A Comparative Study of the Views of Wahhabism and the Sunni Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence on Oaths Sworn by Other than Allah

Swearing an oath by other than Allah is one of the issues that has long been debated among Muslim scholars and the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, giving rise to divergent legal and theological opinions. The findings of this study indicate that the Wahhabi movement regards such oaths as an instance of shirk (polytheism), relying on prophetic traditions such as the ḥadīth: “Whoever swears by other than Allah has committed shirk.” Based on this interpretation, Wahhabi scholars maintain that swearing by anything other than Allah violates the principle of Tawḥīd (Divine Unity). In contrast, the four major Sunni schools of law adopt markedly different positions. The Ḥanafī and Ḥanbalī schools, adhering to the apparent meaning of the relevant scriptural texts, rule that such oaths are prohibited (ḥarām). Meanwhile, the Mālikī and Shāfiʿī schools interpret the prophetic traditions prohibiting oaths by other than Allah as expressions of emphatic discouragement (taghlīẓ) rather than absolute prohibition, and therefore classify the practice as disliked (makrūh). Consequently, none of the Sunni legal schools considers swearing by other than Allah to constitute shirk or to invalidate one's belief in Tawḥīd. Furthermore, the study analyzes a number of internal inconsistencies within Wahhabi discourse, including contradictions in its criteria for defining shirk and inconsistencies regarding the role of intention (niyyah) as a determining factor in legal rulings. Ultimately, the findings highlight the fundamental methodological differences between Wahhabism and the mainstream Sunni legal schools, while offering substantial criticism of the epistemological rigidity and ideological one-sidedness that characterize Wahhabi thought.