Explanation of the author's statement: "Or, I did not eat the meat of this lamb, so it became a ram; or this fresh date, so it became a dried date, or syrup, or vinegar; or this milk, so it became cheese, or..."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Or he said, "I did not eat the meat of this lamb". A lamb is the young of the sheep. So it became a ram. The description of being a lamb ceased to apply to it, but in our view, the specification is that he specified it.
He said, "Or, I did not eat this fresh date, so it became a dried date". Fresh date becoming a dried date, Yasser, what is the difference between them?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I did not eat this fresh date, so it became a dried date, or it became syrup. Can fresh dates become syrup?
The questioner : Yes.
Another questioner: And how?
The Shaykh : It means the syrup is extracted from it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is extracted, and the syrup comes out of it. He said, "By Allah, I did not eat this fresh date," and he ate from its syrup. He has broken his oath. "Or it became vinegar". How does it become vinegar? Vinegar is when fresh dates are placed in water and left for a day or two, and then it is drunk. The water acquires sweetness from the dates, and the dates absorb the impurities in the water. People used to use this in the past, and it replaced tea. Yes, tea replaced it now. People originally used this, and it had a good taste, and it was excellent. The point is, the fresh date became vinegar, and he drank it. Has he broken his oath or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : He has broken his oath, because the taste of the fresh date is now present in the water. He said, "Or he swore, 'I did not eat this milk.'" Is that what you have? The apparent meaning.
The questioner : Or this milk.
The Shaykh : Yes, or this milk, but it is conjoined to the first "I did not eat."
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : You do not have the first one. Or, "I did not eat the meat of this lamb," "I did not eat the milk." You might say, how is milk eaten? We say that an action suitable for it must be assumed, so the assumption is "I did not drink this milk," similar to the poet's saying, "I fed her straw and cold water". The meaning of "cold water" is that he watered her. Okay, so the commentator's "I did not eat this milk" is assumed. Milk is not eaten, is it? It is drunk, not eaten?
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner: It is eaten with bread.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is eaten, there is no harm. ... It is also eaten, in the sense of "I did not drink," meaning, "I did not drink this milk, so it became cheese." Yes, and he ate the cheese. Okay, cheese is not milk, but in our view, the specification is that he specified it. He said, "This milk in this container," so it became cheese, or it became kishk. Kishk is crushed grain. What is crushed grain?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, a moment. They say it is wheat cooked with milk. Wheat cooked with milk. Crushed grain for us is wheat cooked with milk, but crushed. You crush it a little with a mill, then cook it with milk. I think it is called bulgur after that, right? Bulgur. In any case, this milk—pay attention—he said, "By Allah, I did not drink this milk," and he made it into kishk and ate it. Has he broken his oath?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because the taste of the milk is present. It is true that this kishk is not called milk, but its taste is in it, and the like. Then, if he ate it, he has broken his oath in all cases. How many issues were mentioned? Let us count them now. Okay, "I did not wear this shirt," "I did not speak to this boy," "I did not speak to so-and-so's wife, or his friend, or his slave." These are five... These are five. "I did not eat the meat of this lamb," "I did not eat this fresh date," right, "I did not drink this milk." Eight. Eight issues. He has broken his oath in all of them based on what?
The questioner : Based on the specification.
The Shaykh : Based on the specification. Okay, the author said, "Unless he intended 'as long as it remains in that state.'" If he intended "as long as it remains in that state," it has been mentioned previously that intention is the primary reference in oaths. So if he said, "I said, 'By Allah, I did not wear this shirt,' and I did not mean the specific shirt, but I meant its state, meaning I did not wear it as long as it is a shirt," and he cut it and made it into trousers, then he has not broken his oath. "I did not speak to this boy." He said, "No, I did not mean him specifically, but I meant as long as he is a boy. That is my intention." Yes. Then, if he spoke to him after he became an old man, has he broken his oath or not?
The questioner : He has not broken his oath.
The Shaykh : He has not broken his oath. "I did not drink this milk. My intention was as long as it is milk. But if it changes, I did not intend that." We say, has he broken his oath or not?
The questioner : He has not broken his oath.
The Shaykh : He has not broken his oath. The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Sahih al-Bukhari 1 So, as long as you intended "as long as it remains in that state," your intention is valid. The reasoning is that the reference in oaths, above all else, is the intention of the one who swore. Is that clear, everyone? Okay, he said, "I intended, 'By Allah, I did not speak to so-and-so's wife,' because I know that so-and-so is extremely jealous. If he hears me speaking to his wife, he will harm me, and perhaps he will accuse me, and perhaps he will kill me." So, if the marriage is dissolved, right? This intention is gone. Okay, the author did not mention the reason, but we also say, unless he intended "as long as it remains in that state," or the reason implies "as long as it remains in that state," like the example I mentioned last. And we said, when I said, "I did not speak to so-and-so's wife," the reason for that, right, is this man's jealousy, because he is extremely jealous, and I fear he will harm me. So, if he divorces her, is the reason gone or not? The reason is gone. So we say, unless he intended "as long as it remains in that state," or the reason for the oath is "as long as it remains in that state." Are we paying attention now? Why did we add "or the reason"?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because the reason takes precedence over the specification. So, the summary now: how many ranks did the author mention in this chapter?
