📥 New Question: [It is permissible for the rightful owner to give a bribe in order to obtain his right(1)]

📝 Question Text:
Question: Is it permissible for the rightful owner to give a bribe to the judge in order to obtain his right, or not?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: The scholars of the madhhab have forbidden that, as is stated in the marginal notes on al-Bayān. However, Imām al-Manṣūr Billāh, Imām Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah (Peace be upon them), and others allowed it.
What appears to me – and Allah knows best – is that if the rightful owner knows that he cannot reach his right except through a bribe, then it is permissible in that case; and that is for two reasons:
1. That His saying, the Exalted: “And do not consume one another's wealth unjustly or send it [in bribery] to the rulers in order that [they might aid] you [to] consume a portion of the wealth of the people in sin, while you know [it is unlawful].” [Al-Baqarah:188] does not apply to the one we have mentioned. Rather, it concerns those who bribe the judges in order to consume people’s wealth without right, whereas the person in question is merely ransoming his own wealth, not the wealth of other people.
2. Analogy with the prisoner of war: it has been established that it is permissible for him to ransom himself from the oppressor with his own wealth.
If it is said: It has come in the ḥadīth that the one who gives the bribe and the one who takes it are cursed.
We say: That is general, and it can be specified by the implied meaning (mafhum) of the verse and by analogy.
Furthermore, we do not concede that the one we have mentioned is called “a briber (rāshī)”; perhaps this name is specific to the one mentioned in the verse.
Moreover, what we have mentioned can also be supported by the fact that Allah, Exalted is He, has forbidden squandering wealth, and He has permitted for the one in dire necessity what is not permitted for others.
It may also be inferred for what we have said that it has been narrated that the Prophet (May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) considered giving the polytheists, during the Battle of the Trench, some of the fruits of Madinah so that they would turn back from the Muslims in that expedition; and he gave those whose hearts were to be reconciled (al-muʾallafah qulūbuhum) among the polytheists on the Day of Ḥunayn, in order to incline them towards Islam and to repel thereby their harm. And Allah, Exalted is He, has assigned them a share in the zakāh in His Noble Book.
Thus, the utmost that is in the matter is that it is not permissible for the judge to take wealth in order to judge according to the truth; for it has been established that it is not permissible to take a wage for an obligatory duty, as in His saying, Exalted is He: “And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, [being] sincere to Him in religion, inclining to truth, and to establish prayer and to give zakāh. And that is the correct religion.” [Al-Bayyinah:5] and His saying, Exalted is He: “Say, ‘I am only a man like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.’” [Al-Kahf:110].
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/it-is-permissible-for-the-rightful-owner-to-give-a-bribe-in-order-to-obtain-his-right1/

📥 New Question: [It is permissible for the rightful owner to give a bribe in order to obtain his right(2)]

📝 Question Text:
Question: Is it permissible for a Muslim to give a bribe to the judge so that he will rule for him according to the truth?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: If the right that is sought to be obtained by means of the bribe is definitive (qaṭʿī), then it is permissible to obtain and ransom it by means of a bribe. By our saying “definitive” we mean that the one giving the bribe knows, with necessary certain knowledge that admits of no doubt, that the disputed right is his property, or he knows that he has a stronger claim to it than anyone else – such as a share of inheritance or the like. For what the deceased left behind is, apparently, what had been his property. This is on condition that there is no one disputing the estate of the deceased or any part of it.
But if the disputed right is not as we have described, then bribery is not permissible, because it is possible that the right belongs to someone else – namely, the other party. And this is due to His saying, Exalted is He: “And do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly, nor deliberately bribe authorities in order to devour a portion of others’ property, knowing that it is a sin.” [Al-Baqarah:188]. From this verse, the evidence is also derived for the first category, which is the permissibility of bribery to extract a known, established right.
The aspect of the verse’s indication to what we have said is that His saying, Exalted is He: “and [do not] send it [in bribery] to the rulers” is conjoined to “do not consume”; thus, it falls within the scope of the prohibition. It has been established among the people of knowledge that the prohibition is directed to the qualifying clause. His saying, Exalted is He: “in order that you may consume a portion of the wealth of the people in sin” is a qualifier of the prohibited act, which is: “send it [in bribery].”
On that basis, giving money (to the rulers) is not prohibited except when it occurs in this manner.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/it-is-permissible-for-the-rightful-owner-to-give-a-bribe-in-order-to-obtain-his-right2/

📥 New Question: [The ruling on money paid to expedite a transaction]

📝 Question Text:
Question: Is what people do when dealing with officials – namely, giving some money to the official so that he will complete the transaction – considered among the forbidden forms of bribery?

💡 Answer:
Answer: That is not among the forbidden forms of bribery. The forbidden bribery is what a person pays in money to the judge or the official in order to take the right of someone else.
As for what a person pays in money in order to take a right that belongs to him, or so that the employee will complete his transaction, or in order to gain him as a client, or for similar purposes, then there is no objection upon the one who pays the money and no sin upon him.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/the-ruling-on-money-paid-to-expedite-a-transaction/

🏷️ التقويم اليومي مع حكمة وفوائد

🗓️اليوم : السبت
🌗التاريخ:١ ذو القعدة ١٤٤٧ هـ
☀️ الموافق: 2026-04-18

💡 حكمة أمير المؤمنين (ع):
«مَنْ كَثُرَتْ نِعَمُ اللَّه عَلَيْه كَثُرَتْ حَوَائِجُ النَّاسِ إِلَيْه فَمَنْ قَامَ لِلَّه فِيهَا بِمَا يَجِبُ فِيهَا عَرَّضَهَا لِلدَّوَامِ والْبَقَاءِ ومَنْ لَمْ يَقُمْ فِيهَا بِمَا يَجِبُ عَرَّضَهَا لِلزَّوَالِ والْفَنَاءِ.
»

↕️ شرح معاني الحكمة:
(من كثرت نعم الله عليه): في التمكين والبسطة وإعطاء الرياسة، وسعة الصدر وغير ذلك من أنواع الصفات للرياسة.(كانت حوائج الناس إليه): يطلبونها من عنده لما فضله الله تعالى بوجدانها معه.
(فمن قام لله بما يجب عرَّضها للدوام والبقاء): فمن أدى حق الله فيها بما يكون، بذلها ونفع الخلق بها، سواء كان ذلك من منافع الدين أو من منافع الدنيا، فمتى أدى فيها حق الله تعالى كانت بصدد الدوام والاستمرار، لا يكدرها مكدر، ولا يغيرها مغير.
(ومن لم يقم فيها بحق الله): فمنعها أهلها وقطعها عن مجاريها، سواء كانت من منافع الدين، أو من منافع الدنيا.
(عرَّضها للزوال والفناء): كانت بصدد الزوال والانقطاع عنه والانتقال إلى غيره.
➖➖➖
📝 فقرة فتاوى لـ / السيد العلامة الحجة / محمد بن عبدالله عوض المؤيدي (حفظه الله)

✳️ سؤال الفتوى:
ما هو الرأي الشرعي في التعامل مع زوجتي لأني أعاني من عدم طاعتها وتجاهلها التام لنصحي وأمري، رغم أني سلكت معها كل السبل الشرعية من النصح، واللجوء لأهلها، والهجر، وطلقة واحدة سابقة، ولكن دون جدوى.
و​مشكلتها ​العناد والإستفزاز ترفض تنفيذ أي أمر إلا بعد تكراره عدة مرات وبصوت عالٍ، وتتعمد إستفزازي وكأنها تتحدى هيبتي كزوج. و​عدم الإكتراث بالطلاق أحيانًا تتحدى بطلب الطلاق صراحة ولا تبالي بآثاره، رغم أن معنا ثلاثة أطفال. وكذلك ​إهمال المسؤولية لا تبدي إهتمامًا كافيًا بمستقبل الأسرة أو إستقرار الأطفال
و​بماذا تنصحونني في التعامل معها للحفاظ على إستقرار الأولاد وتجنب تشردهم، وهل إستمرار الحياة مع هذا العناد المستمر جائز شرعًا أم أن الفراق أخف الضررين؟ و​هل هناك خطوات عملية تربوية أو شرعية يمكن إتخاذها قبل اللجوء للطلاق الأخير؟

