Swearing by divorce is not swearing by other than Allah

In his final question, Mukhtar Saleh Hamid from Khartoum, Sudan, says: We heard on your program, *Nur 'ala al-Darb*, that swearing by other than Allah is forbidden, and we also heard on it that a man swore by divorce that he would not divorce his wife. Is there not a contradiction in this, O Shaykh?
Answer: Swearing by other than Allah is a reprehensible act. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , and he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , and this is an authentic hadith. He (peace and blessings be upon him) also said: , and he said: . This is his ruling (peace and blessings be upon him): the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah, whoever it may be. Therefore, it is not permissible to swear by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), nor by the Ka'bah, nor by trustworthiness, nor by the life of so-and-so, nor by the honor of so-and-so. All of this is not permissible, because the authentic hadiths indicate the prohibition of that. Abu 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Barr, the renowned Imam (may Allah have mercy on him), transmitted the consensus of the scholars that it is not permissible to swear by other than Allah. Therefore, it is obligatory for Muslims to beware of that. No one has the right to swear by the life of so-and-so, or by the honor of so-and-so, or by the Ka'bah, or by the Prophet, or by trustworthiness. All of this is not permissible.
As for divorce, it is not called an oath in reality, even if the jurists call it an oath, but it is not of the same kind as this. Swearing by divorce means: pronouncing it in the manner of urging, prohibition, verification, or falsification, such as: "By Allah, I will not stand up," or "By Allah, I will not speak to so-and-so." This is called an oath. If he says: "Divorce is upon him if he does not stand up," or "Divorce is upon him if he does not speak to so-and-so," we call it an oath from this perspective, meaning: from the aspect of what it contains of urging, prohibition, or verification and falsification. It is called an oath for this meaning, and it does not contain swearing by other than Allah. He did not say: "By divorce, I will not do such-and-such." One does not swear by divorce. One does not say: "By divorce, I will not do such-and-such," or "By divorce, I will not speak to..." No, this is not permissible. But if he says: "Divorce is upon him if he does not speak to so-and-so," or "Divorce is upon you if you do not go, O so-and-so, to such-and-such," meaning his wife, or "Divorce is upon him if he does not travel to such-and-such," this is a conditional divorce called an oath, because it is in the ruling of an oath from the aspect of urging, prohibition, verification, and falsification. The correct view is that if he intended to prohibit her, or prohibit himself, or prohibit another from this thing he swore about, its ruling is the ruling of an oath. There is an expiation for the oath, and there is no contradiction in this with our statement that swearing by other than Allah is not permissible, and there is no opposition, because this is one thing and that is another. That is swearing by other than Allah, saying: "By al-Lat and al-'Uzza," "By so-and-so," "By the life of so-and-so and the life of so-and-so." This is swearing by other than Allah. As for this, it is a conditional divorce, not an oath in meaning and reality by other than Allah, but it is an oath in meaning from the aspect of its prohibition, verification, and falsification. If he says: "Divorce is upon him if he does not speak to so-and-so," it is as if he said: "By Allah, I will not speak to so-and-so," or if he says: "Divorce is upon you if you do not speak to so-and-so," addressing his wife, it is as if he said to her: "By Allah, you will not speak to so-and-so." If the lapse occurs and he breaks this divorce, the correct view is that he expiates for his oath with the expiation of an oath, meaning it has the ruling of an oath, if he intended to prohibit the wife or prohibit himself, and did not intend to effect the divorce, but intended to prohibit this thing, prohibiting himself or the wife from this act or this speech. This has the ruling of an oath according to some of the scholars, and that is the most correct view. And according to the majority: the divorce takes effect. According to the majority: the divorce takes effect. But according to a group of scholars: the divorce does not take effect, and that is the most correct view, and it is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim and a group of the Salaf (may Allah have mercy on them); because it has the meaning of an oath from the aspect of urging, prohibition, verification, and falsification, and it does not have the meaning of an oath in the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah; because it is not swearing by other than Allah, but rather a condition. It should be understood the difference between this and that. And Allah knows best. Yes.