Explanation of the author's statement: "And swearing by other than Allah is forbidden, and no expiation is required for it"

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And swearing by other than Allah is forbidden". Swearing by other than Allah, not attributing the oath to Allah, includes everyone other than Allah, even if it is a close angel or a sent prophet. For this reason, we say that swearing by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is forbidden. Is it not permissible otherwise?

The questioner : Forbidden.

The Shaykh : It is forbidden, without a doubt. Swearing by Jibril, Mikail, and Israfil. Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : It is forbidden because it is by other than Allah. So swearing by other than Allah, whoever that other is, is forbidden, meaning it is prohibited by the Shari'ah. What is the evidence? The saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): The lam in his saying "let him be silent" is a command for obligation, meaning let him be silent from swearing and not swear. In another wording: If you say that swearing by other than Allah is shirk (associating partners with Allah), and shirk should be expressed by the author as having a greater impact on the hearts than the word "forbidden," is that correct? The answer is: The author (may Allah have mercy on him) is writing on fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), not on tawhid (the oneness of Allah) and beliefs, where it is said that this is shirk and this is tawhid. Rather, he is writing about what is permissible and what is not permissible. As for the type of this forbidden matter, the author does not intend to speak about it, because the place for that is the books of beliefs. Yes, but we say, for the sake of benefit, that swearing by other than Allah is shirk, and shirk is greater than a major sin. For this reason, Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Shaykh al-Islam said that the evil of shirk, even if it is small, is greater than the evil of disobedience, even if it is large. Otherwise, swearing by Allah while lying is forbidden without a doubt. Whether it is the yamin ghamus (oath that leads to hell) or something else, its explanation will come, if Allah wills. The important point is that swearing by other than Allah is forbidden. Did you understand? Good.
And is expiation required for it? The author said: "And no expiation is required for it". Why? To make it easier for him, or because his oath is not a legal one? Because his oath is not a legal one, and what is not legal does not have its effect. So its effect does not follow because it is not legal. And whatever contradicts the Shari'ah has no effect. But we may say it is forbidden, yes, or shirk or something similar. If you say that swearing by other than Allah is forbidden and shirk, but the most pious of people towards Allah, Muhammad the Messenger of Allah, did it? A Bedouin came to him and asked about the pillars of Islam, so he informed him. Then the man said: He swore that he would not add or subtract. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: How do we say that swearing by other than Allah is forbidden or shirk, and shirk is impossible for the prophets because it completely contradicts their call? To what do they call?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : To tawhid (the oneness of Allah), and shirk contradicts it. If it is major, it contradicts its foundation; if it is minor, it contradicts its perfection. How can the Messenger swear by his father? "He has succeeded and his father, if he is truthful." The answer is that some scholars said that this hadith is distorted (tahrif) and that its original form was "He has succeeded and Allah." But because they did not use diacritical marks (dots) at first, "his father" (abih) looks like "Allah" (Allah) in its letters. How many strokes are in it?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Or two strokes with the haa?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Two strokes with the haa, so it is like Allah, but the two strokes were shortened, yes, and the diacritical marks were removed, so it became "and his father." And this is not correct. Why? Because the original principle is the absence of distortion, and because this opens a dangerous door for the narrators, as we would say that anything we do not accept is forbidden. This is opening a door of evil, and this does not stand. Second, they said that this was before the prohibition of swearing by fathers, and that it was common and widespread at first, and people were accustomed to it, so the prohibition of it was delayed, just as the prohibition of alcohol was delayed, for it was not forbidden until the sixth year of the Hijrah. Likewise, the hijab for women was not obligatory until the sixth year of the Hijrah, because it is difficult for the soul to leave what is customary at first. So they said that the Shari'ah left them on this matter because it was customary for them. When faith became settled in their hearts, He prohibited it. And the oath of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) by his father was before the prohibition. And at that time, we say that it was abrogated. But one of the conditions of abrogation is knowledge of the timing, and mere reasoning is not a ruling on delay or precedence. This is not sufficient; we must know the delay. And at that time, the saying of abrogation is also weak. Good.
Third, they said that this is something that slips off the tongue without intention, so it is from the idle oaths. And Allah the Exalted said: And this was slipping off the tongue without intention, so it was left. "Left" means that even if we assume people are accustomed to this, it means we leave them. So those who are accustomed to swearing by the Prophet, right? We do not prohibit them because this slips off their tongues. And I have narrated to you the story of the man who wanted to seek a fatwa and would say, "By the Prophet, give me a fatwa on this issue," so I said: