Explanation of the author's statement: "If he swears to a past matter while knowingly lying, it is the *ghumus* oath, and the *laghw* oath is that which passes on his tongue without intention."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, he says "If he swears to a past matter while knowingly lying, it is the *ghumus* oath". The author's words say "knowingly lying," right? Is that a grammatical error? "Lying"—is it an error, and is the correct form "lying" (kadhiban)?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Where is the subject?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is hidden in the verb, yes, that is correct. So, if he swears, meaning the person, to a past matter while knowingly lying, it is the *ghumus* oath. All right, "to a past matter" is specified to exclude the future, as it has been mentioned previously that it is a binding oath. All right, "knowingly lying" is specified to exclude the case where he is truthful. If he swears to a past matter truthfully, he owes nothing. All right.
His statement "knowingly" is specified to exclude what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It excludes the case where he was ignorant, such as if he says, "By Allah, so-and-so was present yesterday," but so-and-so was not present. ... He was not present, but he said, "I am affirming that he was present." Where is he? He said, "Look, this is him." We looked, and the man was not the man. What is this?
The questioner : Ignorant.
The Shaykh : He was ignorant, he was ignorant, yes. Or he says, "By Allah, Allah has forbidden us such and such," and he swears. Is the prohibition past or future?
The questioner : Past.
The Shaykh : Right? Past. What is the evidence? He said, "The evidence is such and such." We found that it is not so. Is this a *ghumus* oath or not?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No. All right, the apparent meaning of the author's words is that even if he was forgetful, it is not so. Rather, if he was forgetful, he is like the ignorant person. He swears to a past matter, yes. For example, he says, "By Allah, so-and-so does not ask me for anything," yes. He forgot that so-and-so had lent him money, for instance. Do you know what "lent him" means? It means he advanced him money. He said... he said, "No, by Allah, he does not ask me for anything." Does that make it a *ghumus* oath or not?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No. Yes, the apparent meaning of the author's words is that it is a *ghumus* oath, but that is not intended. Rather, this is a non-*ghumus* oath, based on the saying of the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:286]. All right, he said "it is the *ghumus* oath", meaning it is the *ghumus* oath. *Ghumus* is on the pattern of *fa'ul*, and its original form for the active participle is *ghamis*, but it was changed to *ghumus* for emphasis. It was called *ghumus* why? They said because it plunges its owner into sin and then into the Fire. Because the one who swears to a past matter while knowingly lying combines, may Allah protect us, two things: lying, which is a characteristic of the hypocrites, and taking the oath by Allah lightly, which is a characteristic of the Jews. For the Jews are those who belittle their Lord and describe Him with attributes of defects. So he combines two things—may Allah grant us safety—lying and violating the sanctity of the oath. In that case, his oath is a *ghumus* oath. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that it is the same whether this oath involves seizing the money of a Muslim man or not. Pay attention. Whether it involves seizing the money of a Muslim man or not, the one that involves seizing the money of a Muslim man is the one by which a person swears in a lawsuit before the judge. He is sued for one hundred riyals and says, "I have nothing for you." The judge asks the plaintiff, "Do you have proof?" He says, "No." The judge says, "Do you want an oath?" He says, "Yes." Let him swear. He says to him, "Will you swear?" He says, "I swear, by Allah, he does not ask me for anything." This is an oath where he knows he is lying, that so-and-so is asking him. What is it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is a *ghumus* oath because he swore to a past matter while knowingly lying, seizing the money of a Muslim man in it. Is that right? It may involve seizing the money of a Muslim man. It may be in claiming what is not his. He claims what is not his, then he brings one witness. If he brings one witness, the oath suffices for him. Allahu Akbar.
