Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/204)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

carry it; I will carry it myself.” If the person concerning whom he swore carries it, then, according to the established school position, he has broken his oath, even if his intention was to honor him.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held that if his intention was to honor him, then he does not break his oath through the contrary action. This is based on the view that whether an oath is broken depends on whether there has been disobedience of a binding command. If he intended to honor the person and the latter acted contrary to the oath, that person is not considered disobedient, because the swearer did not intend to bind him; rather, he intended to honor and show respect to him. This purpose was achieved merely by taking the oath, for his swearing that he should not carry it was itself an act of honor toward him, and that honor was conveyed and made evident.

Moreover, the very basis of breaking an oath rests on contravening a binding command. Just as one who acts contrary to a request made out of honor is not deemed disobedient, so too one who acts contrary to an oath made out of honor is not deemed to have caused the oath to be broken. He cited as evidence that when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, instructed Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him—when he came while Abu Bakr was leading the people in prayer and Abu Bakr wished to step back—to remain in his place, Abu Bakr nevertheless stepped back (1). Was Abu Bakr disobedient in that situation? No. He did not wish to disobey the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him; rather, he wished to venerate the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

If someone swears concerning a person who, by custom, would not desist because of his oath, since he has no authority over him, then if the matter sworn about takes place, the swearer has broken his oath. This is because it is not valid to direct a prohibition to one who will not refrain because of an oath. The basic function of an oath is to prevent, urge, affirm, or deny.

His statement: “If he himself, or someone else whom he intended to prevent, does part of what he swore…”

(1) Narrated by al-Bukhari in Al-Adhan, chapter: “One who enters to lead the people in prayer, then the imam arrives” (684); and by Muslim in Al-Salah, chapter: “The congregation appointing someone to lead them in prayer” (421), on the authority of Sahl ibn Sa'd al-Sa'idi.

تحمله أنا أحمله، فإذا حمله المحلوف عليه فإنه يحنث على المذهب، وإن كان قصدُه الإكرام. واختار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية أنه إذا قصد الإكرام فإنه لا يحنث بالمخالفة، بناءً على أن الحنث في اليمين مبني على الحنث في الحكم، وإذا قصد الإكرام وحصلت المخالفة، فإن المخالف لا يعد عاصياً؛ لأنه لم يقصد إلزامه، بل قصد إكرامه واحترامه، وهذا حصل بمجرد الحلف؛ لأن حلفه «أن لا يحمل» إكرام له، وقد حصل وظهر، ولأن أصل الحنث مبني على المخالفة في الحكم، فكما لا يكون عاصياً من خالف في باب الإكرام، لا يكون حانثاً من خالف في الإكرام في اليمين، واستدل لذلك بأن النبي ﷺ لما أمر أبا بكر ﵁ حين جاء وهو يصلي بالناس، وأراد أن يتأخر، فأمره أن يبقى، ولكنه تأخر (١)، فهل كان أبو بكر عاصياً في هذه الحال؟ لا، فهو لا يريد أن يعصي الرسول ﵊ بل يريد أن يعظم النبي ﷺ وإن حلف على شخص لم تجر العادة أن يمتنع بيمينه لكونه لا سلطة عليه فإنه إذا فُعِل المحلوفُ عليه حنث الحالف، لأن من لا يمتنع باليمين لا يصح توجيه المنع إليه وأصل اليمين قد بنيت على المنع والحث أو التصديق أو التكذيب. قوله: «وإن فعل هو أو غيره ممن قصد منعه بعض ما حلف

(١) أخرجه البخاري في الأذان/ باب من دخل ليؤم الناس فجاء الإمام … (٦٨٤)، ومسلم في الصلاة/ باب تقديم الجماعة من يصلي بهم … (٤٢١) عن سهل بن سعد الساعدي ﵁.