Explanation of the author's statement: The chapter on what has come regarding those who are not satisfied with an oath by Allah, from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him and his father)

The Shaykh : ... The reason for including this chapter in the Book of Tawhid (the oneness of Allah) is that being satisfied with an oath by Allah is part of magnifying Allah. This is because the one who swears affirms what he swore to due to the magnification inherent in the oath. So if he affirmed what he swore to through magnification, and that magnification is of the thing by which he swore, then it is part of magnifying that thing by which he swore that you accept this oath as true. On this basis, not being satisfied with an oath by Allah involves a deficiency in the magnification of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and this contradicts the perfection of tawhid, because the perfection of tawhid is to magnify Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in a manner befitting Him.
Then know that whoever is not satisfied with an oath by Allah, either that is from the legal aspect, or it is from the sensory aspect. As for the legal aspect, it is obligatory to be satisfied with an oath by Allah when the oath is directed to the defendant and he swears; it is obligatory to be satisfied with this legal ruling. As for the sensory aspect, it is not free from one of two possibilities: either the one who swears is a person of truth and trust, in which case you are satisfied with his oath; or he is not such a person, in which case there is no blame on you for refusing to be satisfied with his oath. For this reason, when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed about the story of 'Abdullah ibn Suhayl, Huyaytah and Mahyadah, he said: So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) left them as they were. The conclusion is that if the one who swears is a person of trust and integrity, then what is required of you is to be satisfied with that. But if he is not a person of trust and integrity, there is no blame on you for refusing.
So swearing by Allah has two aspects. The first aspect is that it is in a trial where the oath is directed to the one who denies, in which case satisfaction is obligatory. Satisfaction with the legal ruling is obligatory, because he has only his oath.
An example of this is: A person claimed against another for one hundred dirhams, so they disputed before the judge. The judge said to the claimant: Do you have evidence? He said: No. So to whom is the oath directed? To the defendant, at the request of the claimant. If he says: Are you satisfied with his oath? He says: I am satisfied with his oath, let him swear. If he swears, satisfaction with that is obligatory. The satisfaction is not because he swore, but because this is the requirement of the legal ruling. And the defendant, at that point, has finished the dispute and is cleared of it.
As for the second aspect, it is from the sensory side. If the one who swears is a person of trust, then you are satisfied with his oath. If he is not, there is no blame on you for rejecting his oath. And your rejection of his oath here is not due to a lack of magnification of Allah, but because the one who swears is not trustworthy, so he may swear while being a liar.
Then the author said: "From Ibn 'Umar", yes?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, because if you wish, you do not request it. If you request the oath and the judge says "swear" and he swears, you must be satisfied with this legal ruling. Yes?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The student: But for example, I am confident that I paid this money... He swore according to his opinion, his predominant opinion...