↕️ جواب الفتوى:
ذاك طبيعة عامة في النساء، فلا يكبر عليك ذلك، ولا تستعظمه، وقد كان يقال مثل ذلك للنبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم من زوجاته، وقد قال الإمام علي عليه السلام: (المرأة كلها شر، وشر ما فيها أنه لابد منها)،
وروي أن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم قال: إن المرأة كالضلع الأعوج... الحديث، فلا تتعب نفسك في إصلاح ما تراه من زوجتك، ولا تستنكره منها، لأنه جبلة جبلت عليه، ولا مخرج لك مما ترى، ولا سبيل إليه، إلا الصبر على ذلك، أو الطلاق، ومع ذلك فقد أوصى النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بالنساء، وأمر أن يوصي الناس بعضهم بعضا بالإحسان إلى النساء، وقال: خيركم خيركم لأهله، وأنا خيركم لأهلي، وفي معنى حديثه صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم أنك إذا حاولت أن تقيم عوج الزوجة، التي قال إنها كالضلع الأعوج كسرته، وكسرها طلاقها، لذلك فلا سبيل إلى التخلص من إعوجاج المرأة... فاتقوا الله في النساء، هكذا وصى رسول الله صلى عليه وآله وسلم في النساء.
➖➖➖
🔗رابط المنشور على الموقع :
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/daily-calendar/daily-calendar-35/

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ
🔖 #التقويم | #السبت #نهج_البلاغة
#حكمة_اليوم
#الإمام_علي_بن_أبي_طالب
#العروة_الوثقى_الزيدية #التقويم_اليومي #فتاوى
📲 لاتنسوا المتابعة ومشاركة المواضيع فالدال على الخير كفاعله

💠 أدعية وأخلاق 💠

📜[الدعاء عبادة عظيمة أمر الله بها في كتابه ]

🔹 ﷽ قال تعالى: {وَقَالَ رَبُّكُمُ ادْعُونِي أَسْتَجِبْ لَكُمْ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ عَنْ عِبَادَتِي سَيَدْخُلُونَ جَهَنَّمَ دَاخِرِينَ ٦٠}[غافر]، في هذه الآية: 🔹
١ - أن الله تعالى يستجيب دعاء من دعاه، وله شروط مذكورة في مواضعها.
٢ - أن الدعاء عبادة لله، وإنما كان الدعاء عبادة لله لما فيه من إظهار الفقر والحاجة إلى الله، ومن التواضع والتذلل في مسألة الله، ولما يتضمن من الاعتراف والإقرار بملك الله وقدرته وغناه وسعته وجوده ورحمته.
٣ - أن الله تعالى يحب أن يُسْأل من فضله في كل صغير وكبير.
٤ - أن ترك المسألة والدعاء معصية توجب لصاحبها دخول النار صاغراً.
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
📚 زبر من الفوائد القرآنية
للسيد العلامة الحجة / محمد بن عبدالله عوض المؤيدي حفظه الله
🔖 #فوائد_قرآنية | #عبادة_الدعاء #العروة_الوثقى_الزيدية

—
🌐 لقراءة الموضوع على الموقع:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/general-posts/الدعاء-عبادة-عظيمة-أمر-الله-بها-في-كتاب/

📥 New Question: [The ruling on the grammatically faulty (misdeclined) oath]

📝 Question Text:
Question: If a person says, “By Allah, I will indeed do (it)” (wa-llāhi la-afʿalu, with the verb in the nominative), intending thereby to remove it from being an oath, then what is the ruling of this grammatically faulty oath?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success:
1. According to the madhhab, no expiation is required from one who swears in this manner, and that is when he intends the grammatical fault in order to be safe from the consequences of the oath.
2. But if he is ignorant of the rules of inflection (iʿrāb), then expiation is binding on him.
3. Unless the oath concerns the right of another, in which case the grammatically faulty oath does in fact take effect.
Thus it is (stated) in the marginal notes on Sharḥ al-Azhār ascribed to the madhhab, except in the last issue indicated by the number three, for that is not the (actual) position of the madhhab. For in al-Kawākib it is stated that the oath is to be repeated to him, properly inflected. End of quote from the marginal notes, and this is the madhhab.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/the-ruling-on-the-grammatically-faulty-misdeclined-oath/

