Explanation of the author's statement: "And whoever says in a sworn oath that entails expiation, 'if Allah wills,' he does not break his oath"

The Shaykh : He said "And whoever says in a sworn oath that entails expiation, 'if Allah wills,' he does not break his oath". Whoever says in his oath... "whoever" is a conditional noun that necessitates a verb, and "he does not break his oath" is the answer to the condition. This includes everyone who swears, meaning any person who swears and says, "if Allah wills, I do not break my oath." Yes, but the author (may Allah have mercy on him) says "whoever says in a sworn oath that entails expiation", meaning an oath that requires expiation, such as an oath by Allah, a vow, or zihar. These are three things, all of which involve expiation. Zihar involves expiation, or does it not? It does. An oath involves expiation, and a vow involves expiation. This excludes divorce; according to the school of thought, divorce does not involve expiation, nor does freeing a slave. Only three things involve expiation. What are they? An oath by Allah, zihar, and a vow. If one says "if Allah wills" in an oath that entails expiation, what does "he does not break his oath" mean? It means he owes no expiation, even if he contradicts what he swore to. For example, in an oath by Allah, if he says, "By Allah, I will not wear this garment, if Allah wills," and then he wears it, he owes nothing because he said "if Allah wills." If he says, "By Allah, I will definitely wear this garment today," and the sun sets and he does not wear it, does he owe anything?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : If he said "if Allah wills"?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Then he owes nothing. The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and another piece of evidence is the story of Sulayman, which is established in the two Sahihs. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said, (peace and blessings be upon him). Look at his love for fighting in the cause of Allah. He swore that he would go around ninety women, each of whom would give birth to a boy who would fight in the cause of Allah. The angel said to him, "Say, 'if Allah wills.'" He did not say "if Allah wills," relying on the strength of his resolve and that he was determined. So Allah (Mighty and Majestic) showed him that the matter is in the hand of Allah. He went around ninety women, meaning he had intercourse with ninety women in one night. What happened? One of them gave birth to half a human being, a half-person, not a complete human. If none of them had given birth to anything, it would be said that there is nothing strange in that. And if each had given birth to a child, it would have been fulfillment of his oath. But Allah (Mighty and Majestic) wanted to show Him His power and that the matter is in His hand, so one gave birth to half a human being. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, meaning if he had said "if Allah wills," Allah would have fulfilled his oath, and the women would have given birth to children who would fight in the cause of Allah. The point is that if a person says "if Allah wills," he does not break his oath, but only in an oath that entails expiation. Regarding a vow, if he says, "If Allah heals my sick person, I have a vow for Allah, if Allah wills," then he owes nothing if he leaves it. Or if he says, "I have a vow for Allah not to speak to so-and-so, if Allah wills," does he break his oath or not?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, because he said "if Allah wills." But there are conditions for it. The first condition is that he says it with his tongue, because the author says "And whoever says", meaning he must say it with his tongue. If he only intends it in his heart, it does not benefit him, because the author says "whoever says". Rather, if he says it, what is the evidence? The evidence is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, and saying is done with the tongue, so if he only intends it, his intention is not considered. The second condition is that it must be connected to his oath, either in reality or in ruling. He says, "By Allah, I will not speak to so-and-so today, if Allah wills," continuously. This is a real connection, or is it not? Good. Or in ruling, he says, "By Allah, I will not wear this garment," and then he starts sneezing. He sneezed for a quarter of an hour. When it subsided, he said, "if Allah wills." Is this connected in reality or in ruling?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Is it? This is in ruling, because a preventer stopped the connection of the speech, but in reality it is connected. When the preventer is removed, he says this exception.
The third condition is that he intends the exception before the completion of the thing from which the exception is made. That is, he intends to say "if Allah wills" before the completion of the thing from which the exception is made. He says, "By Allah, I will definitely wear this garment, if Allah wills." He must intend "if Allah wills" before he pronounces the letter "ba" of "garment." That is, he must intend it before the completion of the thing from which the exception is made. If he intends it after, it is not considered. Good.
The fourth condition, is it?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The condition, what is it?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Clear. This is a man who said, "By Allah, I will definitely wear this garment," and he did not have the intention to say "if Allah wills." Another person with a loud voice said "if Allah wills," and the first one did not intend it, but he said "garment" and intended to say "if Allah wills," and he said "if Allah wills." So the intention here did not occur until after the completion of the thing from which the exception is made. Clear. But if he said, "By Allah, I will definitely wear this garment," and before he completed the word "garment," he intended to say "if Allah wills," and he said "if Allah wills," then he does not break his oath. Good. These are three things. Yes.
Good, now we look at... the conditions. Now, he must say it with his tongue, and intention is not sufficient. The second is that it must be connected, either in reality or in ruling. The third is that he must intend it before the completion of the thing from which the exception is made, meaning before the completion of what is conditioned by the will.
The fourth is that he intends to condition it by the will. Because the one who says "if Allah wills" sometimes says it for seeking blessing, or he is determined. And sometimes he says it for conditioning, meaning as if he is saying, "I will do this if Allah wills," meaning if Allah does not will it, I will not do it. So there is a difference between the one who intends conditioning and the one who intends affirmation and seeking blessing. The one who intends affirmation, when he says "if Allah wills," wants to affirm the matter, or he says "if Allah wills" for the sake of seeking blessing by conditioning it with the will of Allah. And the one who intends conditioning intends that the occurrence of this thing be by the will of Allah. The scholars distinguish between this and that, and they say, the statement of the school of thought is that he intends by it what? The fourth condition is that he intends this conditioning. If he intends seeking blessing or affirmation, it does not have an effect. Good. Now we return to the evidence. What is the evidence that he must pronounce it?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The evidence is the hadith and in the hadith of Sulayman this is the evidence. Good. The second condition is that it must be connected. They said that if it is disconnected, it becomes foreign speech with no connection to the first speech, so at that time it does not restrict the first speech. It does not become a restriction for it, because for example, if you say, "By Allah, I will definitely wear this garment," this is not restricted. If you say "if Allah wills," it becomes restricted. They say, since we have a restrictor and a restricted thing, the restrictor must be connected to the restricted thing, otherwise it is foreign to it. Good.
His intention before the completion of the thing from which the exception is made. They say because if you say, "By Allah, I will definitely wear this garment," without intention, the speech that the exception entered is, according to your intention, absolute or not absolute? Absolute. Until now, you have not intended to introduce restriction into it. So if you introduce restriction into it, this restriction does not abrogate what came before. That is, it does not make the speech that was completed as absolute into restricted. Do you understand now or not? You did not understand. Good. I said, "By Allah, I will definitely wear this garment." Is the speech absolute or not absolute?

