Explanation of the author's statement: "And if he swore an oath regarding himself or another whom he intends to restrain, such as a wife or a child, not to do something, and he did it while forgetting or unaware, he breaks the oath in the case of divorce and freeing a slave only."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And if he swore an oath regarding himself or another whom he restrains by his oath and intends to restrain, yes, such as a wife or a child, not to do something, and he did it while forgetting or unaware, he breaks the oath in the case of divorce and freeing a slave only.
" If a man swears an oath regarding himself not to do something and he does it while forgetting or unaware, he does not break the oath. This is because if he commits a forbidden act while forgetting or unaware, he is not sinful. Similarly, if he does what he swore not to do while forgetting or unaware, he does not break the oath. This is because breaking an oath is based on what? It is based on sinfulness. So, when a person is sinful in the legal ruling, he breaks the oath. And when he is not sinful, he does not break the oath. So, this is a man who swore an oath regarding himself, saying, "By Allah, I will not wear this garment." Then he came at night and wore it without knowing that it was the garment he had sworn not to wear, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Does he not break the oath?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Meaning, he does not owe an expiation, because one of the conditions for the obligation of expiation, as mentioned previously, is that he breaks the oath while knowing, remembering, and choosing to do so. Okay. And its basis is the statement of Allah the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:286] Similarly, if he did it while forgetting, wearing the garment he swore not to wear while forgetting that he had sworn, he does not owe an expiation. He did not break the oath. If someone asks, "What is the evidence?" We say, the statement of Allah the Exalted: [Al-Baqarah 2:286] And breaking the oath is based on sinfulness by the act. Okay.
The reasoning is that one of the conditions for the obligation of expiation is that he breaks the oath while knowing, remembering, and choosing to do so. Okay. If he swore regarding another, yes. If he swore regarding himself with divorce, by saying, "If I wear this garment, my wife is divorced," this is an oath. Then he wore it while forgetting. Is she divorced? Yes, according to the author's statement, she is divorced, because he said "he breaks the oath in the case of divorce and freeing a slave", so she is divorced. He said, "If I do such and such, my slave is free," intending to bind himself to not do the act. This is an oath. So if he did it while forgetting, the slave is freed. Do you understand? Okay. And similarly, if he wore it, saying, "If I wear this garment, my slave is free," and he wore it while unaware that it was the garment he had sworn about, the slave is freed. And if it was divorce, the woman is divorced. Why? They say that this includes a right belonging to a human being. Pay attention, O Abd al-Rahman. This includes a right belonging to a human being, and the rights of human beings are not dropped, not by ignorance, not by forgetfulness, and not by coercion. They are not dropped. No, they are not dropped by ignorance and forgetfulness. There is a detail regarding coercion, but we say they are not dropped by ignorance and forgetfulness. Okay. We say, as for the fact that freeing a slave is a right belonging to a human being, it may be said that it is a right belonging to a human being because the slave loves to be freed and to be emancipated and to be saved from slavery. But as for the fact that divorce is a right belonging to a human being, you might say the woman says, "I do not want to be divorced," and she cries over the divorce, right? And divorce is the most hateful thing to her. So how do we oblige him to do what she hates, when she says, "I do not want divorce"? Therefore, the stronger opinion is that whenever we treat divorce and freeing a slave as an oath, they have the ruling of an oath. How can we treat them as an oath in terms of expiation and then not treat them as an oath in terms of breaking the oath? This is a contradiction. The correct view is that he does not break the oath, neither in divorce nor in freeing a slave, nor in a vow, nor in an oath. So if he said, "If I wear this garment, my wife is divorced," and then he wore it while forgetting, he does not break the oath. The wife is not divorced. If he said, "If I wear this garment, my slave is free," and then he wore it while forgetting, the slave is not freed. Why? We say, because when we treat this matter as an oath, it is obligatory that...