📥 New Question: [Ruling on the word “ḥarām”]

📝 Question Text:
Question: If it is said to a man, “Do such-and-such,” and he replies, “Ḥarām (forbidden),” what is the ruling of that?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: According to the madhhab, that is not an oath; therefore, no expiation is required of him if he breaks it, nor is it even a figurative expression (kināyah) of an oath, for there is no kināyah in (the word) ḥarām. Thus it is stated in the marginal notes on Sharḥ al-Azhār according to the madhhab.
And one may argue for this by saying that the word “ḥarām” is a single, unconnected word, not predicated of anything upon which it falls; therefore, none of the rulings of an oath are attached to it. This is like when someone says, “By Allah,” or “I swear by Allah,” without adding anything to it that the oath falls upon; in such a case, it is of no legal consequence.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/ruling-on-the-word-ḥaram/

📥 New Question: [Ruling on the word “ḥarām”]

📝 Question Text:
Question: If it is said to a man, “Do such-and-such,” and he replies, “Ḥarām (forbidden),” what is the ruling of that?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: According to the madhhab, that is not an oath; therefore, no expiation is required of him if he breaks it, nor is it even a figurative expression (kināyah) of an oath, for there is no kināyah in (the word) ḥarām. Thus it is stated in the marginal notes on Sharḥ al-Azhār according to the madhhab.
And one may argue for this by saying that the word “ḥarām” is a single, unconnected word, not predicated of anything upon which it falls; therefore, none of the rulings of an oath are attached to it. This is like when someone says, “By Allah,” or “I swear by Allah,” without adding anything to it that the oath falls upon; in such a case, it is of no legal consequence.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/ruling-on-the-word-ḥaram/

📥 New Question: [The ruling on administering an oath by disavowal from Allah]

📝 Question Text:
Question: Is it permissible to administer an oath by (saying) disavowal from Allah or from Islam? And what is the ruling regarding one who swears by that, whether truthful or breaking his oath?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: According to the madhhab, it is not permissible to intensify (an oath) by means of a word of disbelief and disavowal from Allah or from Islam. Thus it is (stated) in the commentary and its marginal notes.
And in the marginal notes: It is narrated from ʿAlī (Peace be upon him) and some of the early scholars that it is permissible, and it is narrated from al-Muʾayyad Billāh (Peace be upon him) that he administered such an oath as part of an oath which he strengthened upon someone whom he put on oath, by saying: “If you intended other than this, then you are disavowed of Allah, and ḥajj is binding upon you.” Likewise Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh (Peace be upon him) made az-Zubayrī swear the well-known oath, which was that he said to him: “Say: I have disavowed the might and power of Allah, and I have clung to my own might and power; in arrogance toward Allah and deeming myself independent of Him, I did such-and-such.” When Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh (Peace be upon him) made him swear this oath, he was swiftly seized (by punishment) – it is said, within two days or three – and he was afflicted with leprosy and died; and he has a long story. End of quotation from the marginal notes on al-Azhār.
I say: What supports the permissibility is the saying of Allah, Exalted is He: “Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “If the Most Compassionate ˹really˺ had offspring, I would be the first worshipper.” [Az-Zukhruf:81]– on the view that “in” is a conditional particle, and that what is joined to the faʾ is the answer to the condition; and this is what appears to be the case.
Yes, the permissibility of administering an oath by this formula ought to be restricted, namely, that the one being put on oath is an oppressor, as in the story of Imām Yaḥyā ibn ʿAbd Allāh (Peace be upon him) and az-Zubayrī, and as is narrated from ʿAlī (Peace be upon him): “If you wish that the oppressor be hastened with punishment, then make him swear…” and he mentioned this oath, or as he said; or where the dispute and discord will not cease except by means of this oath.
This being so, what appears to me is that the one who swears by it neither becomes a disbeliever nor a flagrant sinner, whether he breaks (the oath) or does not break it, for such a judgment is only given on the basis of decisive proof. This is also because of His saying, Exalted is He: “but those who embrace disbelief wholeheartedly—they will be condemned by Allah and suffer a tremendous punishment.” [An-Naḥl:106] – except if he swears regarding a matter while knowing the contrary, doing so deliberately.
This being said, as for administering such an oath in financial rights and what is connected to them, it is not fitting, due to His saying, Exalted is He, in the context of testimony and oaths: “…“By Allah! Our testimony is truer than theirs. We have not transgressed. Otherwise, we would surely be wrongdoers.” [Al-Māʾidah:107] and His saying, Exalted is He, concerning the liʿān-oath: “four testimonies [swearing] by Allah that indeed, he is of the truthful.” [An-Nūr:6].
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/the-ruling-on-administering-an-oath-by-disavowal-from-allah/

