Explanation of the author's statement: "And three conditions are required for the obligation of expiation. The first is that the oath be binding, which is one intended to be binding regarding a possible future matter."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "And three conditions are required for the obligation of expiation".
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Did we mention it? We mentioned it, we discussed it. He says: "And three conditions are required for the obligation of expiation". A condition, as we have mentioned more than once, is a sign in language, and in the Shari'ah it is that without which the absence of the conditioned thing is necessary, but with which the presence of the conditioned thing is not necessary. That is, if it is absent, the conditioned thing is absent, either perceptibly, as if it were a perceptible condition, or legally, as if it were a legal condition. For example, prayer without wudu' (ablution): a person might perform a complete prayer with its recitation, bowing, prostration, and glorification, so it exists perceptibly, but it does not exist legally. So a condition is that without which the absence of the conditioned thing is necessary. If it is a legal condition, the absence is legal; if it is a perceptible condition, the absence is perceptible. All right, three conditions are required. And his saying: "for the obligation of expiation", the author (may Allah have mercy on him) informed us that expiation is obligatory. Yes, by the evidence of His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:89]. So the command to preserve it includes the command regarding expiation, because that is part of preserving it. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) also said: Sunan an-Nasa'i 3784Sahih (Darussalam). So he commanded expiation, and the original ruling of a command is obligation. So we have evidence from the Qur'an and evidence from the Sunnah that expiation is obligatory if a person breaks his oath.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, look, all right. And his saying: "expiation". We said that expiation is derived from *kufur*, which means covering. The original rule is that if a person swears an oath, he must complete the oath, because he swore by something great. Its greatness is such that he must fulfill what he swore to, because an oath is actually a confirmation of a thing by the greatness of what is sworn by. So if he violates this confirmation, it is like a reference to violating the greatness of what was sworn by. For this reason, expiation became obligatory. And we said that if Allah had not shown mercy to the servants, it would have been obligatory for whoever swore to something to fulfill it in all cases, except in cases of dire necessity.
He says: "Three conditions. The first is that the oath be binding". A binding oath means one that is established and confirmed, because the establishment of a thing means it is like a knot, fixed and securing what it is tied to. But its legal definition is that a binding oath is one intended to be binding regarding a possible future matter. So a binding oath combines three conditions: first, the intention to bind it; second, regarding a future matter; third, that it is possible. This is the binding oath that combines three conditions. What are they? That it is intended to be binding, regarding a future matter, and that it is possible. All right, so his saying "intended to be binding" indicates that the one swearing must have intention. If he does not have intention, his oath is not considered, like a madman, for example. If a madman swears a thousand times, his oath is not binding, why? Because he has no intention. Likewise, the one with a mental defect, the one with a mental defect has no intention, meaning the old man with dementia, if he swears, he has no intention, so his oath is not binding. Likewise, the drunkard, if he swears.
"By Allah, I will not talk to so-and-so." Is it binding or not?
The questioner : It is not binding.
The Shaykh : Because?
The questioner : He has no intention.
The Shaykh : He has no intention. All right, a man became angry and was very angry, so he swore? Did it become binding? It did not become binding because he had no intention, he did not intend it. All right, a boy below the age of discernment?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Did his oath become binding?
The questioner : It does not become binding.