The questioner : Three.
The Shaykh : Three: intention, then the reason, then the specification, right? So the specification continues with this specified item, even if its state changes, unless he intended "as long as it remains in that state," or the reason is "as long as it remains in that state."
He said, "Or, I did not eat this fresh date, so it became a dried date". Fresh date becoming a dried date, Yasser, what is the difference between them?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I did not eat this fresh date, so it became a dried date, or it became syrup. Can fresh dates become syrup?
The questioner : Yes.
Another questioner: And how?
The Shaykh : It means the syrup is extracted from it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is extracted, and the syrup comes out of it. He said, "By Allah, I did not eat this fresh date," and he ate from its syrup. He has broken his oath. "Or it became vinegar". How does it become vinegar? Vinegar is when fresh dates are placed in water and left for a day or two, and then it is drunk. The water acquires sweetness from the dates, and the dates absorb the impurities in the water. People used to use this in the past, and it replaced tea. Yes, tea replaced it now. People originally used this, and it had a good taste, and it was excellent. The point is, the fresh date became vinegar, and he drank it. Has he broken his oath or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : He has broken his oath, because the taste of the fresh date is now present in the water. He said, "Or he swore, 'I did not eat this milk.'" Is that what you have? The apparent meaning.
The questioner : Or this milk.
The Shaykh : Yes, or this milk, but it is conjoined to the first "I did not eat."
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : You do not have the first one. Or, "I did not eat the meat of this lamb," "I did not eat the milk." You might say, how is milk eaten? We say that an action suitable for it must be assumed, so the assumption is "I did not drink this milk," similar to the poet's saying, "I fed her straw and cold water". The meaning of "cold water" is that he watered her. Okay, so the commentator's "I did not eat this milk" is assumed. Milk is not eaten, is it? It is drunk, not eaten?
The questioner : ... .
Another questioner: It is eaten with bread.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is eaten, there is no harm. ... It is also eaten, in the sense of "I did not drink," meaning, "I did not drink this milk, so it became cheese." Yes, and he ate the cheese. Okay, cheese is not milk, but in our view, the specification is that he specified it. He said, "This milk in this container," so it became cheese, or it became kishk. Kishk is crushed grain. What is crushed grain?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, a moment. They say it is wheat cooked with milk. Wheat cooked with milk. Crushed grain for us is wheat cooked with milk, but crushed. You crush it a little with a mill, then cook it with milk. I think it is called bulgur after that, right? Bulgur. In any case, this milk—pay attention—he said, "By Allah, I did not drink this milk," and he made it into kishk and ate it. Has he broken his oath?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because the taste of the milk is present. It is true that this kishk is not called milk, but its taste is in it, and the like. Then, if he ate it, he has broken his oath in all cases. How many issues were mentioned? Let us count them now. Okay, "I did not wear this shirt," "I did not speak to this boy," "I did not speak to so-and-so's wife, or his friend, or his slave." These are five... These are five. "I did not eat the meat of this lamb," "I did not eat this fresh date," right, "I did not drink this milk." Eight. Eight issues. He has broken his oath in all of them based on what?
The questioner : Based on the specification.
The Shaykh : Based on the specification. Okay, the author said, "Unless he intended 'as long as it remains in that state.'" If he intended "as long as it remains in that state," it has been mentioned previously that intention is the primary reference in oaths. So if he said, "I said, 'By Allah, I did not wear this shirt,' and I did not mean the specific shirt, but I meant its state, meaning I did not wear it as long as it is a shirt," and he cut it and made it into trousers, then he has not broken his oath. "I did not speak to this boy." He said, "No, I did not mean him specifically, but I meant as long as he is a boy. That is my intention." Yes. Then, if he spoke to him after he became an old man, has he broken his oath or not?
The questioner : He has not broken his oath.
The Shaykh : He has not broken his oath. "I did not drink this milk. My intention was as long as it is milk. But if it changes, I did not intend that." We say, has he broken his oath or not?
The questioner : He has not broken his oath.
The Shaykh : He has not broken his oath. The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended.
إنما الأعمال بالنيات وإنما لكل امرئ ما نوىThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because the reason takes precedence over the specification. So, the summary now: how many ranks did the author mention in this chapter?
The questioner : Three.
The Shaykh : Three: intention, then the reason, then the specification, right? So the specification continues with this specified item, even if its state changes, unless he intended "as long as it remains in that state," or the reason is "as long as it remains in that state."