The Shaykh : No, no, this is a legal ruling. From the legal side, what you are saying is not from the sensory side. The sensory side is, for example, if someone comes and swears to me that he saw so-and-so, or that so-and-so arrived, or something like that. But from the side of the ruling between people, you must be satisfied with the legal ruling. You must be satisfied with it. As for what is between him and Allah, it appears that you have the right to demand that in the Hereafter. But in this world, you are satisfied and the matter ends.
From Ibn 'Umar: That the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: .
No, it is a prohibitive "no," and for this reason the verb is in the jussive mood with it. "Al-aba'" is the plural of "ab" (father) and includes the father and the grandfather, however high up the lineage. It is not permissible to swear by these people due to the prohibition, and it has been mentioned previously that this is a type of shirk (associating partners with Allah).
This is directed to the one who swears. This is directed to whom? To the one to whom the oath is sworn.
But note that there are two matters here: The first matter is for the one who swears to be truthful, so let him be truthful. Truthfulness is reporting what matches reality. This is truthfulness: reporting what matches reality. What is its opposite? Its opposite is lying, which is to swear or to report what contradicts reality. So whoever reports what matches reality is truthful, and whoever reports what contradicts it is a liar. So whoever swears by Allah, let him be truthful, meaning: let him be truthful in his oath. Is it required that it matches reality according to the actual reality, or is the opinion sufficient? The opinion is sufficient, so he may swear to what is predominant in his opinion. And examples of this have been mentioned to us previously. And his saying: The "lam" is the "lam" of command.
As for the second matter, he said: . If you combine the two sentences, or if you combine these two matters with each other, then the second matter applies in the case where the one who swears is truthful, because it combines two matters: a matter directed to the one who swears and a matter directed to the one to whom the oath is sworn. If the one who swears is truthful, satisfaction is obligatory. If someone says: If the one who swears is truthful, then you believe him and are satisfied, even if he did not swear? We say: But the oath adds confirmation.
And his saying: We have previously detailed this issue, and that in the chapter of legal rulings, one must be satisfied, because it is the ruling of Allah and His Messenger. In the sensory matter, we said if he is trustworthy, then you are commanded to be satisfied. Otherwise, no. You are satisfied by taking it at its apparent meaning and that he did not swear except to the truth.
Whoever is not satisfied, with what? With the oath if he swears to him. So he is not from Allah. And this is a disavowal from him, so it indicates that not being satisfied is among the major sins. But it is necessary to note what was mentioned previously, and we have indicated that in the hadith of the Qasamah (oath-taking in blood cases) there is evidence... regarding the untrustworthy, you may refuse to be satisfied with him, because he is not trustworthy. If someone swore and said: "By Allah, this bag is made of wood," when it is made of leather, is it permissible not to be satisfied with him? Yes, it is permissible, because you are certain of his lie. And in such a case, you do not accept it, and you discipline him. Say: You swore to something in which you are certainly lying. The Shari'ah does not command anything that contradicts sense and reality. It only commands what the intellect approves of and testifies to as valid and good. And even if the intellect does not always perceive it, sometimes it does not perceive the extent of the goodness of the thing that the Shari'ah commanded, but it knows with certainty that the Shari'ah does not command except what is good. Because Allah says: So if the goodness of any of the rulings of the Shari'ah is unclear to you, then suspect yourself, either of deficiency or of negligence. But to suspect the Shari'ah, this is never possible. What is authentic from Allah and His Messenger is truth, and it is the best of...
And the summary of this chapter is that it contains questions. First: What is its relevance to the Book of Tawhid?
Second: The one to whom the oath is sworn by Allah is divided into two categories: One is in trials, disputes, and legal proceedings before the Shari'ah. The second is in sensory matters without a trial.
And the second or third question: What is the ruling on swearing by fathers? It is forbidden, indeed it is shirk as mentioned previously, either minor or major.
And the fourth question: That the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) combined in this hadith between two matters: a matter directed to the one who swears, and a matter directed to the one to whom the oath is sworn. As for the one who swears, his command is to be truthful. And as for the one to whom the oath is sworn, his command is to be satisfied. Yes, Muhammad?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : "Whoever is not satisfied, he is not from Allah" is a threat.
The student: In the hadith of the Qasamah, they did not swear...

The Shaykh : Yes, there is no difference between them. Even if he swears and I am not satisfied, because if he swears without my request, I am not obligated to accept his statement. But if I request it, I am obligated to be satisfied with it.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : He is not obligated to be satisfied unless the swearing is by an oath (qasam). Otherwise, he is not obligated to be satisfied. In fact, if he knows of his lie, he has the right to... and to discipline him if he is able.
The student: ... we adhered to the hadith of the Qasamah...

The Shaykh : Yes, we adhered to it because they said: How can we be satisfied with the oaths of a people of Jews, a people of disbelievers? This indicates that the basis of the ruling is that they are not a place of trust.
The student: ... legal proceedings?

The Shaykh : They did not proceed to legal proceedings, because in legal proceedings, the oath is not directed to the opponent until the other party asks him. So much so that the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said: If the judge directed the oath to the defendant without the request of the claimant, it would not be considered valid.