📥 New Question: [One who says: “I am a Jew” or “I am a Christian” if I do such-and-such]

📝 Question Text:
Question: If a man says, “I am a Jew” or “I am a Christian if I do such-and-such,” is he judged thereby to have disbelieved and his wife to have been divorced, even if he does not do the act on account of which he swore? Or does he not disbelieve unless that act is actually realized?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: It is not appropriate to swear by such expressions, whether he fulfills his oath or not, and whether he is truthful or lying, except if necessity forces him and he is truthful in his oath. They have used as evidence for the permissibility of that His saying, Exalted is He: “Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ ‘If the Most Compassionate ˹really˺ had offspring, I would be the first worshipper.’” [Az-Zukhruf:81]. He is not judged to be a disbeliever, nor his marriage to be annulled, if he does not do (the act), because he has suspended disbelief upon the act.
If he does what he swore upon, then his wife does not become separated from him so long as he persists in outwardly manifesting Islam; for it has not been transmitted from the Prophet (May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace) that he ruled that the marriages of the hypocrites were annulled from their wives, although they uttered the word of disbelief and intended what they did not attain, and Allah, Exalted is He, has described them with the attributes of the disbelievers in many verses.
This being so, it appears that what you have asked about is lighter than what Allah has mentioned concerning the hypocrites, and Allah knows best.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/one-who-says-i-am-a-jew-or-i-am-a-christian-if-i-do-such-and-such/

📥 New Question: [The case of a man who swore to dedicate his wealth as a waqf if he did such-and-such, then did it]

📝 Question Text:
Question: A man swore that he would dedicate his wealth as a waqf if he did such-and-such, and then, after some time, he did what he had sworn about. What is required of him, and how is he to act, etc.?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success and support: Many of our Imams (Peace be upon them) have said that if a vow (nadhr) takes the form of an oath, then its author is given the choice between fulfilling his vow or expiating it with the expiation of an oath. Based on that, we say: The questioner is given the choice between fulfilling the waqf or expiating it with the expiation of an oath.
Yes, we have only said this by analogy with what our Imams (Peace be upon them) have said regarding the vow, namely that a man is given the choice, upon breaking (his word), between fulfilling the vow or expiating with the expiation of an oath.
Moreover, what we have said may be indicated by His saying, Exalted is He: “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your Protector, and He is the All-Knowing, All-Wise.” [At-Taḥrīm:2], and His saying, Exalted is He: “…but He will call you to account for the oaths you have bound yourselves with; so its expiation is to feed ten needy people from what you normally feed your own families, or clothe them, or free a slave…” [Al-Māʾidah:89].
Furthermore, for a person to dedicate all his wealth as a waqf is an act of disobedience which Allah, Exalted is He, has forbidden, for He, Glorified is He, says: “And do not keep your hand fastened to your neck, nor extend it completely, for then you will sit blamed and destitute.” [Al-Isrāʾ:29]. And in the Sunnah there is that which indicates what we have said; there is no need to cite it alongside the verse.
So if dedicating all that a person owns as a waqf is an act of disobedience, then such a waqf is invalid; for waqf is an act of obedience, and obedience and disobedience do not come together in a single act. It has been established in the principles [of jurisprudence] that a prohibition indicates the invalidity of the thing prohibited; thus the waqf asked about is in that case null and void.
Yes, there is a stratagem to escape from such a waqf, which the scholars have mentioned, as in the commentary and its marginal notes. It is this: If a person swears by vowing his wealth or dedicating it as a waqf, then wishes to free himself from that, he removes his wealth from his ownership by transferring it to the ownership of his wife or his children, then he breaks his oath. They have said that this stratagem is a legitimate, saving legal device. Then, if he wishes, he may take back his wealth from his children. When he does that, his oath is dissolved. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah bless Muhammad and his family and grant them peace.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/the-case-of-a-man-who-swore-to-dedicate-his-wealth-as-a-waqf-if-he-did-such-and-such-then-did-it/

