Oaths in Islam:-                

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 5.177        Narrated byUmar
The Prophet said, "If anybody has to take an oath, he should swear only by Allah." The people of Quraish used to swear by their fathers, but the Prophet said, "Do not swear by yourfathers."                        
Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 7.129        Narrated byAnas
Allah's Apostle took an oath that he would not visit his wives for one month, and he sat in an upper room belonging to him. Then, on the twenty ninth day he came down.
It was said, "O Allah's Apostle! You had taken an oath not to visit your wives for one month." He said, "The (present) month is of twenty-nine days."

       *** Even the number of the days of the month were subject to Muhammad's will and whim ***

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.641        Narrated byIbn Umar
Allah's Apostle met 'Umar bin Al-Khattab while the latter was going with a group of camel-riders, and he was swearing by his father. The Prophet said, "Lo! Allah forbids you to swear by your fathers, so whoever has to take an oath, he should swear by Allah or keep quiet."

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.618        Narrated byAisha
Abu Bakr As-Saddiq had never broken his oaths till Allah revealed the expiation for the oaths.

Then he said, "If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation [ATONEMENT] for my oath."

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.656        Narrated byAisha
regarding:        "Allah will not call you to account for that which is unintentional in your oaths..." (2.225) This Verse was revealed concerning such oath formulas as: "No, by Allah!" and "Yes, by Allah!"

  Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 8.668        Narrated byAbdullah
Allah's Apostle said, "If somebody is ordered (by the ruler or the judge) to take an oath, and he takes a false oath in order to grab the property of a Muslim, then he will incur Allah's Wrath when he will meet Him." And Allah revealed in its confirmation: "Verily! Those who purchase a small gain at the cost of Allah's covenants and their own oaths." (3.77) (The sub-narrator added:) Al-Ash'ath bin Qais entered, saying, "What did Abu 'Abdur-Rahman narrate to you?" They said, "So-and-so."

Al-Ash'ath said, "This verse was revealed in my connection. I had a well on the land of my cousin (and we had a dispute about it). I reported him to Allah 's Apostle who said (to me), "You should give evidence (i.e. witness), otherwise the oath of your opponent will render your claim invalid."
I said, "Then he (my opponent) will take the oath, O Allah's Apostle."
Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever is ordered (by the ruler or the judge) to give an oath, and he takes a false oath in order to grab the property of a Muslim, then he will incur Allah's Wrath when he meets Him on the Day of Resurrection."

       *** As usual with Muhammad and his Quran, another 'revelation' is 'descended' to satisfy, in hindsight, another situation and circumstance that Muhammad needed to address.

       This 'revelation' was very conveniently and as repeatedly occurred in  the Quran, was MADE to ORDER to fulfil Abdullah's case ***

Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 7.427        & 8.712 Narrated byZahdam
We were in the company of Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari and there were friendly relations between us and this tribe of Jarm. Abu Musa was presented with a dish containing chicken. Among the people there was sitting a red-faced man who did not come near the food. Abu Musa said (to him), "Come on (and eat), for I have seen Allah's Apostle eating of it (i.e. chicken)." He said, "I have seen it eating something (dirty) and since then I have disliked it, and have taken an oath that I shall not eat it ' Abu Musa said, "Come on, I will tell you (or narrate to you). Once I went to Allah's Apostle with a group of Al-Ash'ariyin, and met him while he was angry, distributing some camels of Rakat. We asked for mounts but he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, 'I have nothing to mount you on.' In the meantime some camels of booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked twice, 'Where are Al-Ash'ariyin?' So he gave us five white camels with big humps. We stayed for a short while (after we had covered a little distance), and then I said to my companions, 'Allah's Apostle has forgotten his oath. By Allah, if we do not remind Allah's Apostle of his oath, we will never be successful.' So we returned to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.' He said, 'It is Allah Who has given you mounts.
By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' "

       *** Since deciding "... what is better..." is a SUBJECTIVE matter, then any Muhammadan Muslim is allowed by such a ruling to BREAK any and all oaths made to themselves or to others, AT WILL, with complete and utter CONTEMPT to the previously agreed terms.

       Such a ruling makes even the so called ' Law of the Jungle' more moral and just ***

Sunan of Abu-DawoodHadith 2677        Narrated bySa'd
On the day when Mecca was conquered, the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) gave protection to the People except four men and two  women and he named them. Ibn AbuSarh was one of them. He then narrated the tradition. He said: Ibn AbuSarh hid himself with Uthman ibn Affan. When the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) called the people to take the oath of allegiance, he brought him and made him stand before the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him). He said: Apostle of Allah, receive the oath of allegiance from him. He raised his head and looked at him thrice, denying him every time. After the third time he received his oath. He then turned to his Companions and said: Is not there any intelligent man among you who would stand to this (man) when he saw me desisting from receiving the oath of allegiance, and kill him? They replied: We do not know, Apostle of Allah, what lies in your heart; did you not give us an hint with your eye? He said: It is not proper for a Prophet to have a treacherous eye.

       *** Muhammad's understanding of what constitutes justice and morality is so depraved that he believed that it was more fitting to harbour hatred and deception in one's mind but that it was not fitting to wink.

       Why, if he wanted Ibn AbuSarh dead so much, did Muhammad not have  the manliness and 'courage' to kill him by himself instead of having his companions do his dirty work for him? ***

Sunan of Abu-DawoodHadith 3237        Narrated byAbdullah ibn Mas'ud
The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: He who swears an oath in which he tells a lie to take the property of a Muslim by unfair means, will meet Allah while He is angry with him.  Al-Ash'ath said: I swear by Allah, he said this about me. There was some land between me and a Jew, but he denied it to me; so I presented him to the Prophet (peace be upon him).  The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked me: Have you any evidence?  I replied: No.  He said to the Jew: Take an oath.  I said: Apostle of Allah, now he will take an oath and take my property. 

