FOV03 Fiqh of Oaths and Vows – Chapter on Interpretation of Oaths

Hatem al-Haj


Channel: Hatem al-Haj


File Size: 28.68MB

Share Page


AI: Summary © The speakers discuss various topics related to the Sharia law, including the definition of " Diagnosical" actions, the meaning of " Diagnosical" actions, and the potential consequences of following the law. They emphasize the importance of reading the rules and understanding the meaning of action in the law. The speakers explore the breach of the oath and its implications for actions, including breaking it and not following the rules. They also discuss the use of "opportunities" in the oath and how it can affect insurance coverage.
Transcript ©
00:00:00--> 00:00:26

So, we have two chapters, bap German man, which is the chapter on interpretation of OLS. And as we said, Jama had a man Jana means brings together something that brings together like mustard and a compendium collection, collection of of different issues that pertain to those but all of them are pertain to the interpretation of ALS. So that's why I called it the chapter on interpretation of OLS.

00:00:27--> 00:01:10

And then we have ferati amine expiation for us. I really wanted to finish off the whole thing and like to finish the finish the book on who knows today, but it doesn't seem like I will be able to, so I will follow the order of American accoutrements. The next chapter is represented a man or the chapter on the interpretation of rules. And he's Rahim Allah, will Jaffe linear TV man who loves the phaser jalapeno Kelly moron, you read what hidden behind oletter got the reader behind He is also the Amina who will be

00:01:12--> 00:01:34

the implication of the oath depends on the intention as long as the wording accommodates it, if once wears do not speak to a man intending a certain man or not have lunch intending a certain lunch, the oath will apply to that only the oath would apply to that only. So, here

00:01:35--> 00:01:45

at the end of the chapter, I will say that we have to go by five things, the first one is an A A the intention.

00:01:50--> 00:02:18

The second one is the cause, the trigger what triggered the oath you know, so, if there is no clear intention, what is the context what is the trigger, what is the cause of taking deals? And then if if that is not if there is, if there is no intention, there is no trigger, then we will go to the implication of the word, but which implication there is a shadow

00:02:20--> 00:02:21


00:02:25--> 00:02:30

and there is our fee customary

00:02:33--> 00:02:35

and there is a logo he

00:02:36--> 00:02:37


00:02:41--> 00:02:49

So, in this order, in this exact order, intention is one cause is to

00:02:50--> 00:03:16

scriptural implication is three customary implication is for linguistic amplification is five. How do I understand the oath if people come to court and someone took an oath or like a Mufti? Let's not stop doesn't have to always be a court. Someone came to the Mufti and said, I took this oath. I took an oath to not have lunch,

00:03:18--> 00:03:19

to not have lunch.

00:03:23--> 00:04:17

Okay, did you and then I have lunch. What is the Mufti going to ask to figure out if he breached his oath or not? Oh, he took an oath to not have lunch. So tell me what did you intend to exactly? You know, at the time, I didn't intend anything. I just, you know, I took an oath to not have lunch. Then the Mufti will need to say what? So what triggered this? what triggered this oath? He would say, when he said, kept on telling me, you know, come to my home, let's have lunch, Come, let's have lunch, Come, let's have lunch. And I did like I got tired and sick of it. And I said to him, what why he I would not have lunch. Then the Mufti will tell him, then based on this context, if you had

00:04:17--> 00:04:34

a fee, if you responded to Hussein's invitation to lunch, you breached your oath. But if you left and then you went and have lunch on your own, you will not reach heroes. You did not reach heroes.

00:04:36--> 00:04:48

Because the trigger that can text would mean that you meant I will not respond to your invitation for lunch. I will not respond to your invitation for lunch.

00:04:50--> 00:04:56

Now, so when Did you have lunch? That's another question that the move to first ask I guess.

00:04:57--> 00:04:59

When did you have lunch hour

00:05:00--> 00:05:01

had it at two o'clock

00:05:02--> 00:05:06

Okay, the move to say that's not lunch, that's dinner

00:05:08--> 00:05:26

because lunch in this area lunch in the narrative is in the Revelation the time of lunch is such and such, but according to the understanding of the you know, the sort of the legal understanding lunch ends at noon

00:05:27--> 00:05:29

12 not 12 noon

00:05:32--> 00:05:56

lunch ends by noon and then till midnight, it is dinner and until after midnight it is so, okay. So that's, you know, so the Mufti will have to figure out that he actually eat lunch. What did he mean by I will not have lunch? So

00:05:58--> 00:06:14

I will lie I will not have learns that you intend anything? No, I did not. What triggered it? Hey, saying kept on telling me so I told him a lie. I will not have lunch. What time did you have the lunch?

