Explanation of the Book of Tawhid-38

The Shaykh : He said: "And from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab" Write the correct version: from Ibn 'Umar. This hadith is from Ibn 'Umar. "And from Ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him and his father):

Abu Huraira reported God’s Messenger as saying, "If anyone swears an oath and considers something else to be better than it he should make atonement for his oath and do that.” Muslim transmitted it.

أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : من حلف بغير الله فقد كفر أو أشرك

Mishkat al-Masabih 3413

Al-Tirmidhi narrated it, graded it as good, and al-Hakim graded it as authentic".
His statement: , since it is conditional, it implies generality, and "other than Allah" is also general. Or this "or" indicates doubt from the narrator: did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) say "he has committed disbelief" or did he say "he has associated partners with Allah"? What fits the context is that the correct version is "he has associated partners with Allah." His statement: includes every created thing, whether by the Ka'bah, or by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), or by the mushafs, or by the sun, or by the moon, or by anything other than Allah. Does it include swearing by an attribute of Allah?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : No, it does not include that. Swearing by the attributes of Allah is permissible because the attribute follows the one who possesses it. So you say, for example: "By the majesty of Allah, the wisdom of Allah, the power of Allah." This is permissible. So swearing by an attribute of Allah is swearing by Allah. Now, is the intended meaning "other than this name" or is the intended meaning "the one named"? The intended meaning is the one named. So if one swears by Allah, or by al-Rahman, or by al-Sami', or by al-Basir, or the like of the names of Allah the Exalted, it is swearing by Allah.
And his statement: We said: The apparent correct version of the hadith is "or associated partners with Allah," because swearing, as is known among the scholars, is affirming a thing by mentioning something revered in a specific form with the letter waw, ba, or ta. The letters of swearing are three: ba, waw, and ta, correct? And ba is the most general of them, because it enters upon the explicit and the implied, and upon the name of Allah and other than that. The verb of swearing is mentioned with it or omitted, or not? The letter lam is the most general. The letter lam is the most general in that it enters upon the explicit and the implied.
The student: Ba.

The Shaykh : I mean I am saying ba.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Glory to Allah the Great. Ba is the most general of the letters of swearing, because the letters of swearing are three: ba, waw, and ta, and ba is the most general of them, because it enters upon the explicit and the implied, that is one point. And upon the name of majesty, Allah, and other than that. The verb of swearing is mentioned with it or omitted. Do they swear by Allah? The verb of swearing is mentioned, or not?
Now, you say: "By Allah, I will certainly do it" without the verb of swearing. And you say: "Allah the Exalted is great, majestic, I swear by Him, I will certainly do it." And it enters upon the pronoun. And you say: "By Allah, I swear by al-Rahman, I swear by al-Sami', I swear," and the like of that. So it enters upon every name of the names of Allah.
As for waw, the verb of swearing is not mentioned with it. You do not say "I swear, and by Allah." And it does not enter upon the pronoun.
And as for ta, the verb of swearing is not mentioned with it, and it is specific to Allah and Rabb, as Ibn Malik said: "And ta is for Allah and Rabb, with Allah it is more common."
The important thing is that the definition of swearing is: affirming a thing by mentioning something revered in a known form with ba, waw, or ta. This is the swearing, this is the oath.
This is not permissible. A person must not swear by other than Allah, whatever that other thing is, or by an attribute of His attributes (Glorified and Exalted is He). If he does so, he has associated partners with Allah, because he placed the rank of the created thing in the rank of the Creator in terms of reverence.
Now, then we say: "He has associated partners with Allah." Did he commit major shirk? Hussein? Major shirk? If one swears by other than Allah, does he commit major shirk or minor shirk? Major?
The student: Major.

The Shaykh : Do you agree?
The student: If he believes that it is equal to Allah in reverence.

The Shaykh : In reverence?
The student: In reverence, then it is major shirk.

The Shaykh : Yes
The student: And if he does not believe that.

