Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/135)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

his faith—except one who is compelled while his heart remains firm in faith. But whoever willingly opens his heart to disbelief: upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a tremendous punishment.” [al-Naḥl 16:106]

Thus, if a word of disbelief is uttered by someone under compulsion, it has no legal effect; whatever is less serious than that is likewise.

As for the sunnah, the Prophet ﷺ said: “Indeed, Allah has pardoned my nation for mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do.” (1) Accordingly, if he breaks his oath in this situation, he incurs no sin and owes no expiation.

But is it a condition that, when taking the oath, he intend thereby to avert the compulsion—such that if he intends the oath itself, it becomes binding?

The answer is that the apparent meaning of the author’s words is that this is not a condition. However, they stated in the Book of Divorce that he must intend by it to avert the compulsion, rather than intend the occurrence of that which he has been compelled to do. The difference between the two is that intending to avert the compulsion means that he says this in order to escape the harm of the one compelling him, while not actually wanting it.

As for intending the action itself, it is that he says, “By Allah, I will not inform on you,” while truly intending not to inform on him; his sole intention is not merely to escape him. Thus, by analogy with their discussion of divorce, this oath entails expiation, because if one compelled to do something says it in order to avert the compulsion, it has no legal effect and does not harm him; but if he says it while intending it

(1) Reported by Ibn Majah in Kitab al-Talaq (The Book of Divorce), chapter: “The Divorce of One Who Is Coerced or Forgetful,” no. 2045; and by al-Bayhaqi, 6:84. It was also reported with the wording “tajawaza” (“overlooked” or “pardoned”) by Ibn Abi Shaybah, 4:82; Ibn Hibban, 16:202; al-Tabarani in al-Awsat, 8:161; and al-Hakim, 2:216. Al-Hakim authenticated the hadith, and al-Dhahabi concurred; it was likewise authenticated by al-Albani in al-Mishkat, 3:372. See also al-Talkhis, 1:281-282, and Nasb al-Rayah, 2:64.

إِيمَانِهِ إِلاَّ مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالإِيمَانِ وَلَكِنْ مَنْ شَرَحَ بِالْكُفْرِ صَدْرًا فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ﴾ [النحل:١٠٦]. فإذا كانت كلمة الكفر قد صدرت من مُكرَهٍ فلا أثر لها، فما سواها مثلها. أما من السنة، فقال النبي ﷺ: «إن الله وضع عن أمتي الخطأ والنسيان وما استكرهوا عليه» (١)، وعلى هذا فإن حنث في يمينه في هذه الحال، فلا إثم عليه ولا كفارة. ولكن هل يشترط أن ينوي في اليمين دفع الإكراه، فإن نوى اليمين انعقدت؟ الجواب: ظاهر كلام المؤلف أنه لا يشترط، لكنهم ذكروا في كتاب الطلاق أنه يشترط أن ينوي بذلك دفع الإكراه، لا حصول المكره عليه، والفرق بينهما أن نية دفع الإكراه أن يقول هذا من أجل أن يسلم من شر الذي أكرهه، وهو لا يريد ذلك. أما نية الفعل، فأن يقول: والله لا أخبر بك، وهو ينوي فعلاً أن لا يخبر به، وليس قصده فقط أن يسلم منه، فقياس كلامهم في الطلاق أن هذه اليمين فيها الكفارة؛ لأن المكرَهَ على الشيء إن قاله دفعاً للإكراه فلا حكم له ولا يضره، وإن قاله يريده

(١) أخرجه ابن ماجه في الطلاق/ باب طلاق المكره والناسي (٢٠٤٥)، والبيهقي (٦/ ٨٤). وأخرجه بلفظ: «تجاوز» ابن أبي شيبة (٤/ ٨٢)، وابن حبان (١٦/ ٢٠٢)، والطبراني في الأوسط (٨/ ١٦١)، والحاكم (٢/ ٢١٦)، والحديث صححه الحاكم ووافقه الذهبي، والألباني في المشكاة (٣/ ٣٧٢)، وانظر: التلخيص (١/ ٢٨١، ٢٨٢)، ونصب الراية (٢/ ٦٤).