Explanation of the Author's Statement: "Chapter: The One Who Is Bound by the Expiation of an Oath Is Given a Choice"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : A chapter on the expiation of an oath. He said, "The one who is bound by the expiation of an oath is given a choice" to the end of it. "Is given a choice"—and what is the meaning of "is given a choice"? It means he does.
The questioner : Whatever he wishes.
The Shaykh : Whatever he wishes; he is given a choice between the two better options. And if it is said that there is a choice, is it a choice of desire and inclination, or is it a choice of benefit?
The questioner : The first.
The Shaykh : There is a distinction. If the purpose is to make things easy for the one obligated, then it is a choice of desire and inclination. If the purpose is to consider the benefit, then it is a choice of benefit. Pay attention to this. Allah the Exalted gave the one who breaks an oath a choice between these matters. Why? For the sake of benefit, or for the sake of making things easy and facilitating? For the sake of making things easy and facilitating, as indicated by His saying,[Al-Baqarah 2:196] If it is for the sake of facilitating and making things easy, then I do what is easier and simpler for me. And the Exalted said regarding the ransom for harm, [Al-Baqarah 2:196] Is this a choice of benefit, or of inclination?
The questioner : Inclination.
The Shaykh : Inclination and desire, meaning... do what you wish, even if the benefit lies in slaughtering the sheep, you are not obligated to do so. The matter is left to you,[Al-Ma'idah 5:33] Right?
The questioner : Benefit.
The Shaykh : A choice of benefit, according to the view that it is for the sake of choice, because some scholars say the verse is for the sake of variety, and some say it is for the sake of choice. But according to the view of... choice, it is a choice of benefit, meaning one follows what is better and more deterrent. Yes, okay. If it is said to the guardian of an orphan, "You have the choice between lending his money, investing it in a profit-sharing partnership, or keeping it with you," then the choice here is?
The questioner : Benefit.
The Shaykh : Benefit. The evidence is[Al-An'am 6:152] , is that clear? Okay, we now understand the rule. If a person is given a choice between two things or several things, and the purpose of the choice is to make things easy, then the choice is?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Inclination and desire. And if the purpose is benefit, then it is a choice of benefit. So, based on this rule, everyone who is given a choice between two things and is acting on behalf of someone else, their choice is?
The questioner : Benefit.
The Shaykh : Benefit, not inclination. Yes, that is right.
He said "is given a choice." The choice that we have, which category does it fall under?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Inclination. Yes. "The one who is bound by the expiation of an oath." Look at the precision of the expression: "the one who is bound by it." And when is it binding? When the previous conditions are met. How many previous conditions are there?
The questioner : Three.
The Shaykh : Three conditions, according to the author. We added a fourth. Okay. The one who is bound by the expiation of an oath, between feeding... to the end. So a man said, "By Allah, Zayd will come tomorrow," but he did not come.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : According to the school of thought, the expiation is binding on him. And according to the stronger view?
The questioner : He is not required to do so.
The Shaykh : It is not binding on him, because he is reporting what he strongly believes to be the case. A man said to his brother at the door, "By Allah, you will enter." "Enter, I will not enter." He said, "No, you enter. By Allah, you will enter." The other refused. "I will never enter... if I go back, I will not enter before you." Does the one who swore break his oath? Is the expiation binding on him?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes. Okay. He intended the oath, he intended to make it, right?
The questioner : It is binding on him.
The Shaykh : Is the expiation binding on him? There is disagreement on this issue. The well-known view in the school of thought is that the expiation is binding on him because he intended the oath, swore it, and broke his oath. The second view is that it is not binding on him if his intention was to honor the other person, because the honor was achieved through his oath. So his saying, "By Allah, you will enter," is like his saying, "By Allah, I am honoring you." This is the intended meaning, because he had no goal in having him enter before him except to honor him. So it is as if he swore to the honor that was achieved. They said that on this basis, the story of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is derived, when he presented food to the guests. They said, "Guests, eat, you." He said, "By Allah, I will not eat," said Abu Bakr. They said to his wife, "Eat." She said, "By Allah, I will not eat." The guests said, "By Allah, we will not eat." They all swore. Yes. So Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "This is from Satan. I am the one who will eat." So Abu Bakr stepped forward and ate, and they ate after that. When morning came, they went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and informed him. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Abu Bakr, Yes. And he did not order him to perform the expiation. The scholars differed on this hadith. Some said he did not order him to do it because the expiation is known, and here Abu Bakr's action is from the category of breaking an oath if it is for good. He broke the oath because it was better, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Samurah, Sunan an-Nasa'i 3784Sahih (Darussalam) So this is from the category of what? Breaking the oath for good. Does the expiation drop because of this, or does it not drop?
The questioner : It does not drop.
The Shaykh : It does not drop. And some scholars said this is not actually breaking the oath, because Abu Bakr did not intend to compel them to do so, but rather intended to honor them with it. He only intended honor, and the honor was achieved. Then, did those who refused to eat intend to make him break his oath, or to honor him?