The questioner : Absolute.

The Shaykh : Absolute. He did not say "if Allah wills," and then when I finished it, I immediately said "if Allah wills," but I did not intend it until that moment... the speech was not completed.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Now the restriction entered after the first sentence was completed and it was absolute. So the restriction does not remove the previous absoluteness, because that was completed and you did not intend absoluteness with it; you did not intend restriction. And the hadith is and you intended the first speech without restriction. So if you introduce restriction after the first one is completed, it is not valid. Do you know this? Is it clear now or not?

The questioner : Clear.

The Shaykh : Good. The fourth is that he intends conditioning, because if he intends affirmation or seeking blessing, it is not intended except to confirm and stabilize the thing. The intended conditioning that has an effect is that you return the matter to whom? To the will of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So if you did not intend by it to return the matter to the will, but you intended by the will to stabilize the matter and strengthen the matter, this does not have an effect. This is what they held. Some of it has evidence, and some of it is in the reasoning. The correct view is that only pronunciation is required, and connection is not as they said. Connection is such that the end of the speech is attributed to its beginning by custom. So if the end is attributed to the beginning by custom, this is correct, and the exception is valid. And our evidence for that is first that the angel said to Sulayman after he finished the sentence, he said to him, "Say, 'if Allah wills.'" Did Sulayman intend the exception before or not?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : He did not intend it, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: He did not break his oath. This is a text as explicit as it can be that intention is not a condition; intention is not required. Now, regarding continuity? The continuity is in the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) sermon in the year of the Conquest, where he mentioned Mecca and its sanctity, stating that its grass should not be uprooted and its herbs should not be cut. He mentioned this and then said, and after that, al-‘Abbas said: “Except for the ishkhar, O Messenger of Allah, for it is for their houses and their fuel.” He then said: And this was after a statement that was separate from the first. Was it separated by necessity, or was it separated without necessity?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : It was separated without necessity. The Messenger was speaking, and there was no coughing, sneezing, or anything else. Did the Messenger intend the exception or not? He did not intend it. This indicates that it is not a condition. If a man swore to you, for example, that you would do something, and you said, “I say, if Allah wills,” but you did not actually say “if Allah wills,” it is clear. If he said, “I will not say it,” it is clear. But if he said “if Allah wills” after you told him to, does it benefit him according to the stronger opinion, or does it not benefit him according to the school of thought? The stronger opinion is that it benefits him, as in the story of Sulayman (peace be upon him).