The ruling on one who swears by the forbidden to abstain from a forbidden act and then commits it

Question:
The listener (Ismail A. M.) from the Arab Republic of Egypt, residing in Riyadh. Our brother sent a message containing a lengthy question, the summary of which is: that he is one of those afflicted with smoking. One day he said, "I swear by the forbidden, three times, that I will not smoke." He remained abstinent for approximately two years, then returned to his home country during a vacation and smoked. What is the ruling, if you would be so kind?

Answer:
This depends on his intention. If he intended by this to prevent himself from smoking, and his aim was not to make his wife forbidden to him if he smoked, but rather his aim was to abstain from it and to use this prohibition to help him quit smoking, then he is in the ruling of an oath. He owes the expiation for the oath, along with repentance, seeking forgiveness, and not returning to it. He owes the expiation for the oath because, according to the most correct view, prohibition is in the ruling of an oath.
If he says, "It is forbidden for him to do such and such," or "Let him do such and such," and then he breaks his oath, the correct view is that it is in the ruling of an oath, provided he did not intend to make his family, or his wife, forbidden to him, but rather intended to abstain and refrain from that thing. It has the ruling of an oath, and its expiation is known: feeding ten poor people, or clothing them, or freeing a slave. And whoever is unable to do that fasts for three days.
So the conclusion is that this has the ruling of an oath.

The presenter: May Allah reward you with good.