Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "And swearing by other than Allah is forbidden, and no expiation is required for it"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The man was silent. He said, "And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'By my life, I will not return to this Shaykh.'" Ah, this is not appropriate. Well, is this argument sound or not? That it is something that slipped off the tongue without intention? This is also not sound and does not align with the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) It does not align. He specifically prohibited this. How can we say that this Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) approved it and that its ruling remains to this day? It is not possible.
The fourth argument is that they said the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah is out of fear that the swearer might develop in his heart a sense of reverence for the thing by which he swears, similar to the reverence he has for Allah. This is impossible regarding the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him); it is not possible that reverence for this Bedouin man’s father, who came to ask, would arise in his heart equal to the reverence for Allah. On this basis, this argument would make the matter specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), because we know that the danger of swearing by other than Allah is not conceivable in his case. Consequently, for everyone other than the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), swearing by the father or the like is prohibited, whereas for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), it is permissible. However, in reality, this weakens the argument because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is the model for his Ummah, and it is not possible for him to swear by other than Allah while knowing that the Ummah will follow his example. But it may be said that the Ummah was informed of the ruling in his statement This fourth argument applies exactly to the position of al-Shawkani and a group of scholars that the action of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) does not contradict his statement in any way. Yes, what remains for us now among the four arguments is that the closest thing is that it was abrogated, but there is something troubling about this because we do not know the date, or that it was specific to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). In any case, we have an ambiguous text and a clear text. What is the ambiguous one? The swearing of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) by the father of this man. And the clear one is his prohibition of swearing by fathers. The legal principle for those who are firm in knowledge is that they should interpret what? The ambiguous in light of the clear, so that the whole matter becomes clear. Since this matter contains possibilities, namely the swearing of the Messenger by his father, we have a clear text from which we cannot deviate, which is the prohibition of swearing by fathers. The four arguments, Ya Nasr, what are the four arguments?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, well, yes, what is it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, this is also a valid response; it can be said that there is an implied addition, meaning "By the father of his father," but this is far-fetched. The original rule is that there is no deletion. Yes?
Do not swear by your fathers
لا تحلفوا بآبائكمThe fourth argument is that they said the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah is out of fear that the swearer might develop in his heart a sense of reverence for the thing by which he swears, similar to the reverence he has for Allah. This is impossible regarding the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him); it is not possible that reverence for this Bedouin man’s father, who came to ask, would arise in his heart equal to the reverence for Allah. On this basis, this argument would make the matter specific to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), because we know that the danger of swearing by other than Allah is not conceivable in his case. Consequently, for everyone other than the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), swearing by the father or the like is prohibited, whereas for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), it is permissible. However, in reality, this weakens the argument because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is the model for his Ummah, and it is not possible for him to swear by other than Allah while knowing that the Ummah will follow his example. But it may be said that the Ummah was informed of the ruling in his statement
Do not swear by your fathers
لا تحلفوا بآبائكمThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, well, yes, what is it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, this is also a valid response; it can be said that there is an implied addition, meaning "By the father of his father," but this is far-fetched. The original rule is that there is no deletion. Yes?