📥 New Question: [The ruling on swearing by ḥarām and divorce]

📝 Question Text:
Question: In some regions it is very common to swear by these oaths: “(It is) ḥarām and divorce that I will indeed do such-and-such,” or “I did not do such-and-such, (it is) ḥarām and divorce,” and “(It is) ḥarām and divorce from my wife if I do such-and-such, or I will indeed do such-and-such.” What is your view regarding these expressions?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: What I hold is that this does not constitute divorce, because divorce is not ruled as having taken place until it is made to fall upon the wife, and in these expressions there is nothing stating that divorce is upon the wife; rather, the import of the second expression revolves between two meanings:
1. The first: that divorce and ḥarām are issued by the wife; and the divorce pronounced by the wife upon her husband or upon someone else is of no legal consequence.
2. The second – and it is far-fetched – is that the meaning is that he is divorced from his wife, i.e., separated from his wife. This is not sound and carries no legal weight, because divorce applies to women, not to men; thus it is not valid for a man to divorce himself.
If it is said: The wording mentioned in the question is an expression by which the people of those regions swear, believing that divorce occurs thereby.
We say: No consideration is given to such a thing if it does not conform to the Sacred Law.
If it is said: Then let it at least be among the implicit expressions (kināyāt) of divorce, so that intention is taken into account in it.
We say: The nature of kināyah is that it indicates divorce by necessary implication, such as their saying, “Put on your veil,” or “Observe your waiting period,” for veiling on the part of the wife and observing the waiting period only occur due to divorce; whereas here there is nothing that indicates that divorce has fallen upon the wife.
And in the commentary and its marginal notes it is stated that “ʿalayya aṭ-ṭalāq min zawjatī (Divorce from my wife is upon me)” or “yalzamunī aṭ-ṭalāq (Divorce becomes binding upon me)” are among the implicit expressions of divorce.
Sayyid Idrīs at-Tihāmī and Imām Yaḥyā said that these two are neither explicit formulae nor kināyah. Imām al-Mahdī said: And that is, in my view, the closer [to the truth].
I say: Among the conditions of kināyah is that both the wording and the meaning are intended. On that basis, the one who swears by these kināyāt does not intend separation from his wife; rather, he intends to compel or convince his opponent.
And this is assuming that what is mentioned in the question is among the kināyāt – which is far-fetched; for the one who pronounces the wording mentioned in the question intends thereby an oath, such that it is as if he said: “I swear by ḥarām and by divorce from my wife that I will do such-and-such.”
The proof of the soundness of this interpretation is that the answer to the oath comes immediately after (the words) “ḥarām and divorce.”
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/the-ruling-on-swearing-by-ḥaram-and-divorce/

📥 New Question: [The ruling on one who swore by divorce not to sit with his friends, then wanted to please them]

📝 Question Text:
Question: A man swore by the divorce of his wife that he would not sit with his friends who had strongly urged him to sit with them. He is from a distant land, and he uttered this oath while in a state of bewilderment, without any specific intention in directing the oath to a particular matter; rather, the oath of divorce simply issued from his tongue. Is there any stratagem by which he can avoid both things (i.e. divorce and displeasing his friends)?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: If the oath is as described in the question, then its meaning must be carried upon the meaning customarily understood in such cases. I am of the view that when this swearer leaves and travels away from the land from which he swore by divorce, he has thereby fulfilled his oath. When he then returns to them after having travelled, the ruling of the oath no longer applies to him. Hence the stratagem is that he travel a barīd (a short legal distance of travel), then return.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/the-ruling-on-one-who-swore-by-divorce-not-to-sit-with-his-friends-then-wanted-to-please-them/

📥 New Question: [One who intends to fast if Allah heals his sick relative]

📝 Question Text:
Question: It is very often asked about someone who intended: “If Allah heals my sick relative, I will fast three days,” or something similar. Is that binding?

