Iqtiḍāʾ al-Ṣirāṭ al-MustaqīmIbn Taimiya

hardships, or to ask them to request such things from Allah the Exalted. Indeed, were a person to adjure Allah by any of His creatures—be they prophets, angels, or others—he would still be prohibited from doing so, even if he were nowhere near a grave. Just as one must never swear by any created being whatsoever, so too is this form of oath forbidden and invalid, by consensus of the leading jurists.

Is the prohibition one of outright forbiddance (taḥrīm) or merely of disapproval (tanzīh)? Two opinions exist, the sounder of which is that it is unequivocally forbidden.

The scholars have differed only regarding swearing specifically by the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Within the Ḥanbalī school two views are reported, and some of its scholars, such as Ibn ʿAqīl, extended that disagreement to swearing by the rest of the prophets. However, the position adopted by the overwhelming majority of the imams—Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, and others—is that no oath taken by any created being is ever binding, and that one must not swear by a creature at all; this is the correct view.

On that very basis rests the issue of adjuring Allah by His Prophet Muḥammad—peace and blessings be upon him—and so the same difference of opinion appears here. A report from Aḥmad, recorded in the Manāsik of al-Marwazī, seems to support the view that such an oath would be effective; yet the soundest position is that it is not. The same ruling applies in this case.

As for adjuring Allah by anyone other than the Prophet, I know of no disagreement among the imams; rather, the scholars have explicitly declared it forbidden.

(1) In manuscript B an addition reads: “that is, swearing by it.” (2) In manuscript At: muʿtaqid (holding such a belief). (3) See: al-Mughni and al-Sharh al-Kabir, vol. 11, pp. 162, 164, 209; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp. 499–500; Majmuʿ al-Fatawa by the author, vol. 33, pp. 62, 68, 125, 126; vol. 35, p. 243; vol. 1, p. 204. (4) The text from here up to the phrase “but the view …” (about one line) is missing in manuscript At. (5) In manuscript B: “so as to eliminate disagreement.” (6) See: al-Mughni and al-Sharh al-Kabir, vol. 11, p. 209; Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, vol. 35, p. 243. (7) Manuscript B adds: “that is, swearing,” which clarifies the antecedent. (8) Manuscript A and the printed edition read: “the ummah (community).”
الكربات، أو طلب منهم أن يطلبوا ذلك من الله تعالى؟ بل لو أقسم على الله ببعض خلقه من الأنبياء والملائكة وغيرهم؛ لنهي عن ذلك ولو لم يكن عند قبره (١) كما لا يقسم بمخلوق مطلقا، وهذا القسم منهي عنه، غير منعقد (٢) باتفاق الأئمة. وهل هو نهي تحريم أو تنزيه؟ على قولين: أصحهما: أنه نهي تحريم (٣) . ولم يتنازع العلماء إلا في الحلف بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خاصة، فإن فيه قولين في مذهب أحمد (٤) وبعض أصحابه، كابن عقيل طرد الخلاف (٥) في الحلف بسائر الأنبياء، لكن القول الذي عليه جمهور الأئمة، كمالك والشافعي وأبي حنيفة وغيرهم: أنه لا ينعقد اليمين بمخلوق البته، ولا يقسم بمخلوق البته، وهذا هو الصواب (٦) . والإقسام على الله بنبيه محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم مبني على هذا الأصل، ففيه هذا النزاع، وقد نقل عن أحمد في التوسل بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في (منسك المروزي) ما يناسب قوله بانعقاد اليمين به، لكن الصحيح أنه لا تنعقد اليمين به. فكذلك هذا (٧) . وأما غيره: فما علمت بين الأئمة (٨) فيه نزاعا بل قد صرح العلماء بالنهي
(١) في (ب) زاد: يعني الإقسام به. (٢) في (أط) : معتقد. (٣) انظر: المغني والشرح الكبير (١١ / ١٦٢، ١٦٤، ٢٠٩) ؛ وبداية المجتهد (٢ / ٤٩٩، ٥٠٠) ؛ ومجموع الفتاوى للمؤلف (٣٣ / ٦٢، ٦٨، ١٢٥، ١٢٦) ، و (٣٥ / ٢٤٣) ، و (١ / ٢٠٤) . (٤) من هنا حتى قوله: لكن القول (سطر تقريبا) : سقط من (أط) . (٥) في (ب) : طردا للخلاف. (٦) انظر: المغني والشرح الكبير (١١ / ٢٠٩) ؛ ومجموع الفتاوى (٣٥ / ٢٤٣) . (٧) في (ب) : زاد: يعني الإقسام. وهو تفسير لمرجع الإشارة. (٨) في (أ) وفي المطبوعة: الأمة.

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies