The Ruling on Swearing by Other Than Allah - Mighty and Majestic -

The questioner: This, I mean, was the summary of the questions regarding the topic. There were many, I mean, sub-questions. We will try, if Allah wills, to askThe Shaykh : what we can.
One of the brothers says: Some people claim that swearing by other than Allah is permissible; because the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - said to the Companions when one of the Companions left after asking him about Islam, the Messenger said: , so they argued with the saying of the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him - meaning that he swore by other than Allah; so what is your opinion on this?

The Shaykh: This is, in truth, an important question from a scientific perspective in two aspects; the first is hadith-related, and the other is jurisprudential. The hadith aspect is that this hadith came in several narrations, most of which do not contain , one of which contains this addition , and when we traced the paths of this hadith, we found that the addition of is anomalous, and the anomalous hadith among the scholars of hadith is a type of weak hadith, and the anomalous hadith is what a trustworthy, precise, memorizing narrator narrates in contradiction to one who is more memorizing and more trustworthy than him, or in contradiction to one who is more numerous than him, and we have found in many hadiths such an addition, which the people of knowledge, critique, and expertise in the science of jarh and ta'dil judge as anomalous and contradictory, so they reject the addition even if it is from a trustworthy narrator; because he contradicted one who is more trustworthy than him, or more numerous than him, and this addition is of this kind, and it has many examples, I will not lengthen by mentioning them, but I must mention another one of them for the sake of benefit, this hadith is in "Sahih Muslim" or in "Sahih al-Bukhari" - I am doubtful now - , but it is in one of the "Two Sahihs", and in the "Two Sahihs" without ; , , it does not have: , this word is anomalous as we said.
Another example is the hadith: Some said: Who are these except us, the Ansar, we the Emigrants, who emigrated in the cause of Allah from Makkah to Madinah? Some said: We are the Ansar who supported the Messenger of Allah in the time of hardship. Some said: Not these and not these, but rather they are our sons who will come after us, who will believe in our Prophet and not have seen him. And the Messenger came out to them and said: , thus the hadith came in the "Two Sahihs" from many paths ending with Ibn Abbas - may Allah be pleased with him - , Muslim uniquely narrated a version in which he added and subtracted, saying: , the first narration: , and it is not hidden from you the meaning of "they do not seek ruqyah"; that is: they do not ask others for ruqyah, as for "they do not perform ruqyah" meaning they do not perform ruqyah for others, even though this is established in the Sunnah, the Messenger used to perform ruqyah for people, and this ruqyah is, I mean, a person is in pain, so a good, righteous man recites for him a verse from the verses of Allah, or a supplication from the supplications of the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - and he is healed or may be healed by the permission of Allah, and this is a good matter, and he - may prayers and peace be upon him - said: meaning by ruqyah, from the sting or bite of a scorpion or similar, so this hadith came with this addition by mistake, his saying: , as for the correct wording: ; that is: they do not ask others for ruqyah, but rather they rely upon Allah, - by fire - , . The one who added the word with deleted the word: , so it became clear from following the paths of this hadith that the addition of: in this hadith is an anomalous addition, if we know the first aspect in the hadith of: from the hadith perspective that this addition, or this deletion, this part is not established from the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - , this is what relates to the hadith aspect.
As for the jurisprudential aspect; if it were authentic from the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him and his family - that he swore by other than Allah, and the hadiths came one after another, following each other, in prohibiting swearing by other than Allah, if a correct hadith came to us from the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him and his family - , and in it he swore by other than Allah; then the answer - at that time - as we said recently in some scientific researches: "If two correct hadiths come from the Messenger, one from his action and the other from his saying; the saying is preferred over the action", so if the hadith of were correct, we would say: this is an action, and this may be specific to the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - , as for us, we take his teaching to us; where he said: , so we take his saying directed to us, as for the action, we leave it to him, perhaps that is one of his specific matters - may prayers and peace be upon him - .
And a very clear example of this rule; everyone knows that the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him and his family - died and under his protection were nine women, under his protection he died and under his protection were nine women, while it came in the correct hadith that a man embraced Islam and under his protection were nine women, so he said to him: , now the matter may be confusing for some people; they say: How is this when the Messenger died and under his protection were nine women? We say: The rule is if an action comes from the Messenger - peace be upon him - that contradicts his saying; then the saying is legislation for the Ummah, and the action may be a specific matter for him, and regarding the death of the Messenger - peace be upon him - and the nine women under his protection, the scholars agreed that this is a specific matter for him - may prayers and peace be upon him - to marry from the women as he wished, because of the benefit in transmitting the call from the women, from the wives of the Messenger to the women of the Companions, and to the Companions themselves. This is a specific matter.
Likewise, it is said in every hadith in which the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him and his family - did such and such, but in another hadith he prohibited this thing that he did, we say: We take his saying, and we leave his action to him; because he has specific rulings.
And a famous and practical example, and people must be informed of their matter; that the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - came from him in more than one hadith, "that he drank water while standing", he drank while standing, but it came from him in more than one correct hadith; "that he prohibited drinking while standing", and even in a narration: "The Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - forbade drinking while standing", and even it came in another hadith that he saw a man drinking while standing, he said to him: , he said: No, O Messenger of Allah. He said: , so this hadith and that one prohibit drinking while standing, even though it is established that he drank while standing, is there a contradiction? The answer: No. Take the rule and walk and rest, the saying is legislation for us, his action if it comes contradicting his saying, it is not legislation for us, it is a specific matter for him or an excuse for him, and thus the examples in this field are many and very many; so swearing by other than Allah is not permissible absolutely, no matter how great the thing sworn by is, and there is - after Allah - nothing greater than the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him and his family - ; nevertheless, it is not permissible for us to swear by him, but rather we swear by his Creator and his Lord - Blessed and Exalted is He - .
As for this hadith; its answer from the hadith perspective is that it is not correct; because it is anomalous, and even if it were correct; it is a specific matter, and we take the ruling from his saying - may prayers and peace be upon him - : .