It contains issues: The first: The obligation to fulfill a vow. The second: If it is established that it is worship for Allah, then directing it to other than Him is shirk (associating partners with Allah).

The Shaykh : He said: "It contains issues: The first: The obligation to fulfill a vow".
And this which the author said is not correct in its absolute form; it is not in its absolute form. Why, Ya Aqil? The author says: The obligation to fulfill a vow. Is it in its absolute form? How?
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : No, he mentioned it after mentioning it in the third issue.
The student: ... .

The Shaykh : That means its meaning is that it must be said: The obligation to fulfill a vow of obedience.
The second issue: From where is the obligation to fulfill a vow taken? From the hadith: . Now, here he mentioned the matter in general terms and provided evidence for it using a specific hadith. This is not sound according to the scholars of knowledge. That is, if you mention an absolute ruling or a general ruling and then provide evidence for it with a more specific text, this is not the way according to the scholars of knowledge. But if you mention a specific ruling and provide evidence for it with a more general text, is that evidence or not? It is evidence. Why? Because the specific falls within the general. Yes, but the general is not derived from the specific. Therefore, you always hear one of the phrases of the scholars of knowledge, or in some of the discussions of their opinions, they say: "The evidence is more specific than the claim" or "more specific than what is claimed." They mean that a person mentions a general issue and provides evidence for it with a specific text; this is not correct. But if he mentions a specific issue and provides evidence for it with a general text and says that it falls within the general, this is correct. Now, which of the two categories does the author's statement fall into?
The student: From the general... the specific.

The Shaykh : Yes, from the general, relying on specific evidence. And this is not correct. Therefore, we said it must be qualified and it should be said: The obligation to fulfill what? A vow of obedience.
"The second: If it is established that it is worship for Allah". What is it? The vow. So directing it to other than Him is shirk (associating partners with Allah). Correct. And this is a rule in tawhid (the oneness of Allah), specifically tawhid al-uluhiyyah (oneness of worship). Anything that is worship, if directed to other than Allah, is shirk (associating partners with Allah). Any act of worship, if directed to other than Allah the Exalted, is shirk (associating partners with Allah).
"The third: That a vow of disobedience is not permissible to be fulfilled". From where is this taken? From the hadith: .