The Ruling on Tawriyah and Distinguishing It from Lying
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
What is tawriyah and what is the difference between it and lying?
Tawriyah: That one intends by one's words what contradicts their apparent meaning.
Lying is explicit in that one speaks contrary to the reality.
The questioner: The listener might understand something else.
The Shaykh: It does not matter. This is after tawriyah, where the listener understands from your speech the opposite of what you intend. A person may need tawriyah. If an oppressor swears at you about a deposit you hold for so-and-so, do you know what a deposit is? Yes.A person placed coins with you and said: Take this as a deposit with you. A person from the investigation department looked into it and came to you and said: Give me the deposit you have for so-and-so. Do you have it now?She says: It is not with me?So he said: Swear.So you swear and say: By Allah, so-and-so’s money is not with me as a deposit. This is permissible. What is understood? It is understood that you have nothing. But you intend that “not” (ma) is a relative pronoun, so is it affirmation or negation?The questioner: An affirmation.
The Shaykh: This is tawriyah.
The questioner: Is there a rule that applies in its proper place?The Shaykh: Yes, there is a criterion. As for the oppressor, tawriyah is not valid for him and is not permissible. The ruling in this case is based on what his opponent believes.And for this reason it came in the hadith: (Your oath is based on what your partner believes to be true) So if the oppressor uses this interpretation, it does not benefit him, but it benefits the oppressed. And among the scholars who are neither oppressors nor oppressed, some said: That tawriyah is permissible.And some of them said: That it is not permissible. The stronger position is that it is not permissible, and that a person must be explicit. Because if a person habitually uses tawriyah and then the matter turns out contrary to what appeared from his words, people will accuse him of lying and have a bad opinion of him. But if he is oppressed, this is a need, and oppression is rare in comparison to events. So if a person comes to you demanding one hundred riyals that are rightfully owed to him in your trust, and you two dispute before the judge,So I said: By Allah, I do not have one hundred riyals for him. This is a negation before the judge. If you intended it to be an affirmation, you have used tawriyah, but you used tawriyah while you are the oppressor.Meaning: If you intended: By Allah, the one who has one hundred riyals for him is me, you were the oppressor, so tawriyah does not benefit you.
In summary: Tawriyah is permissible for the oppressed, not permissible for the oppressor, and for one who is neither oppressor nor oppressed, there is disagreement among scholars, and the stronger position is that it is forbidden.
Tawriyah: That one intends by one's words what contradicts their apparent meaning.
Lying is explicit in that one speaks contrary to the reality.
The questioner: The listener might understand something else.
The Shaykh: It does not matter. This is after tawriyah, where the listener understands from your speech the opposite of what you intend. A person may need tawriyah. If an oppressor swears at you about a deposit you hold for so-and-so, do you know what a deposit is? Yes.A person placed coins with you and said: Take this as a deposit with you. A person from the investigation department looked into it and came to you and said: Give me the deposit you have for so-and-so. Do you have it now?She says: It is not with me?So he said: Swear.So you swear and say: By Allah, so-and-so’s money is not with me as a deposit. This is permissible. What is understood? It is understood that you have nothing. But you intend that “not” (ma) is a relative pronoun, so is it affirmation or negation?The questioner: An affirmation.
The Shaykh: This is tawriyah.
The questioner: Is there a rule that applies in its proper place?The Shaykh: Yes, there is a criterion. As for the oppressor, tawriyah is not valid for him and is not permissible. The ruling in this case is based on what his opponent believes.And for this reason it came in the hadith: (Your oath is based on what your partner believes to be true) So if the oppressor uses this interpretation, it does not benefit him, but it benefits the oppressed. And among the scholars who are neither oppressors nor oppressed, some said: That tawriyah is permissible.And some of them said: That it is not permissible. The stronger position is that it is not permissible, and that a person must be explicit. Because if a person habitually uses tawriyah and then the matter turns out contrary to what appeared from his words, people will accuse him of lying and have a bad opinion of him. But if he is oppressed, this is a need, and oppression is rare in comparison to events. So if a person comes to you demanding one hundred riyals that are rightfully owed to him in your trust, and you two dispute before the judge,So I said: By Allah, I do not have one hundred riyals for him. This is a negation before the judge. If you intended it to be an affirmation, you have used tawriyah, but you used tawriyah while you are the oppressor.Meaning: If you intended: By Allah, the one who has one hundred riyals for him is me, you were the oppressor, so tawriyah does not benefit you.
In summary: Tawriyah is permissible for the oppressed, not permissible for the oppressor, and for one who is neither oppressor nor oppressed, there is disagreement among scholars, and the stronger position is that it is forbidden.