Explanation of the author's statement: "If that is absent, one reverts to specification. If he swore not to wear this shirt, then he turned it into trousers or a cloak or a turban and wore it, or if he swore not to speak to this boy and he became an old man, or to so-and-so's wife or his friend so-and-so or his slave Sa'id, and the marriage, ownership, or friendship ceased, then he spoke to them."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says "If that is absent, one reverts to specification". This is the third level. If he had no intention and the oath had no cause, one reverts to specification, meaning the specific item upon which the oath was made. This is the meaning of specification: it refers to the specific item upon which the oath was made. If he specified something, the ruling attaches to it, regardless of its form.
The author says "If he swore not to wear this shirt". Is there specification in this oath?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the method?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The indication. He said, "By Allah, I will not wear this shirt." He specified it. What is your intention? He said, "I have no intention." What is the reason you do not wear it? He said, "There is no reason." Then the oath attaches to that specific shirt, yes? So he cut it up and made it into trousers, or a cloak, or a turban, and wore it. He cut this shirt and made it into trousers. Is "siraawil" singular or plural?
The questioner : Singular.
The Shaykh : Singular. No, it is singular. Ibn Malik said, "And siraawil is a quasi-plural that necessitates the generality of prohibition".
So "siraawil" is singular, and some say that "siraawilaat" is the plural, and that "siraawil" is the plural of "siraawal," and the plural of "siraawil" is "siraawilaat," as mentioned in the hadith. Well, in any case, this is a linguistic discussion that does not concern us. This shirt about which he said, "By Allah, I will not wear this shirt"—the shirt is like this garment of mine. He cut it up and made it into trousers and wore it. Does he break his oath?
The questioner : No.
Another questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath because he specified it. He said, "This shirt." So the item upon which the oath was made is this specific thing. Or if he made it a cloak, cutting it up and making it a cloak to wear as a cloak of ihram, does he break his oath or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath because he specified it. Or if he made it a turban, he also breaks his oath if he wears it. This is based on what? It is based on specification, because this man had no intention and no cause, and he specified this thing. He said, "I will not wear this thing." So the oath attaches to this thing, regardless of its form.
He said, "Or if he swore not to speak to this boy and he became an old man". "I will not speak"—look, "kalam" is a past tense verb, but when the negation "la" in an oath enters it, it turns it into a future tense. It turns it into a future tense, and this is one of the places where a past tense verb becomes future tense. Just as the conditional "in" turns it, such as "If Zayd stands, I will stand," so it turns here in the chapter of oaths. So the meaning of "I will not speak" is "I will not speak." This is its meaning. He said, "By Allah, I will not speak to this boy". A young boy. He said, "By Allah, I will not speak to this boy." This boy grew up and became an old man, so he spoke to him.
The questioner : He breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Based on what?
The questioner : Specification.
The Shaykh : Specification. Or if he swore not to speak to so-and-so's wife, specifying her. Or if he said, "I will not speak to his friend so-and-so," meaning this one. Or "his slave Sa'id," meaning this one. And the marriage ceased, meaning she was no longer his wife. By what does it cease?
The questioner : By divorce.
The Shaykh : By divorce or death. The marriage ceased, so she became not his wife, and he spoke to her.
The questioner : He breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath based on specification. Well, likewise, if the friendship ceased. This man was a friend of so-and-so. He said, "By Allah, I will not speak to so-and-so's friend, this one." Then he became not his friend, and he spoke to him. He breaks his oath. He said, and "ownership" ceased. Ownership in his statement "his slave Sa'id." This man sold the slave upon whom he swore not to speak. Then he breaks his oath.
The author says "If he swore not to wear this shirt". Is there specification in this oath?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : What is the method?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The indication. He said, "By Allah, I will not wear this shirt." He specified it. What is your intention? He said, "I have no intention." What is the reason you do not wear it? He said, "There is no reason." Then the oath attaches to that specific shirt, yes? So he cut it up and made it into trousers, or a cloak, or a turban, and wore it. He cut this shirt and made it into trousers. Is "siraawil" singular or plural?
The questioner : Singular.
The Shaykh : Singular. No, it is singular. Ibn Malik said, "And siraawil is a quasi-plural that necessitates the generality of prohibition".
So "siraawil" is singular, and some say that "siraawilaat" is the plural, and that "siraawil" is the plural of "siraawal," and the plural of "siraawil" is "siraawilaat," as mentioned in the hadith
He does not wear the siraawilaat
لا يلبس السراويلاتThe questioner : No.
Another questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath because he specified it. He said, "This shirt." So the item upon which the oath was made is this specific thing. Or if he made it a cloak, cutting it up and making it a cloak to wear as a cloak of ihram, does he break his oath or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath because he specified it. Or if he made it a turban, he also breaks his oath if he wears it. This is based on what? It is based on specification, because this man had no intention and no cause, and he specified this thing. He said, "I will not wear this thing." So the oath attaches to this thing, regardless of its form.
He said, "Or if he swore not to speak to this boy and he became an old man". "I will not speak"—look, "kalam" is a past tense verb, but when the negation "la" in an oath enters it, it turns it into a future tense. It turns it into a future tense, and this is one of the places where a past tense verb becomes future tense. Just as the conditional "in" turns it, such as "If Zayd stands, I will stand," so it turns here in the chapter of oaths. So the meaning of "I will not speak" is "I will not speak." This is its meaning. He said, "By Allah, I will not speak to this boy". A young boy. He said, "By Allah, I will not speak to this boy." This boy grew up and became an old man, so he spoke to him.
The questioner : He breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Based on what?
The questioner : Specification.
The Shaykh : Specification. Or if he swore not to speak to so-and-so's wife, specifying her. Or if he said, "I will not speak to his friend so-and-so," meaning this one. Or "his slave Sa'id," meaning this one. And the marriage ceased, meaning she was no longer his wife. By what does it cease?
The questioner : By divorce.
The Shaykh : By divorce or death. The marriage ceased, so she became not his wife, and he spoke to her.
The questioner : He breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath based on specification. Well, likewise, if the friendship ceased. This man was a friend of so-and-so. He said, "By Allah, I will not speak to so-and-so's friend, this one." Then he became not his friend, and he spoke to him. He breaks his oath. He said, and "ownership" ceased. Ownership in his statement "his slave Sa'id." This man sold the slave upon whom he swore not to speak. Then he breaks his oath.