So Allah, the Exalted, revealed the verse, "As for those who sell the faith they owe to Allah and their own plighted word for a small price, they shall have no portion in the hereafter." 3.77.

       *** Once again - among hundreds of ther similar MADE to ORDER 'revelations' - yet another Hadith describes a different situation which required the usual 'AFTER the EVENT descended verse' ***

Sahih Muslim HadithHadith 4568        Narrated byAbuSa'id al-Khudri
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.

Sahih Muslim HadithHadith 4586        Narrated byMa'qil ibn Yasar
I remember being present on the Day of the Tree, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) was taking the oathof the people and I was holding a twig of the tree over his head. We were fourteen hundred (in number).
We did not take oath to the death, but to the effect that we would not run away from the battlefield.

Al-Muwatta Hadith
Hadith 36.7
Judgement Based on Oaths with One Witness
Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, "Does one pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?" They both said, "Yes."

Malik said, "The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his witness, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If he takes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claim is confirmed against him."

Malik said, "This procedure pertains to property cases in particular. It does not occur in any of the hadd-punishments, nor in marriage, divorce, freeing slaves, theft or slander. If some one says, 'Freeing slaves comes under property,' he has erred. It is not as he said. Had it been as he said, a slave could take an oath with one witness, if he could find one, that his master had freed him.

"However, when a slave lays claim to a piece of property, he can take an oath with one witness and demand his right as the freeman demands his right."

Malik said, "The sunna with us is that when a slave brings somebody who witnesses that he has been set free, his master is made to take an oath that he has not freed him, and the slave's claim is dropped."

Malik said, "The sunna about divorce is also like that with us. When a woman brings somebody who witnesses that her husband has divorced her, the husband is made to take an oath that he has not divorced her. If he takes the oath, the divorce does not proceed . "

Malik said, "There is only one sunna of bringing a witness in cases of divorce and freeing a slave. The right to make an oath only belongs to the husband of the woman, and the master of the slave. Freeing is a hadd matter, and the testimony of women is not permitted in it because when a slave is freed, his inviolability is affirmed and the hadd punishments are applied for and against him. If he commits fornication and he is a muhsan, he is stoned. If he kills a slave, he is killed for it. Inheritance is established for him, between him and whoever inherits from him. If somebody disputes this, arguing that if a man frees his slave and then a man comes to demand from the master of the slave payment of a debt, and a man and two women testify to his right, that establishes the right against the master of the slave so that his freeing him is cancelled if he only has the slave as property, inferring by this case that the testimony of women is permitted in cases of setting free. The case is not as he suggests (i.e. it is a case of property not freeing). It is like a man who frees his slave, and then the claimant of a debt comes to the master and takes an oath with one witness, demanding his right. By that, the freeing of the slave would be cancelled. Or else a man comes who has frequent dealings and transactions with the master of the slave. He claims that he is owed money by the master of the slave. Someone says to the master of the slave, 'Take an oath that you don't owe what he claims'. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the one making the claim takes an oath and his right against the master of the slave is confirmed. That would cancel the freeing of the slave if it is confirmed that property is owed by the master."

Malik said, "It is the same case with a man who marries a slave-girl and then the master of the slave-girl comes to the man who has married her and claims, 'You and so-and-so have bought my slave-girl from me for such an amount of dinars. The husband of the slave-girl denies that. The master of the slave-girl brings a man and two women and they testify to what he has said. The sale is confirmed and his claim is considered true. So the slave-girl is haram for her husband and they have to separate, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in divorce."

       *** Muhammadan Islam has very little respect for the females among the followers. Although they represent half if not more of the Muhammadan population,  they are none the less treated and valued at less than half that of a man.

       In fact, in several verses of the Ahadith, they are depicted as being not much higher than a 'donkey or a dog', with very little intelligence and abilities.

       The CONTEMPT with which Sharia law holds the women of Muhammadan Islam is both reprehensible and immoral ***

Malik said, "It is also the same case with a man who accuses a free man, so the hadd falls on him. A man and two women come and testify that the one accused is a slave. That would remove the hadd from the accused after it had befallen him, even though the testimony of women is not accepted in accusations involving hadd punishments."

Malik said, "Another similar case in which judgement appears to go against the precedent of the sunna is that two women testify that a child is born alive and so it is necessary for him to inherit if a situation arises where he is entitled to inherit, and the child's property goes to those who inherit from him, if he dies, and it is not necessary that the two women witnesses should be accompanied by a man or an oath even though it may involve vast properties of gold, silver, live-stock, gardens and slaves and other properties. However, had two women testified to one dirham or more or less than that in a property case, their testimony would not affect anything and would not be permitted unless there was a witness or an oath with them."

Malik said, "There are people who say that an oath is not acceptable with only one witness and they argue by the word of Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, and His word is the Truth, 'And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of.' (Sura 2 ayat 282). Such people argue that if he does not bring one man and two women, he has no claim and he is not allowed to take an oath with one witness."

Malik said, "Part of the proof against those who argue this, is to reply to them, 'Do you think that if a man claimed property from a man, the one claimed from would not swear that the claim was false?' If he swears, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claimant is made to take an oath that his claim is true, and his right against his companion is established. There is no dispute about this with any of the people nor in any country. By what does he take this? In what place in the Book of Allah does he find it? So if he confirms this, let him confirm the oath with one witness, even if it is not in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, the Majestic! It is enough that this is the precedent of the sunna. However, man wants to recognise the proper course of action and the location of the proof. In this there is a clarification for what is obscure about that, if Allah ta'ala wills."