Explanation of the author's statement: "And if their causes differ, such as zihar and an oath by Allah, both are binding upon him and they do not merge."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And if their causes differ" The cause of oaths, and the thing that becomes obligatory, is the expiation. "If their causes differ, such as zihar and an oath by Allah, both are binding upon him and they do not merge". Yes, it is known that the expiation for zihar is different from the expiation for an oath. So if an expiation for an oath and an expiation for zihar become binding upon him, is it obligatory for him to expiate for the oath with a complete expiation and for the zihar with a complete expiation, or can he merge one into the other?
The questioner : The first.
The Shaykh : The first option, due to the difference in the obligatory thing. An example of this is a man who said, "By Allah, I will not speak to so-and-so," or in a lesser expression, "By Allah, I will not speak to my wife," and she is to him like the back of his mother. In this case, there is an oath and zihar. The man intends to return. We say: upon you is an expiation for the oath and upon you is an expiation for the zihar. Fine, he says, "I want to free a slave for both."
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, does freeing a slave suffice?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, one slave or two slaves?
The questioner : Two slaves.
The Shaykh : Fine, he says the cause is one, so now it is one slave. We say: but the criterion is the basis of the expiation. And on this basis, if he wanted to free a slave for both, it would not be valid. Fine, he says, "As for me, I will fast. I will fast for sixty days, two consecutive months, and I intend that three of the two months be for the oath and the zihar." Does this suffice or not?
The questioner : It is not sufficient.
The Shaykh : It does not suffice. Meaning, within them, he says it is not possible for them to merge. He says, "I will feed sixty poor people if I am unable to fast. I will feed sixty poor people and intend that ten of the poor people be for the zihar and the oath."
The questioner : It is not sufficient.
The Shaykh : It does not suffice, and the reason is the difference in the obligatory thing. Yes, and on this basis, if it is asked, "What is an example of this?" or "On what is this analogized?" they say: it is like the minor ritual impurity and the major ritual impurity. According to the school of thought, the minor ritual impurity is not removed by the intention of removing the major ritual impurity alone; one must intend with his bath to remove both impurities. And on this basis, we say that for this man who said, "By Allah, I will not speak to my wife," and she is to him like the back of his mother, if he returns, two expiations are binding upon him: an expiation for the oath and an expiation for the zihar. Fine.
A man said, "Upon me is a vow not to eat from your food," and he said, "By Allah, I will not go to the market," and he said, "If I speak to so-and-so, my wife is divorced," intending an oath in the third case. Then he broke all three. What is binding upon him according to the school of thought?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it permissible to interpret the Qur'an by relying on language alone without referring to the Sunnah? Is this a question?
The questioner : The first.
The Shaykh : The first option, due to the difference in the obligatory thing. An example of this is a man who said, "By Allah, I will not speak to so-and-so," or in a lesser expression, "By Allah, I will not speak to my wife," and she is to him like the back of his mother. In this case, there is an oath and zihar. The man intends to return. We say: upon you is an expiation for the oath and upon you is an expiation for the zihar. Fine, he says, "I want to free a slave for both."
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah, does freeing a slave suffice?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, one slave or two slaves?
The questioner : Two slaves.
The Shaykh : Fine, he says the cause is one, so now it is one slave. We say: but the criterion is the basis of the expiation. And on this basis, if he wanted to free a slave for both, it would not be valid. Fine, he says, "As for me, I will fast. I will fast for sixty days, two consecutive months, and I intend that three of the two months be for the oath and the zihar." Does this suffice or not?
The questioner : It is not sufficient.
The Shaykh : It does not suffice. Meaning, within them, he says it is not possible for them to merge. He says, "I will feed sixty poor people if I am unable to fast. I will feed sixty poor people and intend that ten of the poor people be for the zihar and the oath."
The questioner : It is not sufficient.
The Shaykh : It does not suffice, and the reason is the difference in the obligatory thing. Yes, and on this basis, if it is asked, "What is an example of this?" or "On what is this analogized?" they say: it is like the minor ritual impurity and the major ritual impurity. According to the school of thought, the minor ritual impurity is not removed by the intention of removing the major ritual impurity alone; one must intend with his bath to remove both impurities. And on this basis, we say that for this man who said, "By Allah, I will not speak to my wife," and she is to him like the back of his mother, if he returns, two expiations are binding upon him: an expiation for the oath and an expiation for the zihar. Fine.
A man said, "Upon me is a vow not to eat from your food," and he said, "By Allah, I will not go to the market," and he said, "If I speak to so-and-so, my wife is divorced," intending an oath in the third case. Then he broke all three. What is binding upon him according to the school of thought?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it permissible to interpret the Qur'an by relying on language alone without referring to the Sunnah? Is this a question?