00:06:15--> 00:06:19

Two o'clock. That was there. Don't worry about it.

00:06:20--> 00:06:34

But let's say that no intention, no clear trigger, no clear trigger or context to explain the oath, then we would resort to the shadow. Meaning first,

00:06:35--> 00:07:28

what was it a guard the two what was regard to words that are commonly used in the Sharia. Someone said what law he learned Oh, suddenly, I will not pray. And then he made his do Isola? Yes, in the Sharia what the Salah otaku wants to do this the specific. So if he said well, I don't suddenly and then he made the breeches oath. No, because the Sharia a definition of Salah, he did not breach it. And he will vent. So, everything that he will be talking about is about how to interpret the oath and how to determine if someone breached their oath or did not breach their oath and what their oath meant. So, why intention trigger then the meaning or the meaning of meaning and the chick said,

00:07:29--> 00:07:46

well Jaffe, linear female terminal loves. So, the implication of the O's depends on the intention as long as the wording accommodates it, as long as the word enactment dates, three different degrees of accommodation near

00:07:48--> 00:07:51

far and in between,

00:07:52--> 00:08:23

if you know if the word if the sort of the intended meaning is near to the apparent meaning, then certainly Yes, we will go by the intended meaning of the intended meaning as far now, we will not in you know in judgment, but udayan we will leave it between him and Allah subhanaw taala if that is what he actually intended, and the intended meaning is in between,

00:08:24--> 00:08:30

we will we will consider it, it will be considered like the near one near in between far.

00:08:31--> 00:08:46

So, far only is what we will not accept in fatwah or in Cuba, but we will leave it between him and his Lord if he actually intended that meaning. So, that is my activator who loves

00:08:47--> 00:08:54

the word in the apparent meaning accommodates that intention for the holiday we can imagine

00:08:56--> 00:08:56


00:08:57--> 00:09:35

movie if once were to not speak to a man intending a certain man or to not have lunch intending a certain lunch, the oath will apply to that only and as you will see in the book, then we talked about the mannequins and the ham bodies are the ones who say that, you know, the intention was to specify the general and generalize the specific specify the general and generalize the specific and they talk about you know, different examples from the book of Allah, where the general was was

00:09:37--> 00:09:38


00:09:39--> 00:09:48

spoke spoken of, whereas the specific was intended and vice versa. So in this case,

00:09:49--> 00:09:55

the Americans or companies are the ones who make the intention give the intention that power

00:09:56--> 00:09:59

in owes to specify the general answer

00:10:00--> 00:10:17

generalize the specific that shaft is and the HANA fees said no, it will specify the general but the Hanafi said it will specify the general you know between them and Atlanta in court

00:10:18--> 00:10:34

between them and Allah and not in court and they said it does not generalize the specific it does not generalize that specific. So, I will come to you know, he will give examples that will explain all of this. So, he said

00:10:36--> 00:10:36

when in Hana financial

00:10:37--> 00:10:59

Mad Men on the Hawks you redo carminati honey bee Cooley Murphy human if one swears to not drink someone's water to quench one's thirst intending to reject all things that count as favors it will breach the oath accept any favors from him while he I would not accept water from you.

00:11:00--> 00:11:22

Okay, well I will not accept water from you. And then you invite me to lunch and I go with you and eat lunch. Well, I didn't. I didn't take water. But I you know, I ate lunch. I didn't drink water but he had lunch. So the hand bellies and medic ease would say I breached it.

00:11:23--> 00:11:39

Because I meant I will not accept any favor from you. So my intention generalize that the specific here which is water. The canopies and Jeffery's will say well, as long as you did not drink water, you're fine.

00:11:40--> 00:11:43

Is that clear? Okay, then

00:11:44--> 00:11:51

we're in Hannaford Elvis with open manifestly Have you read catarman naziha, who won't ever be fair many hands

00:11:52--> 00:12:06

if he's wearing or not wear a garment that she was intending to not take favorites from her. But then he sells it and makes use of its price, then he has breached his oath.

