Clarification that swearing an oath by divorce is not shirk (associating partners with Allah)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
He also asks and says: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Sunan Abi Dawud 3251Sahih (Al-Albani) We have learned from your program that swearing an oath by divorce is not shirk (associating partners with Allah), and we know that divorce is not among the names of Allah the Exalted nor among His attributes. It is ruled that one who swears by divorce, if he intends to swear an oath, owes the expiation for an oath. How can it be considered an oath when it is not by the names of Allah or His attributes? Please inform us; may Allah reward you.
Answer: It is ruled to be an oath because it is in the legal status of an oath, as his intention is to urge, prohibit, verify, or deny. Thus, it is in the status of an oath in terms of meaning, specifically the meaning that necessitates the expiation. It is not in the status of an oath in terms of the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah, because he did not swear by other than Allah. Rather, he made a conditional statement, saying: "If I do such and such, divorce is upon me," or "If I speak to so-and-so, divorce is upon me." This is unlike swearing by other than Allah, such as swearing by idols, prophets, trusts, or the Ka'bah. That is an invalid oath, and no expiation for an oath is required for it because it is an invalid oath. However, making conditional statements regarding divorce, freeing slaves, or charity attached to certain things is in the status of an oath in terms of expiation, but not in terms of prohibition.
So if he says, "If I speak to so-and-so, divorce is upon me," or "If I speak to so-and-so, my slaves are free," or "If I speak to so-and-so, my wealth is charity," and his intention is to prohibit himself from these things, this has the status of an oath in terms of expiation. He is not obligated to carry out these things, as this falls under the category of vows that... he does this generally to emphasize his commitment to himself, either in prohibiting or doing something. Its ruling is that of an oath in this respect, but it does not have the ruling of an oath in the sense that it is forbidden for him, because he did not swear by other than Allah; rather, he made a conditional statement. This is narrated from the righteous Salaf, who placed it in the status of an oath and did not consider it forbidden. Rather, they placed it in the status of an oath in terms of expiation. When a woman named Layla bint al-Ajma' vowed that her slaves would be free and her wealth would be charity if she did not separate so-and-so from a slave girl she owned, Ibn 'Umar and a group of the Salaf ruled that she owed the expiation for an oath. Yes.
The presenter: May Allah reward you.
He who swears by anyone but Allah is polytheist.
من حلف بغير الله فقد أشركAnswer: It is ruled to be an oath because it is in the legal status of an oath, as his intention is to urge, prohibit, verify, or deny. Thus, it is in the status of an oath in terms of meaning, specifically the meaning that necessitates the expiation. It is not in the status of an oath in terms of the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah, because he did not swear by other than Allah. Rather, he made a conditional statement, saying: "If I do such and such, divorce is upon me," or "If I speak to so-and-so, divorce is upon me." This is unlike swearing by other than Allah, such as swearing by idols, prophets, trusts, or the Ka'bah. That is an invalid oath, and no expiation for an oath is required for it because it is an invalid oath. However, making conditional statements regarding divorce, freeing slaves, or charity attached to certain things is in the status of an oath in terms of expiation, but not in terms of prohibition.
So if he says, "If I speak to so-and-so, divorce is upon me," or "If I speak to so-and-so, my slaves are free," or "If I speak to so-and-so, my wealth is charity," and his intention is to prohibit himself from these things, this has the status of an oath in terms of expiation. He is not obligated to carry out these things, as this falls under the category of vows that... he does this generally to emphasize his commitment to himself, either in prohibiting or doing something. Its ruling is that of an oath in this respect, but it does not have the ruling of an oath in the sense that it is forbidden for him, because he did not swear by other than Allah; rather, he made a conditional statement. This is narrated from the righteous Salaf, who placed it in the status of an oath and did not consider it forbidden. Rather, they placed it in the status of an oath in terms of expiation. When a woman named Layla bint al-Ajma' vowed that her slaves would be free and her wealth would be charity if she did not separate so-and-so from a slave girl she owned, Ibn 'Umar and a group of the Salaf ruled that she owed the expiation for an oath. Yes.
The presenter: May Allah reward you.
Source
binbaz.org.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.