The ruling on one who says: “It is forbidden upon me,” without intending an oath or divorce
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question: From Abdul Aziz ibn Abdullah ibn Baz, to the honorable brother, the virtuous judge of Rafha, may Allah guide him to all good, amen.
Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. After that:
O Beloved: Your noble letter, number 554, dated 12/9/1390 AH, has reached us, may Allah guide you, and I have understood what it contained, namely the information that: A. T. A. submitted to your eminence the attached petition, in which he states: that he went to visit one of his relatives, and when he saw him preparing to slaughter a sacrificial animal for him, he said: “It is forbidden upon me if you do not slaughter the animal,” and by that he intended to prevent him with the strongest oath he knew—according to his statement—but his relative proceeded and slaughtered the animal and held a feast, and he ate from it, and that he does not know what he intended: whether an oath, or a divorce, or zihar, but he had intended to prevent the aforementioned person from loss.
Answer: And based on that, I have issued a ruling to the aforementioned person: that this divorce of his is in the ruling of an oath, and that upon him is the expiation for an oath—in the most correct of the opinions of the scholars of knowledge—because he only intended to prevent the aforementioned person from slaughtering the animal, and he did not intend to make his wife forbidden, as is apparent from the information that your eminence recorded.
So I hope you will inform him of that.
May Allah reward you, and thank you for your efforts.
And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. After that:
O Beloved: Your noble letter, number 554, dated 12/9/1390 AH, has reached us, may Allah guide you, and I have understood what it contained, namely the information that: A. T. A. submitted to your eminence the attached petition, in which he states: that he went to visit one of his relatives, and when he saw him preparing to slaughter a sacrificial animal for him, he said: “It is forbidden upon me if you do not slaughter the animal,” and by that he intended to prevent him with the strongest oath he knew—according to his statement—but his relative proceeded and slaughtered the animal and held a feast, and he ate from it, and that he does not know what he intended: whether an oath, or a divorce, or zihar, but he had intended to prevent the aforementioned person from loss.
Answer: And based on that, I have issued a ruling to the aforementioned person: that this divorce of his is in the ruling of an oath, and that upon him is the expiation for an oath—in the most correct of the opinions of the scholars of knowledge—because he only intended to prevent the aforementioned person from slaughtering the animal, and he did not intend to make his wife forbidden, as is apparent from the information that your eminence recorded.
So I hope you will inform him of that.
May Allah reward you, and thank you for your efforts.
And peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
Source
binbaz.org.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.