💡 Answer:
Answer:
1. If he said: “I intended with fasting … etc.,” then what he mentioned is not binding upon him.
2. But if he said: “I intended for Allah with fasting … etc.,” then he is bound to fulfill what he mentioned of fasting or charity.
We only said that he is bound to fulfill (it) in this second case because the word niyyah (intention) is used among them with the meaning of obligating and binding it upon oneself; so its meaning with them is: “I have made it obligatory upon myself, for Allah, to …” and so on; and the well-known technical meaning of niyyah is not what is meant here.
And we said that it is not binding in the first case because he did not mention the word “Allah,” and the Imams, such as Zayd ibn ʿAlī (Peace be upon him), have stipulated that (the name of) Allah be mentioned. However, he ought to fulfill what he mentioned and not be negligent about it, for perhaps the healing of his sick relative was on account of that means.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/one-who-intends-to-fast-if-allah-heals-his-sick-relative/

📥 New Question: [Directing the oath of divorce according to purpose and intention]

📝 Question Text:
Question: A man swore by the divorce of his wife if she entered the house of so-and-so, and his motive for swearing was that in that house there was a man about whom he had doubts. If that man then leaves that house, does his wife become divorced if she enters it?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: The swearer’s intention is what counts for him. So if the intention of the one who swore by divorce if she entered that house was that (divorce would occur) with the presence of that man in the house, and his intention was directed specifically toward him, then the wife does not become divorced if she enters the house after that man has left it.
The scholars of the madhhab have said: If a man swears that his guests will not leave, he fulfills (his oath) if they eat the customary food. End quote.
This is only because the swearer has his own intention and purpose, and the oath is directed toward intention and purpose rather than the outward wording. So even if an oath, in its outward form, appears unrestricted and general, it is restricted by intention and purpose. This is as between him and Allah, Exalted is He, not in the outward judicial ruling.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/directing-the-oath-of-divorce-according-to-purpose-and-intention/

📥 New Question: [Using figurative and indirect expressions in oaths in the presence of those who do not understand them]

📝 Question Text:
Question: Is it permissible to use figurative expressions and metaphors frequently in speech among people who understand only the apparent (literal) meaning? And does one fulfill his oath if he swears, “This is my garment,” while intending (only) “a garment like it”?

💡 Answer:
Answer: There is no objection to using figurative expressions and metaphors frequently in speech, except in certain situations, including:
 When the listener would be harmed because of what he heard.
 When the speaker would incur suspicion concerning his honor or his religion, and likewise any other person.
If the figurative expression or metaphor is free of such things and what resembles them, then there is no objection to using it.
And whoever swears, “This is my garment,” while intending “one like it,” is truthful in his oath. The scholars have said: An oath is according to the intention of the one who swears it, so long as the wording can bear that intention in its literal sense, or in an indirect (kināyah) sense, or a figurative sense – except in matters of legal rights, where it is according to the intention of the one who administers the oath.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/using-figurative-and-indirect-expressions-in-oaths-in-the-presence-of-those-who-do-not-understand-them/

📥 New Question: [The Ruling on One Who Repeats Vows, Oaths, and Breaking Them]

📝 Question Text:
Question: A man swore by a vow (nadhr) of such-and-such that he would not do a certain act, then he did it. Then he repeated the vow and then broke it; and he swore by Allah and broke it; then he swore by leaving the religion, and by cursing himself, and all of that was repeated by him many times. He has now repented and feels the utmost remorse, and he now wants to be freed from the consequences. What is required of him? Inform us of how he can find a way out. Then, is it valid for him to lead the people in prayer as an imam, given that the people insist strongly on him doing so? Inform us, and peace.

