Explanation of the author's statement: "And whoever forbids something lawful other than his wife, whether a slave woman, food, clothing, or anything else, has not forbidden it"

The Shaykh : He said "And whoever forbids something lawful other than his wife, whether a slave woman, food, clothing, or anything else, has not forbidden it". Yes, and he is obligated to pay the expiation for an oath if he does it. Yes, whoever forbids... "Whoever" here is a conditional noun that necessitates the verb; the verb in the condition is "forbids" and its response is "has not forbidden." The one who forbids what Allah has made lawful. Yes, this is divided into several categories: it can be initiating, reporting, or abstaining. Three categories: initiating, reporting, and abstaining. If he is initiating, this may lead to disbelief. If he says, "This thing that Allah has forbidden, I say it is lawful, and I do not agree that it is forbidden," yes, this may lead to disbelief. When does it lead to disbelief? When he treats as permissible what is forbidden in the religion by necessity, such as if he treats intoxicants, unlawful sexual intercourse, or theft as permissible, or the like.
He said, "Unlawful sexual intercourse is lawful," yes, or as is mentioned regarding al-Ma'arri regarding intoxicants, he says: "If it was ever forbidden in the religion of Ahmad, *** then take it in the religion of Jesus, son of Mary".
I seek refuge in Allah. This makes him a disbeliever. And if he forbids something on which there is no consensus of prohibition, then if it is through independent legal reasoning, he has the ruling of those who exercise independent legal reasoning, and if it is through stubbornness, he is in danger. Who is this? Who is this? What is the ruling of whom?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : We said there are three categories.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The one who initiates the prohibition, the one who reports the prohibition. This is either truthful or a liar, that is all. For example, if he says, "Allah has forbidden this." He is not saying, "I forbid it" or initiating its prohibition. He says, "This is forbidden," meaning he reports that Allah has forbidden it. So either we say he is truthful or a liar, or what? We look: if Allah has forbidden it, ah, then his statement is truthful. And if Allah has not forbidden it, we say you lied. And it is narrated from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and him) that if a man says to his wife, "You are forbidden to me," say to him, "You lied." And this is understood as what? As him being a reporter. He says, "This is not correct, she is not forbidden, Allah has made her lawful for you." Did you understand this? Good.
The third, the third category, is that he forbids the thing by preventing himself from it or abstaining from it. The two meanings are one, the two words are one. So, initiating, reporting, and abstaining. Meaning he intended only abstention. This last one is what the author (may Allah have mercy on him) intends in this statement. Did you understand? Good.
If a person forbids a lawful thing with this intention, meaning with the intention of what? Abstention. Does it become forbidden? No, it does not become forbidden. If he says, "It is forbidden for me that I eat your food," "It is forbidden for me that I eat your food," we say: is the food lawful for you or not? What is his intention? His intention is to abstain from eating it, and prohibition is prevented. We say this does not become forbidden, but he is obligated to pay the expiation for an oath if he does it. Pay attention, O servant of Allah, the group stood up to give the call to prayer, ..., good. This does not become forbidden, but if he does it, he is obligated to pay the expiation for an oath. The evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: يا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ تَبْتَغِي مَرْضاتَ أَزْواجِكَ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ 1 قَدْ فَرَضَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ تَحِلَّةَ أَيْمانِكُمْ O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the pleasure of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. 1 Allah has prescribed for you the release from your oaths..
It is expiated before the violation, meaning it is expiated before the violation. And it is called a release because the person released himself from it when he expiated. For example, before I expiate, it is not lawful for me to do it unless I perform the expiation after I violate the oath. But now, when I have performed the expiation, the oath is dissolved. There is no oath at all. And for this reason, we say performing the expiation before the violation is a release, and after the violation it is an expiation. Did you understand? Performing the expiation before the violation is a release, and after it is an expiation. Good.
This is a man who said, "It is forbidden for me to forbid the honey for which he came down," . His story is famous in the exegesis of this verse in Ibn Kathir and others. He forbade honey for himself and said, "I will not return to drinking honey." So Allah said to him: . Good.
The author said: "other than his wife". "Other than" is a tool of exception, meaning that whoever forbids something lawful other than the wife. Is the wife lawful for a man or not?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Lawful, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: , meaning their wives. So the wife is undoubtedly lawful. The author says that the wife is not like the ruling of others. What is the ruling? Forbidding the wife is zihar. The well-known view in the school of jurisprudence is zihar, and zihar is more severe than others. How is that? Because zihar, first, Allah the Exalted described it as an ugly statement and a lie. It is ugly because it is forbidden, and a lie because it is falsehood. The manner of zihar is that a man says to his wife, "You are to me like the back of my mother." This is zihar. And in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, they used to make zihar a final divorce like the three divorces. So Allah, Glorified and Exalted, clarified that this ruling is an invalid ruling and made the expiation for the one who commits zihar severe, which is freeing a slave. If he does not find one, then fasting two consecutive months. If he cannot do that, then feeding sixty poor people. Good. This is a severe expiation, and despite that, it is not lawful for him to touch his wife, to have intercourse with her, until he expiates, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: . And Allah explicitly stated this condition in freeing and fasting, and was silent about it in feeding. So the scholars differed regarding feeding: is it permissible to touch the wife from whom zihar was pronounced before feeding, or is it not permissible until he feeds? They differed on this in two opinions. And it has come before us that the well-known view in the Hanbali school, and the opinion of most scholars, is that he does not touch her until?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Until he feeds.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, good. So, what is the ruling of forbidding the wife?