The Shaykh : Then it is minor. So it is necessary to specify: if he believes that the thing by which he swears is equal to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in reverence and in greatness, then he is one who associates partners with Allah with major shirk. Otherwise, it is minor shirk.
Now, his statement: It is known that shirk is forbidden, even if it is minor. And does Allah forgive it?
The scholars differed on this. Some scholars said: His statement, the Exalted, means major shirk. [It also includes] minor shirk, major sins, and minor sins.
And Shaykh al-Islam said: "Shirk is not forgiven, even if it is minor", because his statement: is a derived noun, so it is an indefinite noun in the context of negation, since the estimation is "shirk is not forgiven by it," or "associating partners is not forgiven by it." This is an indefinite noun in the context of negation, so it is general. So shirk, even if it is minor, is not forgiven except by repentance.
Now, if someone says: This indicates that swearing by other than Allah is shirk and that one must beware of it. What is your answer to his statement, the Exalted: and the like of created things by which Allah swore?
The answer is: This swearing is from Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and it is permissible for Allah the Exalted to swear by whatever He wills of His creation. He is the Ruler, not one who is ruled over. He is the Questioner, not one who is questioned. And it is not for us to do anything but submit and not object. This prostration to other than Him is disbelief, and at one time, leaving the prostration to other than Him became disbelief, or not? Because the matter is all for Allah (Mighty and Majestic). This is the answer.
Another answer: Swearing by these created things is, in reality, revering Allah (Mighty and Majestic). He reveres Himself and praises Himself by it, because these verses by which He swore are all cosmic verses that indicate His greatness. So it is as if He praised Himself by the oath with what these verses contain of indication of His greatness and His power. So it is as if it is praise of Himself by this path of swearing by them, which indicates their reverence. As for us, if someone says: So why do we not do this? We said: Because we were forbidden from it. So the swearing by these great verses, the swearing does not apply to us. What is the answer?
The answer is from two angles. The first: This is from the action of Allah, and Allah the Exalted is not questioned about what He does. And it is permissible for Him (Glorified and Exalted is He) to swear by whatever He wills of His creation. He is the Questioner, not one who is questioned, and the Ruler, not one who is ruled over. Complete? Second: We say that what Allah swore by of these verses all indicates His greatness and the perfection of His power and wisdom. So in swearing by them, which indicates their reverence and elevation of their status, there is praise of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) with what they contain of what? Of indication of His greatness.
So if someone says: This last meaning, why do we not do it and praise Allah the Exalted by swearing by them? We said: Because we were forbidden from it. So we must say: We heard and we obeyed.
Now, if someone says: This is the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) who said and said: and said: , so what is the answer to his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): And this is established in Sahih Muslim. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) swore by the father of this man. What is the answer?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, he says "and his father." His father is a disbeliever. We do not know if he succeeded or if he did not succeed.
The answer to this is from several angles. Let us review them to see which of them is correct and which is not.
Some denied this wording and said: It is not established in the hadith. Why? Because it contradicts tawhid. How can the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) do something that contradicts tawhid? So the meaning of this word in the hadith would be contradictory to what is known by necessity from the religion of Islam, which is pure tawhid. And what is contradictory to that is, according to the scholars,
The student: Anomalous.