00:12:08--> 00:12:20

He has breached his oath. Because it was not about wearing it was about what I will not take any favorites from you. So if you take that

00:12:24--> 00:12:33

if you think about thoubal garment and sell it and make use of the money, then what is going to happen here your breach heroes.

00:12:36--> 00:12:48

Because the honeyberries will generalize the specific specified a general based on the intention your intention here was not simply about wearing it's about not taking favors from her.

00:12:50--> 00:13:09

But they were limited to the thought to the garment because that you know, because if if you then it because the author was specific about the garment to this particular garment versus what versus I will not drink your water.

00:13:10--> 00:13:14

The scope of this can go beyond water.

00:13:15--> 00:13:17

But I will not wear

00:13:19--> 00:13:37

this garment of yours. We're talking about this particular garment. And we generalize the meaning to include any use of the arc garment not just wearing but it does not go beyond that garment.

00:13:38--> 00:13:42

So if she invited you to lunch and you accepted then that's fine.

00:13:44--> 00:14:02

We're in the hopper who hadn't you read a letter there was a who who do milania if he is where is the base someone tomorrow intending to pay no later than tomorrow but he pays him today. He has not breached his oath. He has not breached his oath.

00:14:04--> 00:14:38

So you are, you know, people, there's a disputation and someone came a dispute and came and people kept on telling you and you owe the money. People kept on telling you it's this you have to pay him. You have not paid him for years you're still late and and so on and so forth. And then to comfort to them. You say what Laurie I will pay him tomorrow will lie I will pay him tomorrow.

00:14:39--> 00:14:41

If you pay him today

00:14:43--> 00:14:45

What did you breach your oath?

00:14:47--> 00:14:52

Because you meant I will not defer it beyond tomorrow.

00:14:53--> 00:14:59

They are sitting with you and you know, when they're telling you pay him today

00:15:00--> 00:15:07

Pay him today pay him today and then you say, Well, why don't pay him tomorrow? Meaning I will not pay him today.

00:15:09--> 00:15:13

So, then you pay him today you breached your oath, yes.

00:15:15--> 00:15:16

How did we get this

00:15:18--> 00:15:29

cause trigger context, you know, cause trigger context showed us what you meant. And based on this will hold you to what you meant

00:15:30--> 00:15:32

for an argument in a

00:15:33--> 00:15:34

separate video, meanwhile, my

00:15:36--> 00:15:52

company yet he did allottee Allah in the absence of a defined intention, if there was no intention, you know, then the implication of the oath would depend on the reason for taking it, this will take the place of the intention in determining the implication.

00:16:04--> 00:16:10

Something is not translated in the book here, because it is redundant

00:16:13--> 00:16:45

for in for an argument in the yada yada, yada, yada yada yada yada, yada yada. If there was no intention, then the implication of the oath will depend on the reason for taking it. This will take the place of the intention in determining the implication. As we said, What is the context that triggered that oath and we will understand the meaning of the oath from the context for in our democratic so no intention.

00:16:46--> 00:17:12

No trigger, clear trigger for an RV medallic humanity Amina who loves to fish in Canada with orphans or even casilla to humanity. Amina Mohamed, Salah sahoo Farah Hara Diaby Pei entre Sita, Lamia, Hannah's Illa annually we live in a manner simple Barrow, Calgary Camry fatica Lee amenable Sora and buyer

00:17:14--> 00:17:41

if that is also an if that is also unknown. So, the intention and the trigger than the oath will be interpreted according to its apparent implication, if there is a Chevy or based implication such as insalata or the cap, the oath will be understood according to it, Salah zakka zecca means in the language of different things, but when you say is a character that it is, you know, because in

00:17:42--> 00:17:51

in what is the matter sorry. So what is dominant? What prevailed is the scripture of meaning of the word.