The Shaykh : It does not become binding. All right, if he is above the age of discernment but below the age of puberty, does it become binding? Yes, the apparent statement of the author is that it becomes binding because he has a correct intention. And it passed by us recently in the book of slaughter that the slaughter of one who has discernment is valid because he has a correct intention. And they mentioned in the chapter of *ila'* (oath to abstain from one's wife) that it is valid from one who has discernment. This is one of the two positions in the madhhab of Imam Ahmad: that it is valid from one who has discernment. The second opinion, which is the madhhab, is that it is not valid except from one who is accountable, and that puberty is required. As for those who said that discernment is sufficient, they cited as evidence His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Ma'idah 5:89] [Al-Baqarah 2:225]. They said this is general, and this is an oath, and its binding and breaking it is not from the chapter of rulings of accountability, but from the chapter of situational rulings, meaning it is a cause placed upon an effect. So if this boy kills a person, expiation is obligatory upon him. Yes, so if he breaks the oath, expiation is obligatory upon him. And as for those who said that puberty is necessary, they said that expiation is expiation for a sin that is expected, if not for the mercy of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. And one who is below the age of discernment is not accountable, the pen has been lifted from him, so his oath does not become binding. Yes, below the age of puberty, and one who is below the age of puberty is not accountable, so his oath does not become binding. Based on this, if a person who is fourteen years and ten months old swears to something and he has not reached puberty by age, his oath does not become binding. Rather, if his puberty was at twelve o'clock and he swore at eleven o'clock, it does not become binding. And at one o'clock?
The questioner : It becomes binding.
The Shaykh : It becomes binding because in the first case he was not of age, and in the second case he was of age. All right, so the scholars have two opinions regarding one who is above the age of discernment and below the age of puberty. The madhhab is that his oath does not become binding, and the second opinion, which is the apparent statement of the author, is that it becomes binding, and this is the stronger position. The stronger position is that it becomes binding because this is from the chapter of situational rulings accompanied by their causes. It is true that one who is not accountable does not know or understand, but he has a correct intention, as evidenced by the fact that his slaughter is valid. All right.
The second condition is regarding a future matter. If it is regarding the past, it does not become binding, it is not binding. If he said, "By Allah, I did not do such-and-such yesterday," and he had done it, is expiation obligatory upon him?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : It is regarding the past.
The Shaykh : Because it is regarding the past, so there is no expiation upon him. All right, if it is a lie and it is regarding the past, like if he says, "By Allah, I talked to so-and-so yesterday," and he did not talk to them, then there is no breaking of the oath upon him, there is no expiation in it, because it is regarding a past matter. And we say it does not become binding unless it is regarding a future matter. All right, the condition, yes. It will come to us, if Allah wills.
The third condition is that it be regarding a possible matter. All right, the possible matter is the opposite of the impossible matter. The impossible is sometimes impossible in itself, and sometimes impossible by custom, and both are on the same level. So if he swears to an impossible thing, if it is regarding its doing, expiation is obligatory immediately. And if it is regarding its leaving, it is vain, it is vain speech. Yes, a subtle point, let me see. If he swears to an impossible thing, his oath is not binding, so there is no expiation upon him, whether regarding its doing or its leaving, because it is impossible, and the impossible is not subject to expiation. Because the one who swears to the impossible is either regarding its non-existence, and this is vain because it will not be, whether he swore or not, or it is regarding its doing, and this also does not make the oath binding, because it is known that if he swears to it, it will not be, so his swearing to it is a confirmation of it with no basis, because the oath is intended to confirm the doing of what? The thing sworn to. Yes, and this is impossible regarding the impossible, so it is also vain. And this is the apparent statement of the author, because he said: "regarding a possible future matter". If it is not possible, it does not become binding.
We mentioned that the impossible may be impossible in itself or impossible by other means. Impossible in itself is like if he says, "By Allah, I will kill the dead person." Is this impossible or not?
The questioner : It is impossible.
The Shaykh : It is impossible in itself. Why?
The questioner : Because... .
The Shaykh : Because he is dead, dead, killing does not apply to him at all. And based on this, if someone said, "By Allah, I will kill the dead person," did his oath become binding?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Did his oath become binding?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : His oath does not become binding, according to the author and the madhhab in this issue. Expiation is obligatory upon him immediately, because the realization of his breaking the oath is known, so he must expiate and not wait. He expiates immediately, because killing him is not possible, so he is in a state of breaking the oath immediately, so expiation is obligatory upon him immediately. All right.
If he said, "By Allah, I will kill this dog, alive or dead," a dog that annoys him with barking and does not let him sleep, he said, "By Allah, I will kill this dog, alive or dead."