To seize the money of a Muslim man by it, while he is lying in it. This is more severe than the previous one because it includes what? Lying in the oath and consuming the money of a Muslim. So this is the *ghumus* oath. For example, if he files a claim against a person and he is lying, and he swears to it, and he brings a witness. If he brings a witness and his oath, judgment is ruled in his favor by it. So this oath is a *ghumus* oath because it is what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Seizing the money of a Muslim man by it. Or he is sued, and the plaintiff has no proof. In this case, he is told, "Swear that so-and-so has nothing with you." If he swears while knowingly lying, it is a *ghumus* oath. Yes.
Then the author, may Allah have mercy on him, said "and the *laghw* oath that passes on his tongue". How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Except, we gave two examples: that he claims what is not his, or that he denies what was upon him.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he does not bring two witnesses, judgment is not ruled. If he claims something and does not bring two witnesses, judgment is not ruled in his favor. But if he brings a witness and an oath, judgment is ruled in his favor. Yes, the correct view is the latter. The correct view is the latter because the former has no evidence for it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Where is the subject?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is hidden in the verb, yes, that is correct. So, if he swears, meaning the person, to a past matter while knowingly lying, it is the *ghumus* oath. All right, "to a past matter" is specified to exclude the future, as it has been mentioned previously that it is a binding oath. All right, "knowingly lying" is specified to exclude the case where he is truthful. If he swears to a past matter truthfully, he owes nothing. All right.
His statement "knowingly" is specified to exclude what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It excludes the case where he was ignorant, such as if he says, "By Allah, so-and-so was present yesterday," but so-and-so was not present. ... He was not present, but he said, "I am affirming that he was present." Where is he? He said, "Look, this is him." We looked, and the man was not the man. What is this?
The questioner : Ignorant.
The Shaykh : He was ignorant, he was ignorant, yes. Or he says, "By Allah, Allah has forbidden us such and such," and he swears. Is the prohibition past or future?
The questioner : Past.
The Shaykh : Right? Past. What is the evidence? He said, "The evidence is such and such." We found that it is not so. Is this a *ghumus* oath or not?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No. All right, the apparent meaning of the author's words is that even if he was forgetful, it is not so. Rather, if he was forgetful, he is like the ignorant person. He swears to a past matter, yes. For example, he says, "By Allah, so-and-so does not ask me for anything," yes. He forgot that so-and-so had lent him money, for instance. Do you know what "lent him" means? It means he advanced him money. He said... he said, "No, by Allah, he does not ask me for anything." Does that make it a *ghumus* oath or not?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No. Yes, the apparent meaning of the author's words is that it is a *ghumus* oath, but that is not intended. Rather, this is a non-*ghumus* oath, based on the saying of the Exalted:
Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred.
ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا أو أخطأناThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is a *ghumus* oath because he swore to a past matter while knowingly lying, seizing the money of a Muslim man in it. Is that right? It may involve seizing the money of a Muslim man. It may be in claiming what is not his. He claims what is not his, then he brings one witness. If he brings one witness, the oath suffices for him. Allahu Akbar.
To seize the money of a Muslim man by it, while he is lying in it. This is more severe than the previous one because it includes what? Lying in the oath and consuming the money of a Muslim. So this is the *ghumus* oath. For example, if he files a claim against a person and he is lying, and he swears to it, and he brings a witness. If he brings a witness and his oath, judgment is ruled in his favor by it. So this oath is a *ghumus* oath because it is what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Seizing the money of a Muslim man by it. Or he is sued, and the plaintiff has no proof. In this case, he is told, "Swear that so-and-so has nothing with you." If he swears while knowingly lying, it is a *ghumus* oath. Yes.
Then the author, may Allah have mercy on him, said "and the *laghw* oath that passes on his tongue". How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Except, we gave two examples: that he claims what is not his, or that he denies what was upon him.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he does not bring two witnesses, judgment is not ruled. If he claims something and does not bring two witnesses, judgment is not ruled in his favor. But if he brings a witness and an oath, judgment is ruled in his favor. Yes, the correct view is the latter. The correct view is the latter because the former has no evidence for it.