The Shaykh : Anomalous or invalid. Invalid, fabricated. So he denied it. This is one.
And some said: That is a transcription error by the narrators, and that its original form is "Aflah, and by Allah, if he told the truth." But in the previous era, they did not distinguish the letters. "Abi" (his father), if the lower dots are removed, it resembles "Allah," or not? It resembles Allah. Yes, but it is known a little by the tones. So they said it is a transcription error, and its original form is "Aflah, and by Allah, if he told the truth." But the narrator transcribed it and said "Aflah, and his father, if he told the truth." This is two.
The third angle: This is something that passes on the tongues without intention. And Allah the Exalted said: And this is what he intended, so he is not held accountable. This is three angles.
The fourth: This occurred from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is the furthest from shirk, unlike us. We are forbidden from this, but the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is not forbidden. Why? Say?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Because shirk is not conceivable in his case. He is the furthest person from this. These are four.
The fifth angle: This is abrogated. Swearing by other than Allah is abrogated, and the prohibition is what transfers from the original ruling, so it is the one to be relied upon. How many is this? Five angles. Let us see which of them is most correct.
The first position is to deny that it is established, and this is impossible, because the hadith is authentic, and it cannot be denied. As long as the reported words can be understood in a correct manner, it is not permissible to deny them.
The second is that it is a scribal error. Well, the second is that it is a scribal error. We say that this is possible, albeit with difficulty, in the phrase: But it is not possible in the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to the one who asked him, "Which charity is best?" He said: Is a scribal error possible here? It is not possible. So this position is dropped. Two positions are dropped.
The third position is that it is something that slips off the tongue without intention, and what slips off the tongue without intention is not a basis for accountability. This is also not correct, because the prohibition was revealed even though this was slipping off their tongues, just as it slipped off the tongue of Sa'd, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited him from it. It was slipping off their tongues. And if we say to the one who spoke a word of shirk (associating partners with Allah) that we do not prohibit him because this is something that slips off his tongue, we would also say to the one who performed an act of shirk that we do not prohibit him because this is his habit, right? This is not correct. So it is invalid.
The fourth is that this came from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and he is the one furthest from shirk, so it is permissible for him to swear by other than Allah, because if he swore, he did not intend to exalt the thing by which he swore. This is also invalid. How can the Messenger say shirk, because it is not possible for him to associate partners with Allah? But even if we accept this, he could say it because it is not possible for him to associate partners with Allah, but is he to be followed, or not? He is to be followed. So if the Messenger did something, the Ummah (Muslim community) follows him. So this is invalid, because following him in it is prohibited.
And what remains for us? The fifth, which is that it is abrogated. This is the one that is the closest of the opinions. The closest opinion is that it is abrogated, because the prohibition is a departure from the original ruling, and it appears that it is abrogated. This is what appears. If someone were to say, for example: "We turn the matter around on you and say that the abrogated thing is the prohibition." We say the abrogated thing is the prohibition, because when they were newly converted from shirk, they were prohibited from swearing by other than Allah, just as people were prohibited from visiting graves when they were newly converted from shirk, and then they were permitted to do so. What do you say?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.
The student: The prohibition was revealed, so we know that...

The Shaykh : Yes, but if I say, "I do not say it was later..."
That it is shirk, this remains, or not? And shirk is not permissible, neither for one who is newly converted from shirk nor for one who is far removed from shirk. But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained the wisdom behind the permission to visit graves, and it is that they remind one of the Hereafter.
So the important thing is that there is no doubt in my mind that the later ruling is the prohibition, the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah, and that what was mentioned is answered by what you have heard.

The questioner : ... meaning it is not permissible to say they were newly converted, because he did not... they submit every day, so this refutes their claim that they were newly converted to Islam in the beginning...?

The Shaykh : In any case, the scholars justified that opinion with the fact that they were newly converted, and the intention is the general group, not the individual, ten, or a hundred. The Companions were one hundred and twenty-four thousand, so they cannot be grasped by one or two. The important thing is that in any case, we now understand that the reported hadiths, and praise be to Allah, can be reconciled with others, or harmonized, and the most correct is to say that the truth is that they are abrogated. This is the truth. Even though al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) approved that this is something that slips off the tongue without intention, but as you saw, it is weak and cannot be said.
The student: The date? Is there no date?

The Shaykh : There is no date, no, there is no date, yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, this is what the brothers said a little while ago, and for this reason he says, hmm?
The student: He says he does not know the conjunction.

The Shaykh : The conjunction, what?

The questioner : ...

The Shaykh : No, no, no, it is not correct, it is not correct. If he said "and his father," we would say the conjunction is possible in the language of whom? Those who mandate the alif absolutely, or that it is a companion of the object, but "and his father" no, no, no, hmm?
The student: Do we not say that this word is anomalous?

The Shaykh : We said the hadith is also in Muslim. When he was asked which charity is best, he said: In Muslim, this is authentic, and he clarified that the best charity is to give charity while you are stingy and miserly, hoping to remain and fearing poverty.
The student: Meaning the word does not become anomalous or a scribal error?

The Shaykh : "And your father," a scribal error in "and your father" is not possible, but the claim of denying the word, yes. But when do we say we deny it when the narrators are upright? When we do not find an exit for it. But if we find an exit for it, we do not cast doubt on the narrators.
The student: ... that a prohibition came and then a command, but for swearing, only a prohibition came...

The Shaykh : Yes, yes, there is no harm, but the doing of the thing indicates permissibility.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, so a dispensation was granted in the first case. They say that in the first case there was a prohibition, then a dispensation, like visiting graves.