Explanation of the Author's Statement: "The Book of Oaths"

The Shaykh :"The Book of Oaths" Oaths is the plural of oath, right? It is the oath, and it is swearing. Know that the oath is divided into categories: it may be obligatory, it may be recommended, it may be disliked, it may be forbidden, and it may be permissible. The original ruling is that leaving it off is preferable; leaving off the oath is preferable. However, it is divided into these five categories. Its definition, that is, the definition of the oath, is affirming a matter by mentioning something exalted in a specific form. Affirming a matter by mentioning something exalted in a specific form. The reason it is an affirmation is that this one who swears is as if he is saying, "To the extent of the exaltation I have in my heart for this thing by which I am swearing, I am affirming this matter for you." Therefore, we say the definition is what you indicated: affirming a matter by mentioning something exalted in a specific form, meaning not in every form. For example, if you said, "Allah is the Greatest, Zayd came," you have connected it to the mention of something exalted, but it is not in the form of an oath, so it is not an oath. The letters of the oath are three, or four, or five. The most famous of them are three: the waw, the ba, and the ta. The ba is the mother of them. Therefore, it enters upon the thing sworn by, connected to the verb or what takes its place, and it enters alone. It enters upon the thing sworn by, whether it is an explicit name or a hidden pronoun. It also enters upon every name of Allah, or upon every thing by which one swears.
Once again, we say that the ba enters upon the thing sworn by, whether the verb of swearing or what takes its place is mentioned or not, and upon the thing sworn by, whether it is an explicit name or a hidden pronoun.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The ba, whether it is an explicit name or a hidden pronoun. Thirdly, it enters upon all names. So you say, for example, "I swear by Allah to do such and such." This was mentioned with the verb of what? With the verb of swearing, and it entered upon an explicit name. And you say, "By Allah, I will certainly do it." It was mentioned with the deletion of the verb of swearing, and it entered upon what?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Upon an explicit name. And you say, "I swear by my Lord, Allah." So it entered upon a hidden pronoun with the presence of the verb of swearing. And you say, "By my Lord, Allah, I will certainly do such and such." It entered upon a hidden pronoun with the deletion of the verb of swearing. So it is the broadest of the tools of swearing, and it enters upon every thing by which one swears, whether it is the name of Allah, or al-Rahman, or al-Aziz, or an attribute of His attributes, or by anything. The waw is more commonly used than it, but it is not connected with the verb of swearing, and it does not enter except upon the explicit name only. It enters upon every thing sworn by, upon every name by which one swears. You say, "By Allah, I will certainly do it," and "al-Rahman, what? I will certainly do it." Every explicit name, but does the verb of swearing come with it or not? It does not come. So do not say, "I swore by Allah that I will certainly do it." Does it enter upon the pronoun or not? It does not enter upon the pronoun. It does not enter except upon the explicit name. So is it narrower than the ba or not? It is narrower in two ways: that the verb of swearing is not mentioned with it, and that it does not enter except upon the explicit name; it does not enter upon the pronoun.
The third is the ta. The ta does not enter except upon the Name of Majesty only; it does not enter upon anything else according to the jurists. And Ibn Malik said, "And the ta is for Allah and Lord", so he made it enter upon Allah and upon Lord. Allah the Exalted said, And it is not connected with the verb of swearing. If we say it does not enter except upon Allah, or upon Allah and Lord, its meaning is that it does not enter upon the pronoun or not? And not upon the rest of the names. So it is the narrowest of the letters of the oath, because the verb of swearing is not connected with it, and one does not swear by it except with the name of Allah or Lord. If you said "ta al-Rahman," it would not be an oath, meaning it does not enter upon al-Rahman, so it is an incorrect form. Yes, okay, what remains for us is ha, which is sometimes sworn by, like "No, ha Allah, I will certainly do it," or "No, ha Allah, I will not do such and such." And the fifth is the hamza, "aa Allah," and this does not enter except upon the Name of Majesty only. The hamza, rather it is the hamza and the elongation, meaning the elongated hamza. And likewise ha. So these are the letters of the oath. Okay, let us return once again. So we defined what the oath is?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Affirming a matter by mentioning something exalted in a specific form. Its letters are the ba, the waw, the ta, the ha, and the hamza. Okay, the ba, I said that it is the mother of the chapter because it is the most general and comprehensive of them, followed by the waw, then the ta, then the ha and the hamza. As for the ruling of the oath, should a person swear whenever he mentions something, or should he not swear often? We say that the original ruling is that it is not befitting to swear often, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted, . Some scholars said in its interpretation, "Do not multiply oaths." And there is no doubt that this is more preferable and safer for the person, and more clearing of his conscience, not to swear. But with that, the oath may be forbidden, obligatory, disliked, recommended, or permissible. Yes, permissible is the first. Okay, it becomes obligatory if the intended purpose is to establish a right. Then it is obligatory for you to swear as long as the establishment of the right depends on it. If the establishment of the right depends on the oath, then the oath is obligatory. For this reason, Allah commanded His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to swear in three matters: to swear that the resurrection is true, that the Qur'an is true, and that the Hour will come. Allah Blessed and Exalted is He said, . And He said, . And He said, . So if the establishment of the right and the reassurance of the one addressed depend on the oath, then the oath is obligatory. Is that so? And likewise, the oath is obligatory in a claim before a judge by which oppression is repelled. Yes, for example, if a claim is made against the property of an orphan. A man made a false claim against the property of an orphan, and the oath was directed to his guardian, and we said that he swears. Here, is the oath obligatory to repel the oppression that occurs against the property of this orphan? It becomes forbidden if it is upon doing a forbidden act, whether that is for doing the forbidden act or for leaving an obligatory act. A man said, "O Muhammad, by Allah, I will not pray with the congregation." Yes? Is it forbidden? Yes, this is forbidden, it is not permissible. How do you swear to this? To something forbidden? He said, "By Allah, he will certainly drink intoxicants." Is that forbidden? It is forbidden. And it becomes recommended if doing a recommended act depends on it. And it becomes disliked if doing a disliked act depends on it. And the original ruling, as we said first, is that it is not befitting for a person to swear except for a reason that calls for it. Okay.