Toggle above to switch between keyword search and direct hadith lookup
سنن ابن ماجه
Ibn Majah
كتاب الأحكامThe Chapters on Rulings
بَابُ : الْقَضَاءِ بِالشَّاهِدِ وَالْيَمِينِChapter: Passing Judgement On The Basis Of A Witness And An Oath
Hadith 2368
اُردوEn
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُصْعَبٍ الْمَدِينِيُّ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الزُّهْرِيُّ ، وَيَعْقُوبُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الدَّوْرَقِيُّ ، قَالَا : حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الدَّرَاوَرْدِيُّ ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ بْنِ أَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ ، عَنْ سُهَيْلِ بْنِ أَبِي صَالِحٍ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " قَضَى بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ " .
´It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that:` the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed judgment on the basis of an oath (from the claimant) along with a (single) witness. [This is in the absence of two witnesses.]
Related hadith on this topic
Brief Explanation
1؎: This applies in the case where the claimant has only one witness, so in place of the second witness, an oath is accepted. This is the view of the majority (jumhur), who state that in financial matters, one witness and one oath are permissible; however, in non-financial matters, two witnesses are necessary. According to Imam Abu Hanifah, whether the matter is financial or non-financial, in both cases two witnesses are required. All the ahadith in this chapter are evidence against his view. His argument is based on: «وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِّنكُمْ» (Surah at-Talaq: 2) and «وَاسْتَشْهِدُواْ شَهِيدَيْنِ من رِّجَالِكُمْ» (Surah al-Baqarah: 282), but his argument is not complete, especially since he does not accept the concept of implied meaning (mafhum mukhalif). (For details, see “I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in” vol. 1, pp. 32, 28).
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
