Explanation of the author's statement: "The second condition is that he swears voluntarily; if he swears under compulsion, his oath is not established."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The second condition is that he swears voluntarily, meaning he intends to swear. The opposite of voluntary is being compelled. If he swears under compulsion, his oath is not established. For example, a man might say to another, "Swear that you will not do this thing." The man says, "I want you not to do this thing." The other says, "By Allah, I will not do it." Let us give a closer example: a criminal is caught by a man who holds him. The man says, "Now I will hand you over to the authority." The criminal says, "No, do not hand me over. If you hand me over, I will kill you." Who says this? The criminal. Then the criminal says, "Swear by Allah that you will not report me, or I will kill you." So he swears by Allah not to report him. This oath does not require expiation. Why? Because he swore under compulsion. Accordingly, if he reports this criminal to the authorities, there is no sin on him and no expiation required, because he swore under compulsion. What is the evidence? The evidence is from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. As for the Qur'an, Allah the Exalted said: [An-Nahl 16:106] So if a word of disbelief comes from one who is compelled, it has no effect, and what is less than that is like it. As for the Sunnah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Sunan Ibn Majah 2045Sahih (Darussalam) Accordingly, if his oath in this situation is broken, there is no expiation. But is it required that he intends with the oath to repel the compulsion? If he intends the oath, is it established? The apparent statement of the author is that it is not required. However, they mentioned in the book of divorce that it is required that he intend to repel the compulsion, not that the compelled act occurs. Pay attention to the difference between the two. Intending to repel the compulsion is when he says this in order to escape the harm of the one who is compelling him, whereas he did not intend the act itself. Intending the act is when he intends the act, meaning he says, "By Allah, I will not report you," in the example we mentioned earlier, and he intends not to report him. What is his purpose? Only to escape from him, but he intends not to report him. If we apply the analogy of their statement in divorce, this oath would require expiation, because if one is compelled to say something to repel the compulsion, it has no ruling and does not harm him. But if he says it intending it while being compelled, then according to the school of thought, its ruling is not established, meaning the rulings do not differ or deviate; rather, its rulings remain. It has been established for us that the stronger position is that it is not required to intend to repel the compulsion, and that if one is compelled, his words have no ruling, due to the generality of what? Due to the generality of the evidence, and because many common people, when compelled, say this thing with the intention of that thing. Not every common person knows that he must intend to repel the compulsion. Is this clear or not?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, an example of this in divorce: a man is compelled by another to divorce his wife, so he says, "My wife is divorced," intending to repel the compulsion and escape from this man. He does not want to divorce his wife at all. Another man is compelled to divorce his wife, so he divorces her, but he wants the divorce, though he wants it because he was compelled. No, he wants the divorce, not to repel the compulsion; he wants the divorce because he was compelled. In the first case, if he intends to repel the compulsion, the divorce does not take place, because his divorce does not occur since he did not intend it. In the second case, according to the school of thought, the divorce takes place because he intended the divorce, but he was compelled to intend it; he intended the divorce. The correct view is that the divorce does not take place in both cases, due to the generality of the evidence. This issue is like a man who is compelled to swear not to do or not to say something, so he swears. If he swears intending to repel the compulsion, answer me?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Then there is no expiation on him. If he swears intending the oath, but only because he was compelled to it, then according to the school of thought, he owes expiation. The correct view is that there is no expiation, due to the generality of the evidence and because many common people do not distinguish; they do not know the difference between this and that. Okay.
Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment;
مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِيمَانِهِ إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ وَلَكِنْ مَنْ شَرَحَ بِالْكُفْرِ صَدْرًا فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌAllah has forgiven my nation for mistakes and forgetfulness, and what they are forced to do.
رفع عن أمتي الخطأ والنسيان وما استكرهوا عليهThe questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Is it clear?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, an example of this in divorce: a man is compelled by another to divorce his wife, so he says, "My wife is divorced," intending to repel the compulsion and escape from this man. He does not want to divorce his wife at all. Another man is compelled to divorce his wife, so he divorces her, but he wants the divorce, though he wants it because he was compelled. No, he wants the divorce, not to repel the compulsion; he wants the divorce because he was compelled. In the first case, if he intends to repel the compulsion, the divorce does not take place, because his divorce does not occur since he did not intend it. In the second case, according to the school of thought, the divorce takes place because he intended the divorce, but he was compelled to intend it; he intended the divorce. The correct view is that the divorce does not take place in both cases, due to the generality of the evidence. This issue is like a man who is compelled to swear not to do or not to say something, so he swears. If he swears intending to repel the compulsion, answer me?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Then there is no expiation on him. If he swears intending the oath, but only because he was compelled to it, then according to the school of thought, he owes expiation. The correct view is that there is no expiation, due to the generality of the evidence and because many common people do not distinguish; they do not know the difference between this and that. Okay.