—namely, a dispensation to break these oaths⦗هـ⦘, for whatever is obligatory even without an oath is only strengthened by the oath; it is never weakened, even if we were to assume⦗1⦘ that the person was forced to swear.

If someone wishes to claim that the object of the oath remains absolutely binding in certain cases—simply because the ruler occasionally obliges people to swear—he is answered thus: this very contention turns against you in the issue of the coerced oath, for you say that it is not binding even when the rulers compel it. The same objection applies to many other matters in which you give fatwas that rely on legal stratagems, and all of them involve disobedience to Allah, His Messenger, and the rulers.

As for the people of knowledge, piety, and virtue, they never grant anyone permission to do what Allah has forbidden—be it disobeying the rulers, deceiving them, or rebelling against them in any form whatsoever. This has been the well-known practice of Ahl al-Sunnah, both earlier and later, and it is likewise found in the conduct of others⦗2⦘.

It is authentically reported in the Sahih from Ibn ʿUmar—may Allah be pleased with them—