Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/159)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

broken his oath, because a part is not equivalent to the whole. This garment contains some of her spun yarn, not all of it.

His statement, “or if he swears that he will not drink the water in this vessel, then drinks some of it, he has not broken his oath”: If he says, “By Allah, I will not drink the water in this vessel,” and then drinks some of it, he has not broken his oath, because a part is not equivalent to the whole. We have previously noted that an affirmative expression encompasses the entirety, whereas a negative expression is established even where only part is involved. But if he says, “By Allah, I will not drink the water of this river,” and drinks some of it, the scholars say that he has broken his oath, because it is impossible for the statement to refer to all of it. It is inconceivable that a person could drink the entire river; therefore, since it cannot be understood as referring to the whole, the ruling applies to part of it. This is an obvious indication, for everyone understands that when a person says, “By Allah, I will not drink the water of this river,” he does not mean that he will not drink all of its water. In short, a distinction must be made between what can be intended as a whole and what cannot. Whatever cannot be intended as a whole is understood to refer to part of it. Thus, if he says, “By Allah, I will not eat bread,” and then eats some bread, he has broken his oath, since it is impossible for him to eat all the bread in the world. But if he says, “By Allah, I will not eat this loaf,” then eats part of it, he has not broken his oath.

And if he does part of what he swore about, he has not broken his oath unless he intended it; but if he swears that he will certainly do it, he has not fulfilled his oath unless he does all of it.

His statement, “If he does what he swore about forgetfully or out of ignorance, he has broken his oath only in matters of divorce and manumission”: If he does what he swore not to do forgetfully—for example, if he says, “By Allah, I will not speak to so-and-so,” then forgets and speaks to him—then nothing is due from him. This is because oath-breaking is treated as an act of sin, and there is no liability for doing, forgetfully, that for which one would otherwise be sinful. Allah the Exalted says:

“Our Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we forget or make a mistake.” [al-Baqarah 2:286]

يحنث؛ لأن البعض ليس كالكل، وهذا فيه بعض من غزلها، وليس فيه كل الغزل. قوله: «أو لا يشرب ماء هذا الإناء فشرب بعضه لم يحنث» قال: والله لا أشرب ماء هذا الإناء فشرب بعضاً منه، فإنه لا يحنث؛ لأن البعض ليس كالكل، وقد سبق لنا أن ما كان إيجاباً فإنه يشمل الجميع، والنفي يثبت حتى في البعض، لكن لو قال: والله لا أشرب ماء هذا النهر وشرب بعضه يقول العلماء: إنه يحنث لاستحالة تعلقه بالكل، فغير معقول أن يشرب الإنسان كل النهر، فلما تعذر حمله على الكل ثبت الحكم في بعضه، وهذه قرينة ظاهرة، فكلٌّ يعرف أنه إذا قال: والله ما أشرب ماء هذا النهر أنه لا يقصد شرب مائه كله، فالمهم أنه يفرق بين ما يمكن أن يراد به الكل، وبين ما لا يمكن، فالذي لا يمكن أن يراد به الكل يحمل على البعض، فلو قال: والله لا آكل الخبز، وأكل خبزاً يحنث؛ إذ يستحيل أن يأكل خبز الدنيا كلها، لكن لو قال: والله لا آكل هذه الخبزة فأكل بعضها ما يحنث. ، وَإِنْ فَعَلَ بَعْضَهُ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَنْوِيَهُ، وَإِنْ حَلَفَ لَيَفْعَلَنَّهُ لَمْ يَبَرَّ إِلاَّ بِفِعْلِهِ كُلِّهِ. قوله: «وإن فعل المحلوف عليه ناسياً أو جاهلاً حنث في طلاق وعتاق فقط» إذا فعل المحلوف عليه ناسياً، مثل أن يقول: والله لا أكلم فلاناً، فنسي فكلَّمه فلا شيء عليه؛ لأن الحنث على اسمه، يعامل معاملة الآثم، وفِعْل ما يأثم به على وجه النسيان لا شيء فيه؛ لقوله تعالى: ﴿رَبَّنَا لَا تُؤَاخِذْنَا إِنْ نَسِيْنَا أَوْ أَخْطَأْنَا﴾ [البقرة: ٢٨٦]،