The questioner : Zihar.

The Shaykh : Zihar. Its ruling is that it is zihar. Did you understand? So if a man says to his wife, "You are forbidden to me," he has committed zihar. The wife does not become forbidden, but he does not have intercourse with her until he expiates. Good. And if he says, "If I do such and such, then my wife is forbidden to me," ah?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : If he did it, it became zihar. Meaning, according to the school of jurisprudence, there is no difference between making it a form of oath or making the prohibition absolute. Both have the ruling of zihar. That is, whether he conditioned her prohibition on a condition or did not condition her prohibition on a condition, it is zihar. Are you understanding now?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Good. Conditioning on a condition sometimes takes the course of an oath and sometimes is a pure condition. In the name of Allah, clear? Ah?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Sometimes it takes the course of an oath and sometimes it is a pure condition. The pure condition is one in which the person has no intention, such as if he says, "If the sun rises, then my wife is forbidden to me." Is this a pure condition or not?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : A pure condition. What takes the course of an oath is that he intends by it to emphasize the prohibition. Emphasis or what?

The questioner : Emphasis.

The Shaykh : Emphasis is more eloquent. Allah the Exalted said: . That he intends to emphasize the prohibition, such as if he says, "If I speak to so-and-so, then my wife is forbidden to me." This is not like their saying, "If the sun rises, then my wife is forbidden to me," or is it?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Because his intention here is not to speak to this man. So this conditioning takes the course of an oath. Is Muhammad with us?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Good. As for prohibition without a condition, that is to say, "You are forbidden to me." All three categories, according to the school of jurisprudence, have the ruling of zihar. Good. This is the established position of the school in this issue. And the correct view is that forbidding the wife is like others, and its ruling is the ruling of an oath, due to the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted: . So if someone says, "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only forbade honey," the answer is that the consideration is the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the cause. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, did not say, "O Prophet, why did you forbid honey?" He said: . And what is this in terms of forms?

The questioner : Generality.

The Shaykh : Generality. So it includes the wife as well. So if he says, "You are forbidden to me," saying it to his wife, it is an oath. If he has intercourse with her, he is obligated to pay the expiation for an oath only. And he may perform the expiation before, and it becomes a release, or after, and it becomes the expiation. Did you understand? Yes, yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : A subtle point, my brother. So if a person forbids his wife, it is an oath due to the generality of the verse we mentioned. Clear? Good. And this is supported by the saying of Allah the Exalted: . And ila' is in reality to swear that he will not have intercourse with his wife. And this is in the meaning of prohibition. And despite that, he is obligated to pay the expiation. If he says, "I intended by my saying she is forbidden to me that I intended divorce," we say: if you intended divorce, then this wording is capable of this intention. It is capable because the divorced woman is forbidden to her husband, even if she is in the waiting period, so she is not like wives. So if you intended by this wording, which is suitable for separation, that you intended divorce, it became a divorce, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . Good.
If he says, "I intended by it zihar, and I intended that you are forbidden to me like the prohibition of my mother," meaning he did not utter it, but this is my intention, we say:

The questioner : It is zihar.

The Shaykh : It is zihar, because the wording is absolute and the intention qualified it. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . So if he says, "I said you are forbidden to me, and I did not intend divorce, nor zihar, nor an oath."

The questioner : right.

The Shaykh : It is considered an oath because this is what the unrestricted wording implies. So if it is stated without qualification, it is an oath. Thus, the one who says to his wife, "You are forbidden to me," has four possibilities: that he intends zihar, that he intends divorce, that he intends an oath, or that he intends nothing.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : All right, if he intends zihar.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Or divorce.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Or an oath.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Clear.