The questioner : It becomes binding.
The Shaykh : It becomes binding?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : There is a possibility that it is alive.
The Shaykh : It may be alive, and his saying "alive or dead" is from the chapter of confirming the killing of it, clear? We understood the impossible in itself, we gave an example of it. And impossible by custom, as the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said, if he said, "By Allah, I will fly," is this impossible?
The questioner : No, it is not impossible.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is impossible.
The Shaykh : No, it is not impossible in the usual sense, otherwise Allah is capable of making it fly, or is He not? Is He not capable?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And it is also possible at the present time to give it wings and…
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And what else?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and devices; he puts them on his side and walks, or he rides in an airplane, but flying in an airplane must be restricted, so he says, “I fly in an airplane.”
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : In any case, they have classified flying as impossible in the usual sense, yes? Right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What? How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, no, this is not that kind of flying. Well, the important point is: swearing on an impossibility—pay attention—if one swears on an impossibility, does his oath become binding or not? The author’s words indicate that it does not become binding, and the school of thought…
The questioner : …holds that it becomes binding.
The Shaykh : It becomes binding, but if it is regarding its occurrence, he is in breach immediately and the expiation becomes obligatory for him. If it is regarding its non-occurrence, it is mere talk and not binding. Why? Because he swore on a true matter whose existence is impossible. Their example is: they said, “By Allah, I will not kill the dead one.” What do you say?
The questioner : It is mere talk.
The Shaykh : This is correct mere talk; you are not going to kill him, yes? It is not a matter where we say, “Wait, perhaps you will break the oath.” You will never be in breach, so it is mere talk. He said, “By Allah, I will not fly,” and he did not mean “I will not fly in an airplane,” but “I will not fly with my own hands,” meaning.
The questioner : It is mere talk.
The Shaykh : This is also mere talk, because it is the negation of an impossibility, and the negation of an impossibility is a reality whether one swears or not. Well, so it is required that the oath be binding. If you are asked, “What is a binding oath?” you say, “It is the one whose binding was intended.” And what next?
The questioner : On ... .
The Shaykh : It must be regarding a possible future event. Well, if someone asks, “What is the evidence for the requirement of futurity?” we say, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)…
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Did we mention it? We mentioned it, we discussed it. He says: "And three conditions are required for the obligation of expiation". A condition, as we have mentioned more than once, is a sign in language, and in the Shari'ah it is that without which the absence of the conditioned thing is necessary, but with which the presence of the conditioned thing is not necessary. That is, if it is absent, the conditioned thing is absent, either perceptibly, as if it were a perceptible condition, or legally, as if it were a legal condition. For example, prayer without wudu' (ablution): a person might perform a complete prayer with its recitation, bowing, prostration, and glorification, so it exists perceptibly, but it does not exist legally. So a condition is that without which the absence of the conditioned thing is necessary. If it is a legal condition, the absence is legal; if it is a perceptible condition, the absence is perceptible. All right, three conditions are required. And his saying: "for the obligation of expiation", the author (may Allah have mercy on him) informed us that expiation is obligatory. Yes, by the evidence of His saying, the Exalted:
but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave. But whoever cannot find [or afford it] - then a fast of three days [is required]. That is the expiation for oaths when you have sworn. But guard your oaths
وَلكِنْ يُؤاخِذُكُمْ بِما عَقَّدْتُمُ الْأَيْمانَ فَكَفَّارَتُهُ إِطْعامُ عَشَرَةِ مَساكِينَ مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ أَوْ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيامُ ثَلاثَةِ أَيَّامٍ ذلِكَ كَفَّارَةُ أَيْمانِكُمْ إِذا حَلَفْتُمْ وَاحْفَظُوا أَيْمانَكُمْIf you swear an oath, then you see something better than it, then offer expiation for your oath
إذا حلفت على يمين فرأيت غيرها خيرا منها فكفِّر عن يمينكThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, look, all right. And his saying: "expiation". We said that expiation is derived from *kufur*, which means covering. The original rule is that if a person swears an oath, he must complete the oath, because he swore by something great. Its greatness is such that he must fulfill what he swore to, because an oath is actually a confirmation of a thing by the greatness of what is sworn by. So if he violates this confirmation, it is like a reference to violating the greatness of what was sworn by. For this reason, expiation became obligatory. And we said that if Allah had not shown mercy to the servants, it would have been obligatory for whoever swore to something to fulfill it in all cases, except in cases of dire necessity.
