Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

Another group said that divorce and manumission do [not] (1) fall within it—neither their actual enactment nor oaths involving them, whether expressed in conditional form or in the form of an oath. This is the better-known of the two positions in Mālik’s school and one of the two positions reported from Ahmad.

The “third view” is that actually effecting divorce or manumission does not fall within it, whereas swearing an oath involving divorce or manumission does. This is the second position reported from Ahmad. Some scholars of his school said: If it is expressed in the form of an oath, it falls within the hadith, and saying “If Allah wills” is effective, according to the sole position reported from him on this point. If it is expressed in conditional form, however, two positions are reported from him.

This “third view” is the correct one, whose substance is transmitted from the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the majority of the Successors, such as Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyib and al-Hasan. They did not recognize an exception in divorce, nor did they class divorce among oaths. Yet we have already mentioned that the Companions and the majority of the Successors regarded oaths involving charity, sacrificial offerings, manumission, and the like as oaths for which expiation may be made.

This is the meaning of Ahmad’s statement in several places: “As for making an exception in divorce and manumission, these two are not oaths.” He also said: “I do not recognize making an exception in divorce, because divorce and manumission are two pronouncements that take effect.”

He also said: “An exception applies only where expiation is possible, and neither divorce nor manumission can be expiated.”

What he said is clear, for actually effecting divorce or manumission is not an oath at all. Rather, it is comparable to waiving the right to legal retribution or releasing someone from a debt. Thus, if someone were to say, “By Allah, I will not swear an oath,” and then freed a slave he owned, divorced his wife, or released

(1) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd stated (p. 228, footnote): “In al-Fatāwā, the reading is yadkhul (‘is included’), which clearly contradicts the context.”
وَقَوْمٌ قَالُوا [لَا] (١) يَدْخُلُ فِي ذَلِكَ الطَّلَاقُ وَالْعِتَاقُ؛ لَا إيقَاعُهُمَا وَلَا الْحَلِفُ بِهِمَا بِصِيغَةِ الْجَزَاءِ وَلَا بِصِيغَةِ الْقَسَمِ وَهَذَا أَشْهَرُ الْقَوْلَيْنِ فِي مَذْهَبِ مَالِكٍ وَإِحْدَى الرِّوَايَتَيْنِ عَنْ أَحْمَد. و " الْقَوْلُ الثَّالِثُ " أَنَّ إيقَاعَ الطَّلَاقِ وَالْعِتَاقِ لَا يَدْخُلُ فِي ذَلِكَ؛ بَلْ يَدْخُلُ فِيهِ الْحَلِفُ بِالطَّلَاقِ وَالْعِتَاقِ وَهَذِهِ الرِّوَايَةُ الثَّانِيَةُ عَنْ أَحْمَد. وَمِنْ أَصْحَابِهِ مَنْ قَالَ: إنْ كَانَ الْحَلِفُ بِصِيغَةِ الْقَسَمِ دَخَلَ فِي الْحَدِيثِ وَنَفَعَتْهُ الْمَشِيئَةُ رِوَايَةً وَاحِدَةً؛ وَإِنْ كَانَ بِصِيغَةِ الْجَزَاءِ فَفِيهِ رِوَايَتَانِ و " هَذَا الْقَوْلُ الثَّالِثُ " هُوَ الصَّوَابُ الْمَأْثُورُ مَعْنَاهُ عَنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَجُمْهُورِ التَّابِعِينَ: كَسَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيِّبِ وَالْحَسَنِ؛ لَمْ يَجْعَلُوا فِي الطَّلَاقِ اسْتِثْنَاءً وَلَمْ يَجْعَلُوهُ مِنْ الْأَيْمَانِ؛ ثُمَّ قَدْ ذَكَرْنَا عَنْ الصَّحَابَةِ وَجُمْهُورِ التَّابِعِينَ أَنَّهُمْ جَعَلُوا الْحَلِفَ بِالصَّدَقَةِ وَالْهَدْيِ وَالْعِتَاقِ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ يَمِينًا مُكَفَّرَةً وَهَذَا مَعْنَى قَوْلِ أَحْمَد فِي غَيْرِ مَوْضِعٍ: الِاسْتِثْنَاءُ فِي الطَّلَاقِ وَالْعِتَاقِ لَيْسَا مِنْ الْأَيْمَانِ قَالَ أَيْضًا: الثُّنْيَا فِي الطَّلَاقِ لَا أَقُولُ بِهِ؛ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ الطَّلَاقَ وَالْعِتَاقَ حَرْفَانِ وَاقِعَانِ. وَقَالَ أَيْضًا: إنَّمَا يَكُونُ الِاسْتِثْنَاءُ فِيمَا يَكُونُ فِيهِ كَفَّارَةٌ وَالطَّلَاقُ وَالْعِتَاقُ لَا يُكَفَّرَانِ. وَهَذَا الَّذِي قَالَهُ ظَاهِرٌ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ إيقَاعَ الطَّلَاقِ وَالْعِتَاقِ لَيْسَا يَمِينًا أَصْلًا وَإِنَّمَا هُوَ بِمَنْزِلَةِ الْعَفْوِ عَنْ الْقِصَاصِ وَالْإِبْرَاءِ مِنْ الدَّيْنِ وَلِهَذَا لَوْ قَالَ: " وَاَللَّهِ لَا أَحْلِفُ عَلَى يَمِينٍ ثُمَّ إنَّهُ أَعْتَقَ عَبْدًا لَهُ أَوْ طَلَّقَ امْرَأَتَهُ أَوْ أَبْرَأَ
(١) قال الشيخ ناصر بن حمد الفهد (ص ٢٢٨ - هامش): في الفتاوى: يدخل، وهو خلاف السياق، كما هو ظاهر

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