Continuation of the explanation of the author's statement: "And it is recommended to break an oath if doing so is better"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : His father said to him, "My son, fear Allah. Do not wear a garment that hangs below the ankles." He said, "By Allah, I will wear a garment that reaches the ground."
The questioner : ... obligatory.
The Shaykh : Is breaking the oath obligatory?
The questioner : It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes, breaking the oath is obligatory because by breaking it, he abandons the forbidden. Now, the opposite is the opposite. If it were ... because some people criticize their children when they raise their garments above the ankles, saying, "You must let them hang below the ankles, or I will boycott you." This exists; it is not something obligatory. This exists. Now.
He said, "By Allah, I will not wear a garment that hangs below the ankles." What is the ruling on breaking the oath?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Oh, glory to Allah. By Allah, I will not wear it. If he wore it.
The questioner : It is forbidden.
The Shaykh : Breaking the oath is forbidden because if he breaks it, he falls into?
The questioner : The forbidden.
The Shaykh : The forbidden. Now, fine. We understood the evidence from the Sunnah, from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) obligating one to do what is better if he swore an oath and saw something else better than it, and from his statement to 'Abd al-Rahman ibn SamurahSunan an-Nasa'i 3784Sahih (Darussalam) The author said, right? Yes, because the opposite of good is not good. This is derived from that. Yes, it is not forbidden because the original ruling regarding breaking an oath is permissibility, and this is doing something disliked. The most that happens if he breaks it is that he does something disliked, that is all. Yes, we mentioned the classification where we said that good is either obligatory or voluntary, and not good is either forbidden or disliked, and they are not equal ... and the permissible. Now, we remain with fulfilling the oath other than breaking it, because breaking it comes from the one who swore, but the breaking of another person's oath means that someone swears upon me. Is it better that I fulfill his oath or what? We say it is better that you fulfill his oath. In fact, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that this is a right of a Muslim over a Muslim: fulfilling the oath of the one who swore. So if your brother swears upon you, it is his right over you that you fulfill his oath. And of course, this is provided there is no harm to you. If there is harm to you, then it is not obligatory for you. If he said, "By Allah, you will tell me how much money you have? And how many dependents you have? And how you treat your family? Yes, and when you sleep and when you wake up," he swore upon you by Allah the Most High, the Majestic, that you tell him. Is it obligatory for him?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory for him. Perhaps it is forbidden in secret matters that one cannot inform anyone about. But the thing that does not harm you, you are commanded to fulfill his oath, right? As for what benefits your brother, it becomes even more emphasized in that. If it involves removing harm from him, then it is obligatory. The important point is that the original ruling regarding fulfilling the oath of the one who swore is that it is prescribed and that it is a right of a Muslim over a Muslim. And it may be accompanied by something that makes it prohibited or something that makes it obligatory. But does the expiation become obligatory upon the one who broke the oath or upon the one who swore? Right? Upon the one who swore. Meaning, if you obeyed the oath of the one who swore and did not fulfill it, the expiation is upon him because he is the one who swore, and the expiation is attached to whom? To the one who swore. So if the one who swore said, "You are the one who broke my oath and caused the expiation to become obligatory upon me, so the expiation is upon you because the one who causes it is like the one who does it directly." We have a principle that passed us in retaliation: the one who causes it is like the one who does it directly. You are the one who caused it. He says, "No, you are a direct cause." Or not? You are a direct cause from the one who swore? You. And who did it? You. Or not? I did not do anything except what is a condition for the obligation of the expiation, which is breaking the oath. But the original cause is you. It is true that I directly broke the oath and did what I swore not to do, but this direct action is based on a cause that is in reality a direct action, because the one who swore is the one who caused the obligation of the expiation upon himself. Now. Shall we take a lesson?
The questioner : ... obligatory.
The Shaykh : Is breaking the oath obligatory?
The questioner : It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : Yes, breaking the oath is obligatory because by breaking it, he abandons the forbidden. Now, the opposite is the opposite. If it were ... because some people criticize their children when they raise their garments above the ankles, saying, "You must let them hang below the ankles, or I will boycott you." This exists; it is not something obligatory. This exists. Now.
He said, "By Allah, I will not wear a garment that hangs below the ankles." What is the ruling on breaking the oath?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Oh, glory to Allah. By Allah, I will not wear it. If he wore it.
The questioner : It is forbidden.
The Shaykh : Breaking the oath is forbidden because if he breaks it, he falls into?
The questioner : The forbidden.
The Shaykh : The forbidden. Now, fine. We understood the evidence from the Sunnah, from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) obligating one to do what is better if he swore an oath and saw something else better than it, and from his statement to 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Samurah
If you swear an oath, then you see something better than it, then offer expiation for your oath, and do that which is better.
إذا حلفت على يمين فرأيت غيرها خيرا منها فكفّر عن يمينك وائت الذي هو خيرThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is not obligatory for him. Perhaps it is forbidden in secret matters that one cannot inform anyone about. But the thing that does not harm you, you are commanded to fulfill his oath, right? As for what benefits your brother, it becomes even more emphasized in that. If it involves removing harm from him, then it is obligatory. The important point is that the original ruling regarding fulfilling the oath of the one who swore is that it is prescribed and that it is a right of a Muslim over a Muslim. And it may be accompanied by something that makes it prohibited or something that makes it obligatory. But does the expiation become obligatory upon the one who broke the oath or upon the one who swore? Right? Upon the one who swore. Meaning, if you obeyed the oath of the one who swore and did not fulfill it, the expiation is upon him because he is the one who swore, and the expiation is attached to whom? To the one who swore. So if the one who swore said, "You are the one who broke my oath and caused the expiation to become obligatory upon me, so the expiation is upon you because the one who causes it is like the one who does it directly." We have a principle that passed us in retaliation: the one who causes it is like the one who does it directly. You are the one who caused it. He says, "No, you are a direct cause." Or not? You are a direct cause from the one who swore? You. And who did it? You. Or not? I did not do anything except what is a condition for the obligation of the expiation, which is breaking the oath. But the original cause is you. It is true that I directly broke the oath and did what I swore not to do, but this direct action is based on a cause that is in reality a direct action, because the one who swore is the one who caused the obligation of the expiation upon himself. Now. Shall we take a lesson?