He says: "Three conditions. The first is that the oath be binding". A binding oath means one that is established and confirmed, because the establishment of a thing means it is like a knot, fixed and securing what it is tied to. But its legal definition is that a binding oath is one intended to be binding regarding a possible future matter. So a binding oath combines three conditions: first, the intention to bind it; second, regarding a future matter; third, that it is possible. This is the binding oath that combines three conditions. What are they? That it is intended to be binding, regarding a future matter, and that it is possible. All right, so his saying "intended to be binding" indicates that the one swearing must have intention. If he does not have intention, his oath is not considered, like a madman, for example. If a madman swears a thousand times, his oath is not binding, why? Because he has no intention. Likewise, the one with a mental defect, the one with a mental defect has no intention, meaning the old man with dementia, if he swears, he has no intention, so his oath is not binding. Likewise, the drunkard, if he swears.
"By Allah, I will not talk to so-and-so." Is it binding or not?
The questioner : It is not binding.
The Shaykh : Because?
The questioner : He has no intention.
The Shaykh : He has no intention. All right, a man became angry and was very angry, so he swore? Did it become binding? It did not become binding because he had no intention, he did not intend it. All right, a boy below the age of discernment?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Did his oath become binding?
The questioner : It does not become binding.
The Shaykh : It does not become binding. All right, if he is above the age of discernment but below the age of puberty, does it become binding? Yes, the apparent statement of the author is that it becomes binding because he has a correct intention. And it passed by us recently in the book of slaughter that the slaughter of one who has discernment is valid because he has a correct intention. And they mentioned in the chapter of *ila'* (oath to abstain from one's wife) that it is valid from one who has discernment. This is one of the two positions in the madhhab of Imam Ahmad: that it is valid from one who has discernment. The second opinion, which is the madhhab, is that it is not valid except from one who is accountable, and that puberty is required. As for those who said that discernment is sufficient, they cited as evidence His saying, the Exalted:
but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths
ولكن يؤاخذكم بما عقّدتم الأيمانbut He imposes blame upon you for what your hearts have earned
وَلَكِنْ يُؤَاخِذُكُمْ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ قُلُوبُكُمْThe questioner : It becomes binding.
The Shaykh : It becomes binding because in the first case he was not of age, and in the second case he was of age. All right, so the scholars have two opinions regarding one who is above the age of discernment and below the age of puberty. The madhhab is that his oath does not become binding, and the second opinion, which is the apparent statement of the author, is that it becomes binding, and this is the stronger position. The stronger position is that it becomes binding because this is from the chapter of situational rulings accompanied by their causes. It is true that one who is not accountable does not know or understand, but he has a correct intention, as evidenced by the fact that his slaughter is valid. All right.
The second condition is regarding a future matter. If it is regarding the past, it does not become binding, it is not binding. If he said, "By Allah, I did not do such-and-such yesterday," and he had done it, is expiation obligatory upon him?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : It is regarding the past.
The Shaykh : Because it is regarding the past, so there is no expiation upon him. All right, if it is a lie and it is regarding the past, like if he says, "By Allah, I talked to so-and-so yesterday," and he did not talk to them, then there is no breaking of the oath upon him, there is no expiation in it, because it is regarding a past matter. And we say it does not become binding unless it is regarding a future matter. All right, the condition, yes. It will come to us, if Allah wills.