...and forgetfulness. And this is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is a narration from Imam Ahmad. Shaykh al-Islam said that its narration from Imam Ahmad is like the narrations of the differentiation, meaning that the narrations from Imam Ahmad are equal in that regard. Okay. This is if he swore regarding himself. He swore regarding himself with an oath, and he swore regarding himself with divorce, and he swore regarding himself with freeing a slave. So we say the school of thought differentiates between an oath, divorce, and freeing a slave in the case where he does the thing he swore not to do while forgetting or unaware. They say that in the case of divorce and freeing a slave, right? He breaks the oath, and the divorce and freeing take place. And they say that in the case of an oath by Allah, he does not break the oath. And the correct view is that there is no difference, and that he does not break the oath in them, just as he does not break the oath in an oath by Allah, because we have now treated them as an oath. This is if he swore regarding himself. If he swore regarding another not to do something by an oath, divorce, or freeing a slave, and the author omitted the vow, and its ruling is the ruling of an oath. Okay. If he swore regarding another, that other person is either one who is restrained by the oath or one who is not restrained. Meaning, either the thing he swore about is something that custom dictates is restrained by an oath due to kinship, marriage, or friendship. And what does that mean? It means that if this other person is someone for whom it is customary that if I swear to them by my oath, they will honor it. This is one case. The second case is that this other person is one who is not restrained by the oath and does not care about it. Do you know? By Allah, I do not know about you? Understood? Okay.
If this other person is one who is restrained by the oath and honors the oath and does not contradict it, for what reason does he not contradict it? Right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : By kinship, marriage, or friendship. And for this reason, the author says "such as a wife and a child". And here the kaf is for comparison, and this is by way of example. He swore to his wife not to do something, and she did it while forgetting or unaware. He swore to his child, a son or a daughter, not to do something, and he did it while forgetting or unaware. So this other person has the ruling of the one who swore himself, meaning it is as if it were himself. Do you understand? So if he did it while forgetting or unaware in the case of an oath by Allah.
The questioner : He has not broken his oath.
The Shaykh : Right? He does not break the oath. In the case of freeing a slave and divorce, he breaks the oath, is that so? Okay. Let us give examples. He said to his son, "If you do such and such, your mother is divorced." Be patient, my brother. No, no, if nothing happens. If you do such and such, your mother is divorced. And the son did it while forgetting. Is she divorced?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : She is divorced. She is divorced according to the school of thought. Okay. He says to his son, "If you do such and such, my slave is free," and he did it while forgetting. Right? Does he break the oath? And the slave is freed, just as if that were in his own case. And the correct view is that he does not break the oath, just as if this were an oath by Allah the Exalted. Is that clear now?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Very well.
" If a man swears an oath regarding himself not to do something and he does it while forgetting or unaware, he does not break the oath. This is because if he commits a forbidden act while forgetting or unaware, he is not sinful. Similarly, if he does what he swore not to do while forgetting or unaware, he does not break the oath. This is because breaking an oath is based on what? It is based on sinfulness. So, when a person is sinful in the legal ruling, he breaks the oath. And when he is not sinful, he does not break the oath. So, this is a man who swore an oath regarding himself, saying, "By Allah, I will not wear this garment." Then he came at night and wore it without knowing that it was the garment he had sworn not to wear, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Does he not break the oath?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Meaning, he does not owe an expiation, because one of the conditions for the obligation of expiation, as mentioned previously, is that he breaks the oath while knowing, remembering, and choosing to do so. Okay. And its basis is the statement of Allah the Exalted:
Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred.
ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا أو أخطأناOur Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred.
ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا أو أخطأناThe reasoning is that one of the conditions for the obligation of expiation is that he breaks the oath while knowing, remembering, and choosing to do so. Okay. If he swore regarding another, yes. If he swore regarding himself with divorce, by saying, "If I wear this garment, my wife is divorced," this is an oath. Then he wore it while forgetting. Is she divorced? Yes, according to the author's statement, she is divorced, because he said "he breaks the oath in the case of divorce and freeing a slave", so she is divorced. He said, "If I do such and such, my slave is free," intending to bind himself to not do the act. This is an oath. So if he did it while forgetting, the slave is freed. Do you understand? Okay. And similarly, if he wore it, saying, "If I wear this garment, my slave is free," and he wore it while unaware that it was the garment he had sworn about, the slave is freed. And if it was divorce, the woman is divorced. Why? They say that this includes a right belonging to a human being. Pay attention, O Abd al-Rahman. This includes a right belonging to a human being, and the rights of human beings are not dropped, not by ignorance, not by forgetfulness, and not by coercion. They are not dropped. No, they are not dropped by ignorance and forgetfulness. There is a detail regarding coercion, but we say they are not dropped by ignorance and forgetfulness. Okay. We say, as for the fact that freeing a slave is a right belonging to a human being, it may be said that it is a right belonging to a human being because the slave loves to be freed and to be emancipated and to be saved from slavery. But as for the fact that divorce is a right belonging to a human being, you might say the woman says, "I do not want to be divorced," and she cries over the divorce, right? And divorce is the most hateful thing to her. So how do we oblige him to do what she hates, when she says, "I do not want divorce"? Therefore, the stronger opinion is that whenever we treat divorce and freeing a slave as an oath, they have the ruling of an oath. How can we treat them as an oath in terms of expiation and then not treat them as an oath in terms of breaking the oath? This is a contradiction. The correct view is that he does not break the oath, neither in divorce nor in freeing a slave, nor in a vow, nor in an oath. So if he said, "If I wear this garment, my wife is divorced," and then he wore it while forgetting, he does not break the oath. The wife is not divorced. If he said, "If I wear this garment, my slave is free," and then he wore it while forgetting, the slave is not freed. Why? We say, because when we treat this matter as an oath, it is obligatory that...
...and forgetfulness. And this is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is a narration from Imam Ahmad. Shaykh al-Islam said that its narration from Imam Ahmad is like the narrations of the differentiation, meaning that the narrations from Imam Ahmad are equal in that regard. Okay. This is if he swore regarding himself. He swore regarding himself with an oath, and he swore regarding himself with divorce, and he swore regarding himself with freeing a slave. So we say the school of thought differentiates between an oath, divorce, and freeing a slave in the case where he does the thing he swore not to do while forgetting or unaware. They say that in the case of divorce and freeing a slave, right? He breaks the oath, and the divorce and freeing take place. And they say that in the case of an oath by Allah, he does not break the oath. And the correct view is that there is no difference, and that he does not break the oath in them, just as he does not break the oath in an oath by Allah, because we have now treated them as an oath. This is if he swore regarding himself. If he swore regarding another not to do something by an oath, divorce, or freeing a slave, and the author omitted the vow, and its ruling is the ruling of an oath. Okay. If he swore regarding another, that other person is either one who is restrained by the oath or one who is not restrained. Meaning, either the thing he swore about is something that custom dictates is restrained by an oath due to kinship, marriage, or friendship. And what does that mean? It means that if this other person is someone for whom it is customary that if I swear to them by my oath, they will honor it. This is one case. The second case is that this other person is one who is not restrained by the oath and does not care about it. Do you know? By Allah, I do not know about you? Understood? Okay.
If this other person is one who is restrained by the oath and honors the oath and does not contradict it, for what reason does he not contradict it? Right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : By kinship, marriage, or friendship. And for this reason, the author says "such as a wife and a child". And here the kaf is for comparison, and this is by way of example. He swore to his wife not to do something, and she did it while forgetting or unaware. He swore to his child, a son or a daughter, not to do something, and he did it while forgetting or unaware. So this other person has the ruling of the one who swore himself, meaning it is as if it were himself. Do you understand? So if he did it while forgetting or unaware in the case of an oath by Allah.
The questioner : He has not broken his oath.
The Shaykh : Right? He does not break the oath. In the case of freeing a slave and divorce, he breaks the oath, is that so? Okay. Let us give examples. He said to his son, "If you do such and such, your mother is divorced." Be patient, my brother. No, no, if nothing happens. If you do such and such, your mother is divorced. And the son did it while forgetting. Is she divorced?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : She is divorced. She is divorced according to the school of thought. Okay. He says to his son, "If you do such and such, my slave is free," and he did it while forgetting. Right? Does he break the oath? And the slave is freed, just as if that were in his own case. And the correct view is that he does not break the oath, just as if this were an oath by Allah the Exalted. Is that clear now?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Very well.