go out before Fajr and it does not become easy for them to perform the ghusl of Jumu'ah, there is no harm in that, because the command is lifted in cases of hardship, as is well known from the principles of the Shari'ah. We do not tell them not to perform ghusl absolutely just because they left their houses, for example, before the journey, rather we say: if it does not become easy for them to perform ghusl, there is no harm in that, because hardship is lifted.
The questioner: O Shaykh, did you notice it is not a journey.
The Shaykh: I am not speaking about a journey.
The questioner: Yes, yes, I mean...
The Shaykh: And the word journey did not come in my speech. Yes, that is right.
The questioner: Yes, I was afraid I had not heard you...
The Shaykh: No, I heard you and understood you, and may Allah reward you with good.
The questioner: ... it is not a journey
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : And you as well.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : Welcome.
The questioner : Peace be upon you
The Shaykh: And upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. So what I understand from the words of Ibn Taymiyyah is that he considers the intention in a divorce suspended on a condition; so if his intention in that is what is intended by an oath of divorce, its ruling is the ruling of an oath, otherwise not; is that clear, if Allah wills?
The questioner: It is clear, O Shaykh, but the oath, did he swear by the divorce?
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: He did not swear by the divorce, but he swore, there is no oath in this wording, he said "If you do such-and-such, you are divorced," even if he intended the divorce, there is no oath in it?
The Shaykh: I did not say an oath by the divorce, I only said what is intended by the divorce.
The questioner: And the vow upon me, is it not a vow?
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: His saying "The divorce is upon me," is it not a vow?
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: And the vow is expiated with the expiation of an oath?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.