The third condition is that it be regarding a possible matter. All right, the possible matter is the opposite of the impossible matter. The impossible is sometimes impossible in itself, and sometimes impossible by custom, and both are on the same level. So if he swears to an impossible thing, if it is regarding its doing, expiation is obligatory immediately. And if it is regarding its leaving, it is vain, it is vain speech. Yes, a subtle point, let me see. If he swears to an impossible thing, his oath is not binding, so there is no expiation upon him, whether regarding its doing or its leaving, because it is impossible, and the impossible is not subject to expiation. Because the one who swears to the impossible is either regarding its non-existence, and this is vain because it will not be, whether he swore or not, or it is regarding its doing, and this also does not make the oath binding, because it is known that if he swears to it, it will not be, so his swearing to it is a confirmation of it with no basis, because the oath is intended to confirm the doing of what? The thing sworn to. Yes, and this is impossible regarding the impossible, so it is also vain. And this is the apparent statement of the author, because he said: "regarding a possible future matter". If it is not possible, it does not become binding.
We mentioned that the impossible may be impossible in itself or impossible by other means. Impossible in itself is like if he says, "By Allah, I will kill the dead person." Is this impossible or not?
The questioner : It is impossible.
The Shaykh : It is impossible in itself. Why?
The questioner : Because... .
The Shaykh : Because he is dead, dead, killing does not apply to him at all. And based on this, if someone said, "By Allah, I will kill the dead person," did his oath become binding?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Did his oath become binding?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : His oath does not become binding, according to the author and the madhhab in this issue. Expiation is obligatory upon him immediately, because the realization of his breaking the oath is known, so he must expiate and not wait. He expiates immediately, because killing him is not possible, so he is in a state of breaking the oath immediately, so expiation is obligatory upon him immediately. All right.
If he said, "By Allah, I will kill this dog, alive or dead," a dog that annoys him with barking and does not let him sleep, he said, "By Allah, I will kill this dog, alive or dead."
The questioner : It becomes binding.
The Shaykh : It becomes binding?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : There is a possibility that it is alive.
The Shaykh : It may be alive, and his saying "alive or dead" is from the chapter of confirming the killing of it, clear? We understood the impossible in itself, we gave an example of it. And impossible by custom, as the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said, if he said, "By Allah, I will fly," is this impossible?
The questioner : No, it is not impossible.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : It is impossible.
The Shaykh : No, it is not impossible in the usual sense, otherwise Allah is capable of making it fly, or is He not? Is He not capable?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And it is also possible at the present time to give it wings and…
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And what else?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and devices; he puts them on his side and walks, or he rides in an airplane, but flying in an airplane must be restricted, so he says, “I fly in an airplane.”
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : In any case, they have classified flying as impossible in the usual sense, yes? Right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What? How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, no, this is not that kind of flying. Well, the important point is: swearing on an impossibility—pay attention—if one swears on an impossibility, does his oath become binding or not? The author’s words indicate that it does not become binding, and the school of thought…
The questioner : …holds that it becomes binding.
The Shaykh : It becomes binding, but if it is regarding its occurrence, he is in breach immediately and the expiation becomes obligatory for him. If it is regarding its non-occurrence, it is mere talk and not binding. Why? Because he swore on a true matter whose existence is impossible. Their example is: they said, “By Allah, I will not kill the dead one.” What do you say?
The questioner : It is mere talk.
The Shaykh : This is correct mere talk; you are not going to kill him, yes? It is not a matter where we say, “Wait, perhaps you will break the oath.” You will never be in breach, so it is mere talk. He said, “By Allah, I will not fly,” and he did not mean “I will not fly in an airplane,” but “I will not fly with my own hands,” meaning.
The questioner : It is mere talk.
The Shaykh : This is also mere talk, because it is the negation of an impossibility, and the negation of an impossibility is a reality whether one swears or not. Well, so it is required that the oath be binding. If you are asked, “What is a binding oath?” you say, “It is the one whose binding was intended.” And what next?
The questioner : On ... .
The Shaykh : It must be regarding a possible future event. Well, if someone asks, “What is the evidence for the requirement of futurity?” we say, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)…