00:17:52--> 00:18:15

So, if he's where is it not settled and then he enters into an invalid sales contract, he has not breached his oath unless he makes an oath to not sell a free man or wine, in which case his oath would apply to that type of sale. Okay. So,

00:18:16--> 00:19:09

if there is a shatter a definition for the word, then we will go by the sort of a definition when not in all cases, and we will come to the one example, but when the shadow definition prevail, the sorry definition of the word the prevailed such as in Salah, and, and so, and zeca, you know, someone who could be abstaining from talking, for instance, but when Muslim talks about some he's talking about the song that is in the Sharia, Salah, hasakah, etc. Okay? So he says, voila, he I will not basically sell for the rest of the day, or buy for the rest of the day, will not sell or buy for the rest of the day. And then he sold a bottle of wine.

00:19:11--> 00:19:14

So the bottle of wine that he breached his oath.

00:19:16--> 00:19:17

No, he did not.

00:19:19--> 00:19:21

Because that's an invalid state in this area.

00:19:23--> 00:19:26

So by the Shariah definition, he did not say anything.

00:19:28--> 00:19:35

It's not saying it's an invalid say that. Sorry, I would void that say he did not say anything.

00:19:41--> 00:19:52

Well, if he if he sold wine, yeah, he's in trouble. But But the idea here is we're talking about the breaching of the he did not breach those. He did not breach the oath.

00:19:54--> 00:20:00

What if he said well, why I will not say and why for the rest of the day. And he said

00:20:00--> 00:20:00


00:20:02--> 00:20:33

he exchanged wine for a price. He did not sell because it is not a sale. But let's say he's he buyer in that linguistic definition of Bay as what MOBA is basically, from extends your back to stretch out you are in an act of exchange with other party, an act of exchange, it's an exchange in the linguistic definition of banner, he did sell,

00:20:34--> 00:20:46

exchange mine for something else. But that's not the general definition of say. But if he said, Well, I will not say why. And he then exchange wines.

00:20:48--> 00:20:50

Strange wine for a price.

00:20:51--> 00:20:52

Did he breach his

00:20:54--> 00:20:58

he did breach it this time. I know but don't get frustrated.

00:21:00--> 00:21:18

Because when he said I will not sell wine, we understood from his oath, that he's not talking about the valid sale, because he added wine to the sale. In the first example, he said, Well, I will not sell or buy for the rest of the day.

00:21:21--> 00:21:22

This means

00:21:23--> 00:21:25

when he sold the wine, he did not say it or buy it.

00:21:27--> 00:21:50

But if he said, Well, I will not sell wine. And then came and sold wine. We understood that, that were what like what, like, from a beer here. That sort of a definition does not apply to it, because he's saying then at the outcome, he's adding comedy to the same thing.

00:21:51--> 00:21:51


00:21:54--> 00:21:59

who's free a free man, no one comes as a free man. So

00:22:00--> 00:22:27

anyway, so the breaching guards. Now if there is a core to the court will void that say, but he breached the oath, because his oath did not apply to the shadow a definition of Bayer, it applied to the subrata Bay, which is the four form of exchange, the you know, the linguistic meaning of bear. Okay.

00:22:28--> 00:22:40

Some of the scholars said that if he said, Well, I will not say why and then he solved wine, he did not breach his oath. So if you're frustrated, just go with but that's not the position in the mother.

00:22:42--> 00:23:15

But in the mishap, well I will not sell or buy, if he sold the wine, he did not breach his oath because he did not sell or buy. But if initially in the oath he said well, I will not sell wine, then we understand from this that he does not mean the Shara a definition of sale or selling, but the linguistic definition if he came back and exchanged wine for a price, he breached that linguistic definition of say,

00:23:16--> 00:23:16


00:23:18--> 00:23:29

Then he said, What is one difference here one difference here is that if you say you will lie he

00:23:31--> 00:23:32

Lana hurt,

00:23:33--> 00:23:51

and then you ruin your heart Do you respond with your hand that has had two facets so you did not make had, they will consider this a breach of those because it had to facet mobile model up because a larger facet you have to continue. You have to finish it off.

00:23:52--> 00:24:08

Even though it's faster, and you will have to make up. Therefore, four hands. It is once you embark on once you put on your alarm. Once you do your alarm you put on the garment of how many do

00:24:09--> 00:24:53

you reach the rose regardless, but for the other cases, the shiny definition will prevail when we offer insurance to Canada or from Florida, Canada but you have humility Amina who had a fellow holofil Erica Buddha. Meanwhile halocarbon Hamid if there is no Sharia based application, but there is a customary one such as the beasts of burden, or the ina woman traveler, the oath would be understood according to the customary application. For example, if he swears to not right at that bank, then his oath will apply only to horses, mules and donkeys.