The questioner : To honor him.
The Shaykh : They intended to honor him as well. So the honor was achieved from both sides. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). He said that breaking the oath, in its name, is a sin. So Abu Bakr did not intend to compel them, and they did not intend to make Abu Bakr break his oath. Each of them intended honor, and the honor was achieved. Was it achieved or not?
The questioner : It was achieved.
The Shaykh : It was achieved. So in that case, there is no breaking of the oath. And there is no doubt that the hadith of Abu Bakr is clear in its indication of what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose. And in reality, it provides relief for people. Does this view provide relief for people, or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Because people always swear these oaths. Yes. But if the intention was to compel, then if the intention was to compel, it is clear that he breaks the oath. Yes. For example, some people are harsh. If you pour them two cups of tea and say, "Just one," yes, you say, "Drink." He says, "I am full." "Drink, or with this stick." Yes. Is this compulsion or not?
The questioner : Compulsion.
The Shaykh : Compulsion. And for this reason, it is said that a man from the Bedouins came to a person and poured him tea. The Bedouin drank three or four cups and his desire was satisfied, and he said, "That's enough, just one." He said, "No, take this, O son of al-Halal. Take this." He took one and drank it and said, "Just one." He drank one and said, "Just one." He said, "No, O man, this will not harm you." He took it, finished the cup, and said to him, "Just one." He said, "It is not obligatory on you." "Is it obligatory on me?" "It is obligatory on you," and he had a club. Do you know a club? Yes. He said, "I am the father of so-and-so." The Bedouin struck him. "I am the father of so-and-so. By Allah, I did not carry this except out of the oppression of men." Yes. Then he hit him on the head. Yes. Because this man, in reality, compelled him with severe compulsion. Do we say he intended compulsion, or honor?
The questioner : Honor.
The Shaykh : Or say, did he intend honor or coercion?
The questioner : Honor.
The Shaykh : Okay. In any case, we now understand that some scholars say if the intention of the oath is not compulsion, then he does not break the oath by contradicting it. Why? They said because the honor was achieved, so his oath is as if he is saying, "By Allah, I am honoring you with this," and it has been completed. And for this reason, he says "the one who is bound by it" to be cautious from where? From those on whom it is not binding. Okay. Between feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, or freeing a slave. The grammarians criticized the jurists for the word "or" in this place, and said that "or" does not fit with the choice. And they should have said, "He is given a choice between feeding ten poor people, and clothing them, and freeing a slave." And one should not argue with the noble verse, because the noble verse says, "Its expiation is feeding, or such and such," and the choice in it does not have "is given a choice." So "or" does not need us to bring it, because if we bring it, we combine the verb indicating choice with the particle indicating choice, and there is no need for that. But some grammarians said that this is permissible and acceptable, and "or" here means "and," and there is no harm in using it. Yes?
The questioner : Whatever he wishes.
The Shaykh : Whatever he wishes; he is given a choice between the two better options. And if it is said that there is a choice, is it a choice of desire and inclination, or is it a choice of benefit?
The questioner : The first.
The Shaykh : There is a distinction. If the purpose is to make things easy for the one obligated, then it is a choice of desire and inclination. If the purpose is to consider the benefit, then it is a choice of benefit. Pay attention to this. Allah the Exalted gave the one who breaks an oath a choice between these matters. Why? For the sake of benefit, or for the sake of making things easy and facilitating? For the sake of making things easy and facilitating, as indicated by His saying,
And whoever cannot find
فمن لم يجد فصيامa ransom of fasting [three days] or charity or sacrifice
ففدية من صيام أو صدقة أو نسكThe questioner : Inclination.
The Shaykh : Inclination and desire, meaning... do what you wish, even if the benefit lies in slaughtering the sheep, you are not obligated to do so. The matter is left to you,
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land
إِنَّما جَزاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَساداً أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلافٍ أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِThe questioner : Benefit.
The Shaykh : A choice of benefit, according to the view that it is for the sake of choice, because some scholars say the verse is for the sake of variety, and some say it is for the sake of choice. But according to the view of... choice, it is a choice of benefit, meaning one follows what is better and more deterrent. Yes, okay. If it is said to the guardian of an orphan, "You have the choice between lending his money, investing it in a profit-sharing partnership, or keeping it with you," then the choice here is?
The questioner : Benefit.
The Shaykh : Benefit. The evidence is
And do not approach the orphan's property except in a way that is best
ولا تقربوا مال اليتيم إلا بالتي هي أحسنThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Inclination and desire. And if the purpose is benefit, then it is a choice of benefit. So, based on this rule, everyone who is given a choice between two things and is acting on behalf of someone else, their choice is?
The questioner : Benefit.
The Shaykh : Benefit, not inclination. Yes, that is right.
He said "is given a choice." The choice that we have, which category does it fall under?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Inclination. Yes. "The one who is bound by the expiation of an oath." Look at the precision of the expression: "the one who is bound by it." And when is it binding? When the previous conditions are met. How many previous conditions are there?
