What is tawriyah and what is the difference between it and lying?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : What is tawriyah and what is the difference between it and lying?
The Shaykh : Tawriyah: intending by one's words something that 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 the benefit of tawriyah: the listener understands from your speech the opposite of what you intend. This is tawriyah. A person may need it. If an oppressor swears an oath regarding a deposit you are holding for someone, do you know what a deposit is? Yes. A person placed some coins with you and said, "Keep these as a deposit with you." A person from the investigation department came to you and said, "Give me the deposit you have for so-and-so. Do you have it now?" You say, "I do not have it." He says, "Swear an oath." So you swear and say, "By Allah, I do not have a deposit for so-and-so." Is this permissible? What is understood? It is understood that "ma" is a negation and that you have nothing. But you intend "ma" to be a relative pronoun, making it an affirmation rather than a negation?
The questioner : An affirmation.
The Shaykh : An affirmation. This is tawriyah.
The questioner : Is there a rule that applies in its proper place?
The Shaykh : Yes, there is a rule. As for the oppressor, tawriyah is not valid for him and is not permissible. The ruling in this matter is based on what his opponent believes. Therefore, it came in the hadith:Sunan Ibn Majah 2121Sahih (Darussalam) If the oppressor uses this interpretation, it does not benefit him, but it benefits the oppressed. Among the scholars who are neither oppressors nor oppressed, some said that tawriyah is permissible, and some said 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 becomes clear 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 compared to general occurrences. If a person comes and says, "You owe me one hundred riyals," and you have one hundred riyals in your debt to him, and you dispute before the judge, and you say, "By Allah, I do not have one hundred riyals for him," is this a negation before the judge or an affirmation? It is a negation. If you intended it to be an affirmation, you have used tawriyah, but you used tawriyah while being an oppressor. That is to say, if you intended, "By Allah, I have one hundred riyals for him," you would be an oppressor, so tawriyah does not benefit you.
In summary: the ruling on tawriyah for the oppressed is that it is permissible; for the oppressor, it is not permissible; and for one who is neither oppressor nor oppressed, there is disagreement among scholars, and the stronger position is that it is forbidden.
The Shaykh : Tawriyah: intending by one's words something that 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 the benefit of tawriyah: the listener understands from your speech the opposite of what you intend. This is tawriyah. A person may need it. If an oppressor swears an oath regarding a deposit you are holding for someone, do you know what a deposit is? Yes. A person placed some coins with you and said, "Keep these as a deposit with you." A person from the investigation department came to you and said, "Give me the deposit you have for so-and-so. Do you have it now?" You say, "I do not have it." He says, "Swear an oath." So you swear and say, "By Allah, I do not have a deposit for so-and-so." Is this permissible? What is understood? It is understood that "ma" is a negation and that you have nothing. But you intend "ma" to be a relative pronoun, making it an affirmation rather than a negation?
The questioner : An affirmation.
The Shaykh : An affirmation. This is tawriyah.
The questioner : Is there a rule that applies in its proper place?
The Shaykh : Yes, there is a rule. As for the oppressor, tawriyah is not valid for him and is not permissible. The ruling in this matter is based on what his opponent believes. Therefore, it came in the hadith:
Your oath is as your companion understands it to be.
يمينك على ما يصدقك به صاحبكIn summary: the ruling on tawriyah for the oppressed is that it is permissible; for the oppressor, it is not permissible; and for one who is neither oppressor nor oppressed, there is disagreement among scholars, and the stronger position is that it is forbidden.