What is the ruling on tawriyah, and is there a specification in it?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : What is the ruling on tawriyah, and is there a detail in it?
The Shaykh : Tawriyah, do you know tawriyah? Tawriyah is when a person intends with his words something that contradicts the apparent meaning of his words; he intends with his words something that contradicts the apparent meaning of his words.
And it is permissible with two conditions. The first condition is that the wording must be capable of bearing that meaning.
And the second condition is that it must not be injustice...
The student: It has two conditions.
The Shaykh : No, no, what is tawriyah?
Tawriyah... the apparent meaning of his words, this is tawriyah.
And it has two conditions. The first condition is that the wording must be capable of bearing the meaning intended by the speaker.
And the second condition is that it must not be injustice.
Now, if the wording does not bear that meaning, then it is not accepted and it does not benefit. And if the wording bears it, but it is injustice, then it also does not benefit.
Now, an example of that: A man said, "By Allah, I will not sleep except on a peg." Do you know a peg? A peg is a stick driven into the wall to hang things on. This man says, "By Allah, I will not sleep except on a peg." Is it reasonable to sleep on a peg?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : He said, "I mean by the peg the mountain." Is this correct or not correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The meaning bears it.
The Shaykh : Because the wording bears it, and he is not unjust; he did not wrong anyone.
He said, "By Allah, I will not sleep except under the roof," then he went up to the roof and slept on the roof, and he swore that he would not sleep except under the roof. Is this permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : How, when he is now above the roof? He said, "I mean by the roof the sky." Is his statement correct or not correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Due to the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Anbya 21:32].
The important thing is that the wording must bear it.
If he said, "By Allah, I will not speak to Zayd," and then we found him sitting with Zayd, exchanging conversation and talking to him. We said: How are you talking to Zayd when you said, "By Allah, I will not speak to him"?
He said, "I mean I will not speak to Zayd, i.e., I will not buy bread."
Is this accepted?
The students: It is not accepted.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It does not bear it.
The Shaykh : Because the wording does not bear it. It is not possible that the speaker means by "I will not speak to Zayd" that he will not buy bread. This is not possible, so it is not accepted from him.
Now, if he is unjust, then tawriyah does not benefit him either.
An example of that: A man disputed with another before the judge. The judge said to the plaintiff: Do you have evidence? He said: I have no evidence. Who says this? The plaintiff.
If the plaintiff has no evidence, the oath is directed to whom? To the defendant. So the judge said to the defendant: Swear that he has nothing with you.
So the defendant said: "By Allah, he has nothing with me."
What do you understand from this statement? Negation, meaning he has nothing with me. The judge will rule in favor of the defendant's innocence, because the plaintiff has no evidence, and the defendant swore, so he rules in his favor.
Then a person from his friends came to him—the defendant—and said: "O so-and-so, how do you swear before the judge saying 'By Allah, he has nothing with me'? This is forbidden. The false oath is the oath that immerses its owner in sin, then immerses him in the Fire.Bulugh al-Maram 1426, we seek refuge in Allah. My brother, fear Allah."
He said: "I did not intend negation, I intended affirmation."
Now, did you not say, "By Allah, he has nothing with me"?
He said: "Yes, I said, 'By Allah, he has nothing with me,' but I intended that is a relative pronoun. So the meaning of 'By Allah, he has nothing with me' is: 'By Allah, the one who has something with me is something.' Does the wording bear this or not? It bears it. There is no doubt that here can serve as a negator and it can, yes?
The student: It is a relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : And it can serve as a relative pronoun for affirmation.
Does this interpretation benefit this man, or does it not benefit him?
It does not benefit him. Why?
The students: He is unjust.
The Shaykh : Because he is unjust. And for this reason, it came in the hadith:Sunan Ibn Majah 2121Sahih (Darussalam). The interpretation does not benefit you before Allah the Mighty and Majestic. So are you now swearing a false oath or not? A false oath. A false oath.
Now, a man was arrested with his wife, and it was said, "This is your wife, and she has such and such and such crimes," but she had no crime. He said, "By Allah, this is my sister. By Allah, this is my sister." He swore and affirmed that she was his sister. The authorities who arrested her, when he swore that she was his sister, and he was a man known to be truthful, released her. Is this interpretation valid or not?
He said: "I mean my sister in Islam." Is it correct that his wife is his sister in Islam? Yes, it is correct. And this interpretation benefits him, especially if she is wronged.
