Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/175)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

An example of this is a man who is told, “Your son keeps company with wicked people,” and so he says, “By Allah, I will not speak to him for as long as I live,” on the basis that he keeps company with wicked people. Then someone comes to him and asks, “Why do you not speak to him?” He replies, “Because he keeps company with wicked people—so-and-so and so-and-so.” The man says to him, “These are very upright people, among the finest of young men. How then can you forbid him?” He says, “So-and-so told me that they were wicked.” The other replies, “Yes, they are wicked in his eyes, because they are righteous while he himself is wicked; and the wicked see the righteous as wicked.” If his father then speaks to him in this situation, must he offer expiation? He does not have to offer expiation, because his intention is known: the reason for his oath was that his son kept company with wicked people. It is as though the one swearing had said, “If my son keeps company with wicked people, I will not speak to him.” Although he did not state this condition explicitly, he had it in mind.

Likewise, if he is told, “Come with us; we wish to travel to such-and-such a town,” and he asks, “Such-and-such a town?” They reply, “Yes,” so he says, “By Allah, I will not travel there,” because he knew it to be a town in which wine was drunk, Allah was openly disobeyed, and rulings were not made according to what Allah had revealed. Then he is told, “The government has changed: a righteous believing man has taken charge of it, removed the injustice, and ruled by the law of Allah; and the immoral have gone into hiding.” If he were to travel there, would he have to offer expiation? No, because we know that the cause of his oath was the evil prevailing in that town. It is as though he had said, “By Allah, I will not travel there so long as it remains like that.” Now that this condition has ceased, he may travel there.

Likewise, if he says, “By Allah, I will not speak to Zayd,” because he had heard that Zayd was a lowly man, someone whom a person of his standing should not speak to, but it then becomes clear to him that Zayd is an honourable man and he speaks to him, we say that he has not broken his oath, because the reason that led him to swear has proved not to exist.

مثال ذلك: رجل قيل له: إن ابنك يصاحب الأشرار، فقال: والله لا أكلمه ما حييت، بناءً على أنه يصاحب الأشرار، فجاء إليه رجل، وقال له: لماذا لا تكلمه؟ فقال: لأنه يصاحب الأشرار، فلاناً، وفلاناً، فقال له: هؤلاء أناس طيبون جداً ومن أحسن الشباب، فكيف تمنعه؟! قال: قال لي فلان: إنهم أشرار، قال: نعم، هم أشرار عنده؛ لأنهم أخيار وهو شرٌّ، والشرُّ يرى الأخيارَ أشراراً، فهل إذا كلَّمه أبوه في هذه الحال عليه الكفارة؟ ليس عليه الكفارة؛ لأنه معروفٌ قصده، وسبب اليمين أن ابنه يصاحب الأشرار، فكأن هذا الحالف قال: إن كان ابني مصاحباً للأشرار فلا أكلمه، وهو وإن لم يقل هذا الشرط بلفظه فهو مضمر له في نفسه. ولو قيل له: اذهب معنا، نريد أن نسافر إلى بلدٍ ما، فقال: البلد الفلاني؟ قالوا: نعم، قال: والله ما أسافر إليه؛ لأنه كان يعلم أنها بلد تشرب فيها الخمور، ويعصى فيها الله ﷿ علانية، ولا يُحكم فيها بما أنزل الله، فقيل له: الحكم تغير، تولاها رجل مؤمن صالح، فأزال الظلم وحكم بشريعة الله، واختفى الفُسَّاق، فلو سافر إليها أعليه كفارة؟ لا؛ لأننا علمنا أن سبب يمينه هذا البلاء الذي في هذا البلد، فكأنه قال: والله لا أسافر إليه ما دام كذلك، والآن زال هذا الأمر فله أن يسافر. ولو قال: والله لا أكلم زيداً؛ بناءً على أنه سمع أن زيداً رجل وضيع، لا ينبغي لمثله أن يكلمه، فتبين له أن زيداً رجل شريف فكلمه، فهنا نقول: لا حنث عليه؛ لأن السبب الذي جعله يحلف تبين عدمه.