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: This man is required to offer an expiation for an oath (kaffārat yamīn) for every vow and for every oath by Allah. Nothing of the expiations is required of him for swearing by leaving the religion or by cursing himself; however, repentance from that is required of him, and it is: remorse, and resolve not to return to it.
Thus, “the one who repents from sin is like one who has no sin,” and “repentance wipes out what came before it.” On this basis, it is valid for him to lead the people in prayer, and he is not harmed by what has passed of sins from which he has repented, regretted doing, and resolved not to return to. But it is proper for him to repeat repentance and seeking forgiveness in the future and not be heedless of that.
Yes, he is required to pay the expiations when he is able. If he is wealthy, he should hasten to pay them; and if he is poor, then when it becomes possible for him to pay them. “Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity.” [Al-Baqarah:286] and “except what He has given it.” [At-Ṭalāq:7]
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/the-ruling-on-one-who-repeats-vows-oaths-and-breaking-them/

📥 New Question: [A Question about Expiations for Oaths]

📝 Question Text:
Question: A man grew up ignorant among ignorant people, heedless of the religion and its teachings. Then guidance spread, and he listened to the admonitions of the guides and attended their gatherings, so he repented to Allah the Exalted and turned to Him. Then he asked: How is he to act with respect to the many oaths in which he used to break his word, when he does not know how many they were, nor how many of them require an expiation?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and success is from Allah: What is obligatory upon the one who repents to Allah the Exalted, returning to Him after a long period of ignorance and heedlessness, is that he should be mindful of Allah the Exalted in what remains of his lifetime, and that he should increase in seeking forgiveness for the sins that have passed. And I do not see that expiations are due from him for what has passed of his oaths, because he grew up ignorant and heedless of the rulings of his religion; and Allah the Exalted does not call the ignorant, heedless one to account nor punish him until the call of Allah and the call of His Messenger, May Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace, reach him, as He the Exalted said: “That is because your Lord would not destroy the cities for wrongdoing while their people were unaware.” [al-An‘ām:131] And He, Glorified and Exalted, also said: “So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists may have what is past, and his affair rests with Allah.” [al-Baqarah:275] And it has come in a transmitted ḥadīth: “Repentance wipes out what came before it.”
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/a-question-about-expiations-for-oaths/

📥 New Question: [The Ruling on Numerous Oaths in a State of Disobedience]

📝 Question Text:
Question: A man, at the beginning of his life, did not care about disobeying Allah, and he used to swear oaths a great deal. Then he repented to Allah and regretted what had issued from him. So what is required of him regarding the many oaths that he used to swear?

💡 Answer:
Answer – and Allah is the One who grants success: Our scholars have said that in such a matter he should make a reasonable estimate, and give in expiations what he thinks, or is certain, has covered what is due from him of expiations.
And what I hold in such a case is that the penitent should make a reasonable estimate of the amount of oaths. So if, for example, he estimates that he has upon him a thousand oaths, then he divides that thousand oaths into three categories. That is because the oaths he used to swear customarily fall into those three categories: oaths of perjury (yamin ghamūs), idle oaths, and binding oaths; and expiation is only required for the binding ones. Thus it is not obligatory for him to offer expiation except for one third of that thousand oaths – that is, three hundred and thirty-three expiations – and this is when the one who swore does not know which of the three types of oaths predominated.
If he knows that what predominated in his oaths were the oaths of perjury – such that, in his estimation, they were for example two-thirds of his oaths, and the remaining third is shared between the idle and the binding oaths – then he must divide that remaining third between the idle and the binding oaths according to what he thinks most likely. If, in his estimation, they are equal, he divides that third into two halves. This is a detailed explanation of what the adherents of the madhhab intend by “making a reasonable estimate” (al-taḥarrī).
It is also possible for someone to say: If the matter is as stated in the question – that the one who swore did not care about disobeying Allah – then by that he would be a disbeliever; for not caring about disobeying Allah implies taking lightly the prohibition and command of Allah, and that is arrogance toward Allah the Exalted; and whoever is arrogant toward Allah is a disbeliever. The proof of that is what occurred in the story of Iblīs – may Allah curse him – when Allah the Exalted commanded him to prostrate to Adam, but he refused, and followed the whim of his own soul and did not care about disobeying Allah, so by that action of his he was among the arrogant disbelievers.
Once you understand that, then whoever is as the questioner has described, no expiations are required of him, and repentance is sufficient, because repentance from disbelief wipes out what came before it.
Source: Min Thimār al-ʿIlm wa al-Ḥikmah vol.2

✍️ Mufti: Mr ..Allama Muhammad Abdullah Awad Al_Muayyadi

🔗 To view the fatwa:
https://alorwahalwuthqa.com/en/fatwa/the-ruling-on-numerous-oaths-in-a-state-of-disobedience/