The ruling on one who swore by divorce and fasted three days as expiation
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question:
A message reached the program from one of our brother listeners, Ubayd Zuhayd al-Zuhayri. Our brother says: He once swore by divorce regarding a matter that he would not do, but he ended up doing that thing. He fasted three consecutive days and asks: Is what he did valid, or not?
Answer:
If the divorce was in the form of an oath, and he did not intend to effect the divorce—such as saying, “I swear by divorce that I will not speak to so-and-so,” or “I swear by divorce that you will not go to so-and-so’s house,” intending to prevent her from doing so, or “I swear by divorce that I will not visit so-and-so,” intending to prevent himself from doing so, and his intention was not to effect the divorce—then its ruling is the ruling of an oath. The obligatory expiation in this case, according to the most correct of the scholars’ opinions, is to feed ten poor people, or clothe them, or free a slave. Whoever is unable to do that must fast for three days. Therefore, fasting does not suffice him except in the case of inability to feed, clothe, or free a slave.
Therefore, one who fasts while he is not unable to do the other options does not have his fast accepted as expiation. Rather, he must feed ten poor people, or clothe them, or free a believing slave. Feeding consists of half a sa’ (a dry measure of about 3 kg) of the staple food of the country, such as dates, rice, or wheat, which is approximately one and a half kilograms per person. Or clothing for each person, such as an undergarment and an overgarment, or a shirt. Or freeing a believing slave. If he is unable to do these three things and cannot manage them, then he fasts for three days. It is better if they are consecutive. Yes.
The presenter: May Allah reward you with good.
A message reached the program from one of our brother listeners, Ubayd Zuhayd al-Zuhayri. Our brother says: He once swore by divorce regarding a matter that he would not do, but he ended up doing that thing. He fasted three consecutive days and asks: Is what he did valid, or not?
Answer:
If the divorce was in the form of an oath, and he did not intend to effect the divorce—such as saying, “I swear by divorce that I will not speak to so-and-so,” or “I swear by divorce that you will not go to so-and-so’s house,” intending to prevent her from doing so, or “I swear by divorce that I will not visit so-and-so,” intending to prevent himself from doing so, and his intention was not to effect the divorce—then its ruling is the ruling of an oath. The obligatory expiation in this case, according to the most correct of the scholars’ opinions, is to feed ten poor people, or clothe them, or free a slave. Whoever is unable to do that must fast for three days. Therefore, fasting does not suffice him except in the case of inability to feed, clothe, or free a slave.
Therefore, one who fasts while he is not unable to do the other options does not have his fast accepted as expiation. Rather, he must feed ten poor people, or clothe them, or free a believing slave. Feeding consists of half a sa’ (a dry measure of about 3 kg) of the staple food of the country, such as dates, rice, or wheat, which is approximately one and a half kilograms per person. Or clothing for each person, such as an undergarment and an overgarment, or a shirt. Or freeing a believing slave. If he is unable to do these three things and cannot manage them, then he fasts for three days. It is better if they are consecutive. Yes.
The presenter: May Allah reward you with good.
Source
binbaz.org.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.