Issue: Oaths are reduced to four levels: intention, then cause, then specification, then the possibility of the wording.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
But know that an oath is restricted by the intention. It is good to digress here on this topic. In oaths, one refers to the intention of the one who swore if the wording allows for it, then to the cause of the oath and what prompted it, then to specification, and then to what the wording allows for. These are four levels. In oaths, one refers first and foremost to the intention, then to specification, and then to what the wording allows for. The reason the intention was placed first is that Allah explicitly mentioned it [Al-Ma'idah 5:89], making the reference to what the person believed. In the second verse, He said: [Al-Baqarah 2:225]
If a man said, "By Allah, I will not spend the night except on a peg," or "By Allah, I will not sleep tonight except on a peg," what is this talk? Only birds sleep on pegs. Do you know what a peg is? Yes, it is a piece of wood driven into the wall to hang clothes on. He said, "By Allah, I will not sleep tonight except on a peg." So, my son, how do you sleep on a peg? Are you one of the birds? He went to a mountain, wrapped around it, and slept on it. Did he fulfill his oath or not? Yes. Why? Because that is what he intended, even if the apparent meaning of the wording is different. But this is what he intended. Is that clear? He said, "By Allah, I will not sleep tonight except on a mattress," then he went outside the town and slept on the ground. Fine, why didn't you spread a mattress? He says, "I intended that the ground is a mattress," because Allah says:[Al-Baqarah 2:22] The point is, if the wording allows for it, one refers to the intention.
Fine, if he said, "By Allah, I will buy bread today," and he went and bought a car, and the day ended without him buying a single loaf of bread, we say: Now you owe an expiation. You owe an expiation for breaking the oath. He says, "I intended by bread a car." Is that acceptable? It is not acceptable. Why? The wording does not allow for that. The wording does not allow for that at all, so it is not accepted.
After that comes the cause, and this is also important. This is important, and many people fall into an issue regarding divorce because of it. For example, he says to his wife, "If you speak to your brother, you are divorced," based on the fact that he was told that his wife's brother is the one ruining things for him. So, based on this, he says, "If you speak to your brother, you are divorced." Then it turns out that her brother is innocent of that. If she speaks to him, she is not divorced. Why? Because the cause turned out to be different from what the divorce was based on.
Similarly, if he said, "By Allah, I will not enter this town," based on the fact that the governor of the town is seeking him, looking for him, right? He said, "By Allah, I will not enter it." Then it turns out that the governor of the town is not seeking him. Does he enter the town or not? He enters. The cause? Because it was based on what? On a cause that did not exist.
Specification. Specification is like saying, "He has a small lamb." What is a lamb?
The students: A known sheep.
The Shaykh : No, it is not a sheep; it is a young sheep. He said, "By Allah, I will not eat the meat of this lamb." The lamb grew up and became a sheep, or a ram, and he ate it. Does he break the oath or not? He does not break the oath. Specification, my brothers? He specified, saying "this." So he breaks the oath unless he intended "as long as it has this characteristic."
Another example: He said, "By Allah, I will not wear this shirt," and he specified it. Then he altered it and made it into trousers. Does he wear it or not? If he wears it, he has broken the oath. If he wears it, he has broken the oath, because he specified, saying "this shirt," unless he intended "as long as it is a shirt." Is that clear? Yes.
After this, we return to what the wording allows for. Fine, the wording has a meaning in language, a meaning in the Shari'ah, and a meaning in custom. Sometimes the three coincide, and sometimes they differ. If the three coincide, it is clear: the sky, the earth, prayer. No, prayer differs between language and the Shari'ah. If they coincide... the matter is clear. But if they differ in oaths, what do we prioritize? Do we prioritize custom, or language, or the Shari'ah?
The students: We prioritize the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : No, we prioritize custom. So if he said, "By Allah, I will give so-and-so a sheep," and then he gave him a female goat, did he fulfill his oath or not? Yes? Custom with us is that he did not fulfill it, because a sheep with us is a female sheep, and this is a female goat, so he does not fulfill it. Unless he said, "I intended by sheep its linguistic meaning." In that case, he has fulfilled it, because he intended the linguistic meaning.
Similarly, if he said, "By Allah, I will not pray for so-and-so," and he went and prayed for him, does he break the oath or not? He breaks the oath. But if the man said, "I intended supplication, I will not supplicate for him," and he also intended not to supplicate for him outside of prayer for him, we say: The intention takes precedence over everything. The point is that the levels of oaths are five. Do you agree on four? You? Four? Fine. The first: intention. Then: the cause, the cause of the oath. Then: specification. Then: what the wording allows for.
Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths
لا يؤاخذكم الله باللغو في أيمانكم ولكن يؤاخذكم بما عقدتم الأيمانbut He imposes blame upon you for what your hearts have earned
ولكن يؤاخذكم بما كسبت قلوبكمIf a man said, "By Allah, I will not spend the night except on a peg," or "By Allah, I will not sleep tonight except on a peg," what is this talk? Only birds sleep on pegs. Do you know what a peg is? Yes, it is a piece of wood driven into the wall to hang clothes on. He said, "By Allah, I will not sleep tonight except on a peg." So, my son, how do you sleep on a peg? Are you one of the birds? He went to a mountain, wrapped around it, and slept on it. Did he fulfill his oath or not? Yes. Why? Because that is what he intended, even if the apparent meaning of the wording is different. But this is what he intended. Is that clear? He said, "By Allah, I will not sleep tonight except on a mattress," then he went outside the town and slept on the ground. Fine, why didn't you spread a mattress? He says, "I intended that the ground is a mattress," because Allah says:
who made for you the earth a bed
جعلنا لكم الأرض فراشاFine, if he said, "By Allah, I will buy bread today," and he went and bought a car, and the day ended without him buying a single loaf of bread, we say: Now you owe an expiation. You owe an expiation for breaking the oath. He says, "I intended by bread a car." Is that acceptable? It is not acceptable. Why? The wording does not allow for that. The wording does not allow for that at all, so it is not accepted.
After that comes the cause, and this is also important. This is important, and many people fall into an issue regarding divorce because of it. For example, he says to his wife, "If you speak to your brother, you are divorced," based on the fact that he was told that his wife's brother is the one ruining things for him. So, based on this, he says, "If you speak to your brother, you are divorced." Then it turns out that her brother is innocent of that. If she speaks to him, she is not divorced. Why? Because the cause turned out to be different from what the divorce was based on.
Similarly, if he said, "By Allah, I will not enter this town," based on the fact that the governor of the town is seeking him, looking for him, right? He said, "By Allah, I will not enter it." Then it turns out that the governor of the town is not seeking him. Does he enter the town or not? He enters. The cause? Because it was based on what? On a cause that did not exist.
Specification. Specification is like saying, "He has a small lamb." What is a lamb?
The students: A known sheep.
The Shaykh : No, it is not a sheep; it is a young sheep. He said, "By Allah, I will not eat the meat of this lamb." The lamb grew up and became a sheep, or a ram, and he ate it. Does he break the oath or not? He does not break the oath. Specification, my brothers? He specified, saying "this." So he breaks the oath unless he intended "as long as it has this characteristic."
Another example: He said, "By Allah, I will not wear this shirt," and he specified it. Then he altered it and made it into trousers. Does he wear it or not? If he wears it, he has broken the oath. If he wears it, he has broken the oath, because he specified, saying "this shirt," unless he intended "as long as it is a shirt." Is that clear? Yes.
After this, we return to what the wording allows for. Fine, the wording has a meaning in language, a meaning in the Shari'ah, and a meaning in custom. Sometimes the three coincide, and sometimes they differ. If the three coincide, it is clear: the sky, the earth, prayer. No, prayer differs between language and the Shari'ah. If they coincide... the matter is clear. But if they differ in oaths, what do we prioritize? Do we prioritize custom, or language, or the Shari'ah?
The students: We prioritize the Shari'ah.
The Shaykh : No, we prioritize custom. So if he said, "By Allah, I will give so-and-so a sheep," and then he gave him a female goat, did he fulfill his oath or not? Yes? Custom with us is that he did not fulfill it, because a sheep with us is a female sheep, and this is a female goat, so he does not fulfill it. Unless he said, "I intended by sheep its linguistic meaning." In that case, he has fulfilled it, because he intended the linguistic meaning.
Similarly, if he said, "By Allah, I will not pray for so-and-so," and he went and prayed for him, does he break the oath or not? He breaks the oath. But if the man said, "I intended supplication, I will not supplicate for him," and he also intended not to supplicate for him outside of prayer for him, we say: The intention takes precedence over everything. The point is that the levels of oaths are five. Do you agree on four? You? Four? Fine. The first: intention. Then: the cause, the cause of the oath. Then: specification. Then: what the wording allows for.