00:24:54--> 00:24:58

He made an oath or not right adapa

00:25:03--> 00:25:05

He wrote a cow

00:25:07--> 00:25:08

that he breached his oath

00:25:09--> 00:25:13

no is the cows that are not

00:25:16--> 00:25:21

yes even in the core entities that will low Hakuna determine

00:25:25--> 00:25:39

what is the debt but what works on his stomach you know not a horse for sure you know so and and and two legs and four legs and so, so that

00:25:40--> 00:25:57

anything that is that walks on the surface of the earth is that but in the customary definition what prevailed is that by means of beasts of burden horses, donkeys mules, not a cow

00:25:58--> 00:26:02

Okay, well I will not touch a hyena

00:26:04--> 00:26:06

what is a liner

00:26:08--> 00:26:11

liner here at debility or suffer

00:26:12--> 00:26:16

with lion air is that beasts of burden that you travel on

00:26:19--> 00:26:23

Okay, the designer is also the that

00:26:25--> 00:26:26

how do you translate

00:26:28--> 00:26:32

whatever you put on top of the candle for women to sit inside

00:26:36--> 00:26:40

or whatever that thing you put on top of the camera for women to sit inside

00:26:42--> 00:26:43

whatever it is,

00:26:44--> 00:26:55

that could be a vagina also, but what prevailed in the customary use of the word vagina is the woman herself the loan the woman who you know the loan woman traveler

00:26:57--> 00:27:13

then your your oath will not apply to the camel, but to the woman. So, we will give precedence to shadow IE when the shadow a prevails will give precedence to the RV, when there are three prevails.

00:27:15--> 00:27:22

And then the local we will be the last thing. The last thing what if there is

00:27:24--> 00:27:49

like I said that that the in the forehand, the fact that we put the shadow before the RV does not mean that people's speech will be understood based on the meanings of the Quran? Not their own usage, because the data in the Quran is not only the horses. Okay, so what if someone says, Well, why would not eat meat?

00:27:50--> 00:27:52

And then ate fish?

00:27:54--> 00:27:59

Hmm, breached or did not breach? The Hungary's will say breached

00:28:00--> 00:28:19

because fish is me is one of the five meats and Allah said last month or a year, you know, tender meats, the largest crab with a standard meat comes out of the sea. So fish is means therefore the company but the Anopheles will say no, he did not breach

00:28:21--> 00:28:29

and in fact the medic is in samsara is the medic is also said no, he did not breach. So

00:28:31--> 00:28:32

anyway, what

00:28:35--> 00:29:00

you may say that he did not breach it actually the reason? Maybe Ryan's about this, it doesn't look like he would have because when people talk about meat, they usually they usually when things change, because we're saying this also we are influenced by our usage. You know, things change all the time. But the principle that you want to understand is what?

00:29:02--> 00:29:09

What is prevalent, what is prevalent in terms of because we want to hear because likely when people

00:29:10--> 00:29:15

speak, they'll just use the customarily prevalent stuff.

00:29:16--> 00:29:21

But certainly the shadow, there are certain things that are

00:29:22--> 00:29:40

the scriptural meaning would always be given precedence. These are the things that they are like zeca Salah, so. So if you say I would fast on Monday, don't tell me I meant I would not speak to Mohammed for instance on Monday.

00:29:42--> 00:29:46

So it has to mean the past thing in the Sharia.

00:29:48--> 00:29:50

And that brings us to the end of

00:29:51--> 00:29:55

this chapter on the interpretation of oaths.

00:30:01--> 00:30:09

Next time and cha cha want to go over Babel clarity. I mean, the chapter on expiation for olds and I wrote all of this.

00:30:10--> 00:30:22

I'm just gonna leave it here. And next time, hopefully I'll find because this is this is the idea about confided in me for a product with Tamasha TMS. Again, when I was sitting

00:30:26--> 00:30:30

at a salon, leave it here and come back and find

00:30:31--> 00:30:31

this particular

00:30:33--> 00:30:39

overlay. We'll have five minutes for people to leave, and then we'll answer the questions.