Explanation of the author's statement: "And if he qualified his oath with what prevents validity, such as if he swore not to sell intoxicants or a slave, he breaks his oath by the form of the contract"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author says "And if he qualified his oath with what prevents validity, such as if he swore not to sell intoxicants" to the end, meaning if he swore not to do something and qualified it with something in wording that indicates invalidity, he breaks his oath even if it is invalid. For example, if he says, "By Allah, I will not sell intoxicants." Yes, "By Allah, I will not sell intoxicants," and then he sells it. From the legal perspective, this is not a sale because it is invalid. However, the man did not do it absolutely; rather, he qualified it with a matter that negates validity when he said, "By Allah, I will not sell intoxicants." So if he sells it, he breaks his oath. If someone asks, "How do you declare him to have broken his oath when this transaction is not a legal sale?" We say that he qualified it with a specific matter, and by the mere existence of that specific matter, he breaks his oath. That is why the author said he breaks his oath by the form of the contract. Look, "by the form" means because this is a formal contract. The author qualified his oath with what? Ah? With a formal matter. Because his statement, "By Allah, I will not sell intoxicants," the phrase "I will not sell" cannot be legally valid because, legally, intoxicants are not sold. So when it is impossible to interpret it in its literal sense and meaning, we interpret it by its form. We say that by the mere act of selling intoxicants, he breaks his oath. Based on this, in the example we gave earlier, which is selling tobacco, if he says, "By Allah, I will not sell tobacco," and then sells it, he breaks his oath. Not because it is a sale, but because it is the form of what he swore against. All right.
If he said, "By Allah, I will not sell with usury or interest," and then went and sold with usury or interest, does he break his oath? Ah?
The questioner : He breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath. Why? Because he qualified the oath with something that prevents validity, so it is interpreted by its form. But if he said, "By Allah, I will not sell," and then sold a dinar for two dinars, he does not break his oath because he spoke generally, and the general is interpreted as valid, as legally valid. Is that clear, everyone, or not?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : All right, and some scholars said that he does not break his oath if he sells what is forbidden to sell, even if he qualified it with what prevents validity, due to the contradiction. Because his statement "I will not sell intoxicants," the word "sell" contradicts "intoxicants." And based on this, we say that if he sells intoxicants, it is not a sale. If he sells it, it is not a sale. So whoever looks at the form declares that he broke his oath, and whoever looks at the reality does not declare that he broke his oath. There are two opinions among scholars on this issue. But the school of thought, as you see, says that he breaks his oath by the form of the contract. All right, if he said, "By Allah, I will not sell the foal in my camel's belly," and then sold it?
The questioner : According to the school of thought, he breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : According to the school of thought, he breaks his oath. Why? Because he breaks his oath by the form of the contract because he qualified his oath with what prevents validity, meaning he coupled it with something with which the contract cannot be valid, so it is interpreted as what? As the form. All right, renting a shop to a person to do something forbidden in it, such as renting it to him to deal in usury or interest. Is the rental forbidden or not? Ah?
The questioner : Forbidden.
The Shaykh : It is forbidden, and the contract is not valid. So if someone says, "By Allah, I will not rent my house to someone who deals in usury or interest in it," and then sold it—my example was wrong. "By Allah, I will not rent my shop to someone who deals in usury or interest in it," and then rented it? According to the school of thought, he breaks his oath by the form of the contract. By the mere act of concluding the rental contract, he breaks his oath because he qualified it with what prevents validity. And according to the second opinion, he does not break his oath because this is not a rental. Even if he called it a rental, legally it is not called a rental. But the school of thought prioritizes the form and holds him accountable by his wording. And this second opinion prioritizes the meaning and says this is not a legal rental. In the first issue, it is not a legal sale. All right, so the author says "he breaks his oath by the form of the contract".
If he said, "By Allah, I will not sell with usury or interest," and then went and sold with usury or interest, does he break his oath? Ah?
The questioner : He breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : He breaks his oath. Why? Because he qualified the oath with something that prevents validity, so it is interpreted by its form. But if he said, "By Allah, I will not sell," and then sold a dinar for two dinars, he does not break his oath because he spoke generally, and the general is interpreted as valid, as legally valid. Is that clear, everyone, or not?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : All right, and some scholars said that he does not break his oath if he sells what is forbidden to sell, even if he qualified it with what prevents validity, due to the contradiction. Because his statement "I will not sell intoxicants," the word "sell" contradicts "intoxicants." And based on this, we say that if he sells intoxicants, it is not a sale. If he sells it, it is not a sale. So whoever looks at the form declares that he broke his oath, and whoever looks at the reality does not declare that he broke his oath. There are two opinions among scholars on this issue. But the school of thought, as you see, says that he breaks his oath by the form of the contract. All right, if he said, "By Allah, I will not sell the foal in my camel's belly," and then sold it?
The questioner : According to the school of thought, he breaks his oath.
The Shaykh : According to the school of thought, he breaks his oath. Why? Because he breaks his oath by the form of the contract because he qualified his oath with what prevents validity, meaning he coupled it with something with which the contract cannot be valid, so it is interpreted as what? As the form. All right, renting a shop to a person to do something forbidden in it, such as renting it to him to deal in usury or interest. Is the rental forbidden or not? Ah?
The questioner : Forbidden.
The Shaykh : It is forbidden, and the contract is not valid. So if someone says, "By Allah, I will not rent my house to someone who deals in usury or interest in it," and then sold it—my example was wrong. "By Allah, I will not rent my shop to someone who deals in usury or interest in it," and then rented it? According to the school of thought, he breaks his oath by the form of the contract. By the mere act of concluding the rental contract, he breaks his oath because he qualified it with what prevents validity. And according to the second opinion, he does not break his oath because this is not a rental. Even if he called it a rental, legally it is not called a rental. But the school of thought prioritizes the form and holds him accountable by his wording. And this second opinion prioritizes the meaning and says this is not a legal rental. In the first issue, it is not a legal sale. All right, so the author says "he breaks his oath by the form of the contract".