The questioner : Three.
The Shaykh : Three conditions, according to the author. We added a fourth. Okay. The one who is bound by the expiation of an oath, between feeding... to the end. So a man said, "By Allah, Zayd will come tomorrow," but he did not come.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : According to the school of thought, the expiation is binding on him. And according to the stronger view?
The questioner : He is not required to do so.
The Shaykh : It is not binding on him, because he is reporting what he strongly believes to be the case. A man said to his brother at the door, "By Allah, you will enter." "Enter, I will not enter." He said, "No, you enter. By Allah, you will enter." The other refused. "I will never enter... if I go back, I will not enter before you." Does the one who swore break his oath? Is the expiation binding on him?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes. Okay. He intended the oath, he intended to make it, right?
The questioner : It is binding on him.
The Shaykh : Is the expiation binding on him? There is disagreement on this issue. The well-known view in the school of thought is that the expiation is binding on him because he intended the oath, swore it, and broke his oath. The second view is that it is not binding on him if his intention was to honor the other person, because the honor was achieved through his oath. So his saying, "By Allah, you will enter," is like his saying, "By Allah, I am honoring you." This is the intended meaning, because he had no goal in having him enter before him except to honor him. So it is as if he swore to the honor that was achieved. They said that on this basis, the story of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is derived, when he presented food to the guests. They said, "Guests, eat, you." He said, "By Allah, I will not eat," said Abu Bakr. They said to his wife, "Eat." She said, "By Allah, I will not eat." The guests said, "By Allah, we will not eat." They all swore. Yes. So Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "This is from Satan. I am the one who will eat." So Abu Bakr stepped forward and ate, and they ate after that. When morning came, they went to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and informed him. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Abu Bakr,
You are the best of them and the most righteous of them.
أنت خيرُهم وأبرّهمIf 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 : It does not drop.
The Shaykh : It does not drop. And some scholars said this is not actually breaking the oath, because Abu Bakr did not intend to compel them to do so, but rather intended to honor them with it. He only intended honor, and the honor was achieved. Then, did those who refused to eat intend to make him break his oath, or to honor him?
The questioner : To honor him.
The Shaykh : They intended to honor him as well. So the honor was achieved from both sides. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). He said that breaking the oath, in its name, is a sin. So Abu Bakr did not intend to compel them, and they did not intend to make Abu Bakr break his oath. Each of them intended honor, and the honor was achieved. Was it achieved or not?
The questioner : It was achieved.
The Shaykh : It was achieved. So in that case, there is no breaking of the oath. And there is no doubt that the hadith of Abu Bakr is clear in its indication of what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose. And in reality, it provides relief for people. Does this view provide relief for people, or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Because people always swear these oaths. Yes. But if the intention was to compel, then if the intention was to compel, it is clear that he breaks the oath. Yes. For example, some people are harsh. If you pour them two cups of tea and say, "Just one," yes, you say, "Drink." He says, "I am full." "Drink, or with this stick." Yes. Is this compulsion or not?
The questioner : Compulsion.
The Shaykh : Compulsion. And for this reason, it is said that a man from the Bedouins came to a person and poured him tea. The Bedouin drank three or four cups and his desire was satisfied, and he said, "That's enough, just one." He said, "No, take this, O son of al-Halal. Take this." He took one and drank it and said, "Just one." He drank one and said, "Just one." He said, "No, O man, this will not harm you." He took it, finished the cup, and said to him, "Just one." He said, "It is not obligatory on you." "Is it obligatory on me?" "It is obligatory on you," and he had a club. Do you know a club? Yes. He said, "I am the father of so-and-so." The Bedouin struck him. "I am the father of so-and-so. By Allah, I did not carry this except out of the oppression of men." Yes. Then he hit him on the head. Yes. Because this man, in reality, compelled him with severe compulsion. Do we say he intended compulsion, or honor?
The questioner : Honor.
The Shaykh : Or say, did he intend honor or coercion?
The questioner : Honor.
The Shaykh : Okay. In any case, we now understand that some scholars say if the intention of the oath is not compulsion, then he does not break the oath by contradicting it. Why? They said because the honor was achieved, so his oath is as if he is saying, "By Allah, I am honoring you with this," and it has been completed. And for this reason, he says "the one who is bound by it" to be cautious from where? From those on whom it is not binding. Okay. Between feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, or freeing a slave. The grammarians criticized the jurists for the word "or" in this place, and said that "or" does not fit with the choice. And they should have said, "He is given a choice between feeding ten poor people, and clothing them, and freeing a slave." And one should not argue with the noble verse, because the noble verse says, "Its expiation is feeding, or such and such," and the choice in it does not have "is given a choice." So "or" does not need us to bring it, because if we bring it, we combine the verb indicating choice with the particle indicating choice, and there is no need for that. But some grammarians said that this is permissible and acceptable, and "or" here means "and," and there is no harm in using it. Yes?