سنن ابي داود
Abu Dawud
كتاب الأقضيةThe Office of the Judge (Kitab Al-Aqdiyah)
باب الْقَضَاءِ بِالْيَمِينِ وَالشَّاهِدِChapter: Judgement on the basis of oath and one witness.
Hadith 3610
اُردوEn
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ أَبُو مُصْعَبٍ الزُّهْرِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنَا الدَّرَاوَرْدِيُّ ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ بْنِ أَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ ، عَنْ سُهَيْلِ بْنِ أَبِي صَالِحٍ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ،عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " قَضَى بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ " ، قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُد : وَزَادَنِي الرَّبِيعُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ ، الْمُؤَذِّنُ فِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ ، قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنِي الشَّافِعِيُّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ ، قَالَ : فَذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِسُهَيْلٍ ، فَقَالَ : أَخْبَرَنِي رَبِيعَةُ ، وَهُوَ عِنْدِي ثِقَةٌ أَنِّي حَدَّثْتُهُ إِيَّاهُ وَلَا أَحْفَظُهُ ، قَالَ عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ: وَقَدْ كَانَ أَصَابَتْ سُهَيْلًا عِلَّةٌ أَذْهَبَتْ بَعْضَ عَقْلِهِ وَنَسِيَ بَعْضَ حَدِيثِهِ فَكَانَ سُهَيْلٌ بَعْدُ يُحَدِّثُهُ ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ عَنْهُ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ .
Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet ﷺ gave a decision on the basis of an oath and a single witness. Abu Dawud said: Al-Rabi bin Sulaiman al-muadhdhin told me some additional words in this tradition: Al-Shafi'i told me from Abd al-Aziz. I then mentioned it fo Suhail who said: Rabiah told me - and he is reliable in my opinion - that I told him this (tradition) and I do not remember it. Abd al-Aziz said: Suhail suffered from some disease which caused him to lose a little of his intelligence, and he forgot some of his traditions. Thereafter Suhail would narrate traditions from Rabiah on the authority of his father.
Related hadith on this topic
Explanation & Benefits
Shaykh Safi ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri
Takhrij:
«أخرجه أبوداود، القضاء، باب القضاء باليمين والشاهد، حديث:3610، والترمذي، الأحكام، حديث:1343، وابن حبان.»©Explanation:
The ruling of adjudicating with one oath and one witness applies in the case where the claimant has only one witness; in such a situation, the oath is accepted in place of the second witness.
This is the opinion of Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Rahwayh rahimahumullah, and the majority of scholars, and they state that in financial matters, one witness and one oath are permissible; however, in non-financial matters, the presence of two witnesses is necessary and obligatory.
According to Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, whether the matter is financial or non-financial, in both cases, the presence of two witnesses is necessary and obligatory, but in this issue, there are nearly thirty hadiths that serve as evidence against his view.
The verse of Allah Most High from which he has derived his argument is: ﴿ وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِّنكُمْ ﴾ (At-Talaq 65:2) and ﴿ وَاسْتَشْهِدُوا شَهِيدَيْنِ مِن رِّجَالِكُمْ ... الخ ﴾ (Al-Baqarah 2:282), but their argument from these verses is not complete, especially since they do not even accept the implied meaning (mafhum al-mukhalafah).
Allamah Ibn Qayyim rahimahullah has discussed this topic in detail, which is worth reviewing.
See: (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in: 1/32, 38)
«أخرجه أبوداود، القضاء، باب القضاء باليمين والشاهد، حديث:3610، والترمذي، الأحكام، حديث:1343، وابن حبان.»©Explanation:
The ruling of adjudicating with one oath and one witness applies in the case where the claimant has only one witness; in such a situation, the oath is accepted in place of the second witness.
This is the opinion of Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Rahwayh rahimahumullah, and the majority of scholars, and they state that in financial matters, one witness and one oath are permissible; however, in non-financial matters, the presence of two witnesses is necessary and obligatory.
According to Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, whether the matter is financial or non-financial, in both cases, the presence of two witnesses is necessary and obligatory, but in this issue, there are nearly thirty hadiths that serve as evidence against his view.
The verse of Allah Most High from which he has derived his argument is: ﴿ وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِّنكُمْ ﴾ (At-Talaq 65:2) and ﴿ وَاسْتَشْهِدُوا شَهِيدَيْنِ مِن رِّجَالِكُمْ ... الخ ﴾ (Al-Baqarah 2:282), but their argument from these verses is not complete, especially since they do not even accept the implied meaning (mafhum al-mukhalafah).
Allamah Ibn Qayyim rahimahullah has discussed this topic in detail, which is worth reviewing.
See: (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in: 1/32, 38)
Source: Bulugh al-Maram: Commentary by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, Page: 1209