So if she is wronged, there is no harm in interpreting it.
The Shaykh : Tawriyah, do you know tawriyah? Tawriyah is when a person intends with his words something that contradicts the apparent meaning of his words; he intends with his words something that contradicts the apparent meaning of his words.
And it is permissible with two conditions. The first condition is that the wording must be capable of bearing that meaning.
And the second condition is that it must not be injustice...
The student: It has two conditions.
The Shaykh : No, no, what is tawriyah?
Tawriyah... the apparent meaning of his words, this is tawriyah.
And it has two conditions. The first condition is that the wording must be capable of bearing the meaning intended by the speaker.
And the second condition is that it must not be injustice.
Now, if the wording does not bear that meaning, then it is not accepted and it does not benefit. And if the wording bears it, but it is injustice, then it also does not benefit.
Now, an example of that: A man said, "By Allah, I will not sleep except on a peg." Do you know a peg? A peg is a stick driven into the wall to hang things on. This man says, "By Allah, I will not sleep except on a peg." Is it reasonable to sleep on a peg?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : He said, "I mean by the peg the mountain." Is this correct or not correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: The meaning bears it.
The Shaykh : Because the wording bears it, and he is not unjust; he did not wrong anyone.
He said, "By Allah, I will not sleep except under the roof," then he went up to the roof and slept on the roof, and he swore that he would not sleep except under the roof. Is this permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : How, when he is now above the roof? He said, "I mean by the roof the sky." Is his statement correct or not correct?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Due to the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And We made the sky a protected ceiling
وجعلنا السماء سقفا محفوظاThe important thing is that the wording must bear it.
If he said, "By Allah, I will not speak to Zayd," and then we found him sitting with Zayd, exchanging conversation and talking to him. We said: How are you talking to Zayd when you said, "By Allah, I will not speak to him"?
He said, "I mean I will not speak to Zayd, i.e., I will not buy bread."
Is this accepted?
The students: It is not accepted.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It does not bear it.
The Shaykh : Because the wording does not bear it. It is not possible that the speaker means by "I will not speak to Zayd" that he will not buy bread. This is not possible, so it is not accepted from him.
Now, if he is unjust, then tawriyah does not benefit him either.
An example of that: A man disputed with another before the judge. The judge said to the plaintiff: Do you have evidence? He said: I have no evidence. Who says this? The plaintiff.
If the plaintiff has no evidence, the oath is directed to whom? To the defendant. So the judge said to the defendant: Swear that he has nothing with you.
So the defendant said: "By Allah, he has nothing with me."
What do you understand from this statement? Negation, meaning he has nothing with me. The judge will rule in favor of the defendant's innocence, because the plaintiff has no evidence, and the defendant swore, so he rules in his favor.
Then a person from his friends came to him—the defendant—and said: "O so-and-so, how do you swear before the judge saying 'By Allah, he has nothing with me'? This is forbidden. The false oath is the oath that immerses its owner in sin, then immerses him in the Fire.
If anyone swears a firm oath - knowingly, intentionally, taking by it property belonging to a Muslim, Allah will be angry with him when he meets Him (on the Day of Resurrection).
من حلف على يمين يقتطع بها مال امرئ مسلم هو فيها فاجر لقي الله وهو عليه غضبانHe said: "I did not intend negation, I intended affirmation."
Now, did you not say, "By Allah, he has nothing with me"?
He said: "Yes, I said, 'By Allah, he has nothing with me,' but I intended that
not
ماnot
ماThe student: It is a relative pronoun.
The Shaykh : And it can serve as a relative pronoun for affirmation.
Does this interpretation benefit this man, or does it not benefit him?
It does not benefit him. Why?
The students: He is unjust.
The Shaykh : Because he is unjust. And for this reason, it came in the hadith:
Your oath is as your companion understands it to be.
يمينك على ما يصدقك به صاحبكNow, a man was arrested with his wife, and it was said, "This is your wife, and she has such and such and such crimes," but she had no crime. He said, "By Allah, this is my sister. By Allah, this is my sister." He swore and affirmed that she was his sister. The authorities who arrested her, when he swore that she was his sister, and he was a man known to be truthful, released her. Is this interpretation valid or not?
He said: "I mean my sister in Islam." Is it correct that his wife is his sister in Islam? Yes, it is correct. And this interpretation benefits him, especially if she is wronged.
So if she is wronged, there is no harm in interpreting it.