Some brothers swear that I should eat at their place; what is the ruling on refusing after they have sworn?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Some brothers swear that I should eat at their place; what is the ruling on refusing that request after they have sworn?
The Shaykh : It is the right of a Muslim over his brother that if he swears an oath, he should fulfill it and not cause him to break it. So if he swears that he will enter the house and eat, it is better to enter the house and eat. And if the one seeking permission swears to a person in his house that he will not enter, it is better for the owner of the house not to put him in a difficult position by forcing him to enter. This is a custom that some people practice, and it is not a praiseworthy custom. A man brings a guest to his brother, and the owner of the house swears that he will slaughter a sacrificial animal for him, meaning as a sign of honor, a sacrificial animal that is eaten and served. Then the other swears that he will not slaughter. This is an error, and the one who erred is the second swearer, because when the first one swore, he became more deserving of having his oath fulfilled. So when the second one swears, it is as if he swore not to fulfill the oath, even though the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made fulfilling the oath a right of a Muslim over his brother. These are customs that are not praiseworthy. Then some people go further and divorce, saying they will do or not do something, and this is pure error. Because if a man says, "My divorce is upon me if I do this," and he does not do it, the scholars say that his wife is divorced. And if he says, "If I do such and such, my wife is divorced," or "If I do not do such and such, my wife is divorced," and he does not fulfill it, the scholars say that the wife is divorced. If it was the first divorce, he can take her back during the waiting period. If it was the second, he can take her back during the waiting period. If it was the third, she is separated from him and does not become lawful to him until she marries another husband. This is what the scholars said, and it is the position of the majority of the Muslim community. It is the school of the four Imams and the well-known position of the scholars of the community.
But Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) holds that this, meaning suspending divorce on doing or leaving something, has two meanings. The first meaning is that he intends divorce in reality, and in this case, the ruling is that the divorce takes place, as the majority said. But if he intends to refrain or to urge, then the ruling on suspending divorce is the ruling of an oath. That is, if he does what he suspended the divorce on, he fulfills his oath, and if he contradicts it, he expiates with the expiation of an oath. His statement (may Allah have mercy on him) is closer to the truth. But the recklessness of people in this matter, their making it a habit, and their negligence regarding it is a matter that requires the mufti to look into the issue. Even if he follows the path that 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) took regarding the triple divorce when he saw that people had become lax in it and reckless in it, he prevented a man from taking back his wife if he divorced her three times with a divorce that is not in it. Yes, if he divorced her three times without a taking back between the divorces.
The form of the issue is that if a man says to his wife, "You are divorced three times," or "You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced," this divorce was one divorce in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the time of Abu Bakr and two years of the caliphate of 'Umar. When people became reckless in this and did it frequently, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "This divorce is a triple divorce that is final, by which the woman is separated, and she does not become lawful to her husband until she marries another husband, and he has intercourse with her and then separates from her by death or divorce."
This issue, meaning suspending divorce, has become very common in our time, and people have become playful with it. If the muftis considered it an oath and looked into it carefully and followed what 'Umar did, and forced people to the divorce, people would reconsider this recklessness and negligence, which has made suspending divorce on something easier for a person than cold water in thirst. And for that reason, you find that people are now asking about this issue very, very frequently, even to the point of divorcing over the slightest thing, because they found in the fatwa of Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) a breadth, and they said, "As long as the issue is that a person feeds ten poor people or clothes them, the matter is easy." So this recklessness requires a person to look into the matter and take a path that limits the prevalence of people in it. And success is from Allah.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O honorable Shaykh. This is a questioner who says, O honorable Shaykh.
The Shaykh : It is the right of a Muslim over his brother that if he swears an oath, he should fulfill it and not cause him to break it. So if he swears that he will enter the house and eat, it is better to enter the house and eat. And if the one seeking permission swears to a person in his house that he will not enter, it is better for the owner of the house not to put him in a difficult position by forcing him to enter. This is a custom that some people practice, and it is not a praiseworthy custom. A man brings a guest to his brother, and the owner of the house swears that he will slaughter a sacrificial animal for him, meaning as a sign of honor, a sacrificial animal that is eaten and served. Then the other swears that he will not slaughter. This is an error, and the one who erred is the second swearer, because when the first one swore, he became more deserving of having his oath fulfilled. So when the second one swears, it is as if he swore not to fulfill the oath, even though the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made fulfilling the oath a right of a Muslim over his brother. These are customs that are not praiseworthy. Then some people go further and divorce, saying they will do or not do something, and this is pure error. Because if a man says, "My divorce is upon me if I do this," and he does not do it, the scholars say that his wife is divorced. And if he says, "If I do such and such, my wife is divorced," or "If I do not do such and such, my wife is divorced," and he does not fulfill it, the scholars say that the wife is divorced. If it was the first divorce, he can take her back during the waiting period. If it was the second, he can take her back during the waiting period. If it was the third, she is separated from him and does not become lawful to him until she marries another husband. This is what the scholars said, and it is the position of the majority of the Muslim community. It is the school of the four Imams and the well-known position of the scholars of the community.
But Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) holds that this, meaning suspending divorce on doing or leaving something, has two meanings. The first meaning is that he intends divorce in reality, and in this case, the ruling is that the divorce takes place, as the majority said. But if he intends to refrain or to urge, then the ruling on suspending divorce is the ruling of an oath. That is, if he does what he suspended the divorce on, he fulfills his oath, and if he contradicts it, he expiates with the expiation of an oath. His statement (may Allah have mercy on him) is closer to the truth. But the recklessness of people in this matter, their making it a habit, and their negligence regarding it is a matter that requires the mufti to look into the issue. Even if he follows the path that 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) took regarding the triple divorce when he saw that people had become lax in it and reckless in it, he prevented a man from taking back his wife if he divorced her three times with a divorce that is not in it. Yes, if he divorced her three times without a taking back between the divorces.
The form of the issue is that if a man says to his wife, "You are divorced three times," or "You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced," this divorce was one divorce in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the time of Abu Bakr and two years of the caliphate of 'Umar. When people became reckless in this and did it frequently, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "This divorce is a triple divorce that is final, by which the woman is separated, and she does not become lawful to her husband until she marries another husband, and he has intercourse with her and then separates from her by death or divorce."
This issue, meaning suspending divorce, has become very common in our time, and people have become playful with it. If the muftis considered it an oath and looked into it carefully and followed what 'Umar did, and forced people to the divorce, people would reconsider this recklessness and negligence, which has made suspending divorce on something easier for a person than cold water in thirst. And for that reason, you find that people are now asking about this issue very, very frequently, even to the point of divorcing over the slightest thing, because they found in the fatwa of Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) a breadth, and they said, "As long as the issue is that a person feeds ten poor people or clothes them, the matter is easy." So this recklessness requires a person to look into the matter and take a path that limits the prevalence of people in it. And success is from Allah.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, O honorable Shaykh. This is a questioner who says, O honorable Shaykh.