Toggle above to switch between keyword search and direct hadith lookup
موطا امام مالك رواية يحييٰ
Muwatta Malik (Yahya)
كتاب الأقضيةBook: On the Explanation of Judges
بَابُ الْقَضَاءِ بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِRuling by oath along with a witness
Hadith 1421
اُردوEn
وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِك أَنَّهُ بَلَغَهُ، أَنَّ أَبَا سَلَمَةَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، وَسُلَيْمَانَ بْنَ يَسَارٍ سُئِلَا : " هَلْ يُقْضَى بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ ؟ فَقَالَا : نَعَمْ " .
Hazrat Abu Salamah bin Abdur Rahman and Sulaiman bin Yasar were asked whether it is permissible to judge on the basis of one witness and one oath? They said: Yes.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ : مَضَتِ السُّنَّةُ فِي الْقَضَاءِ بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ الْوَاحِدِ. يَحْلِفُ صَاحِبُ الْحَقِّ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ. وَيَسْتَحِقُّ حَقَّهُ. فَإِنْ نَكَلَ وَأَبَى أَنْ يَحْلِفَ، أُحْلِفَ الْمَطْلُوبُ. فَإِنْ حَلَفَ سَقَطَ عَنْهُ ذَلِكَ الْحَقُّ. وَإِنْ أَبَى أَنْ يَحْلِفَ ثَبَتَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَقُّ لِصَاحِبِهِ. ¤
Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said that when the claimant has one witness, his testimony will be accepted and the claimant will be made to swear an oath. If he swears the oath, he will be acquitted; if he refuses to swear the oath, the claim of the claimant will be established against him.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ: وَكَذَلِكَ السُّنَّةُ عِنْدَنَا أَيْضًا فِي الطَّلَاقِ. إِذَا جَاءَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ بِشَاهِدٍ أَنَّ زَوْجَهَا طَلَّقَهَا. أُحْلِفَ زَوْجُهَا مَا طَلَّقَهَا، فَإِذَا حَلَفَ لَمْ يَقَعْ عَلَيْهِ الطَّلَاقُ. ¤
Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said that similarly, if a woman brings one witness regarding the matter that her husband has divorced her, then an oath will be taken from the husband. If he swears an oath that he has not divorced her, then the divorce will not be established.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ : فَسُنَّةُ الطَّلَاقِ وَالْعَتَاقَةِ فِي الشَّاهِدِ الْوَاحِدِ وَاحِدَةٌ، إِنَّمَا يَكُونُ الْيَمِينُ عَلَى زَوْجِ الْمَرْأَةِ. وَعَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ. وَإِنَّمَا الْعَتَاقَةُ حَدٌّ مِنَ الْحُدُودِ. لَا تَجُوزُ فِيهَا شَهَادَةُ النِّسَاءِ. لِأَنَّهُ إِذَا عَتَقَ الْعَبْدُ ثَبَتَتْ حُرْمَتُهُ. وَوَقَعَتْ لَهُ الْحُدُودُ. وَوَقَعَتْ عَلَيْهِ. وَإِنْ زَنَى وَقَدْ أُحْصِنَ رُجِمَ. وَإِنْ قَتَلَ الْعَبْدَ قُتِلَ بِهِ. وَثَبَتَ لَهُ الْمِيرَاثُ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ مَنْ يُوَارِثُهُ. فَإِنِ احْتَجَّ مُحْتَجٌّ فَقَالَ : لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلًا أَعْتَقَ عَبْدَهُ. وَجَاءَ رَجُلٌ يَطْلُبُ سَيِّدَ الْعَبْدِ بِدَيْنٍ لَهُ عَلَيْهِ. فَشَهِدَ لَهُ، عَلَى حَقِّهِ ذَلِكَ، رَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ. فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ يُثْبِتُ الْحَقَّ عَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ. حَتَّى تُرَدَّ بِهِ عَتَاقَتُهُ. إِذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ لِسَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ مَالٌ غَيْرُ الْعَبْدِ. يُرِيدُ أَنْ يُجِيزَ بِذَلِكَ شَهَادَةَ النِّسَاءِ فِي الْعَتَاقَةِ. فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَيْسَ عَلَى مَا قَالَ. وَإِنَّمَا مَثَلُ ذَلِكَ الرَّجُلُ يَعْتِقُ عَبْدَهُ. ثُمَّ يَأْتِي طَالِبُ الْحَقِّ عَلَى سَيِّدِهِ بِشَاهِدٍ وَاحِدٍ. فَيَحْلِفُ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ. ثُمَّ يَسْتَحِقُّ حَقَّهُ. وَتُرَدُّ بِذَلِكَ عَتَاقَةُ الْعَبْدِ. أَوْ يَأْتِي الرَّجُلُ قَدْ كَانَتْ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ مُخَالَطَةٌ وَمُلَابَسَةٌ. فَيَزْعُمُ أَنَّ لَهُ عَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ مَالًا. فَيُقَالُ لِسَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ : احْلِفْ مَا عَلَيْكَ مَا ادَّعَى، فَإِنْ نَكَلَ وَأَبَى أَنْ يَحْلِفَ، حُلِّفَ صَاحِبُ الْحَقِّ، وَثَبَتَ حَقُّهُ عَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ. فَيَكُونُ ذَلِكَ يَرُدُّ عَتَاقَةَ الْعَبْدِ. إِذَا ثَبَتَ الْمَالُ عَلَى سَيِّدِهِ، قَالَ : وَكَذَلِكَ أَيْضًا الرَّجُلُ يَنْكِحُ الْأَمَةَ. فَتَكُونُ امْرَأَتَهُ. فَيَأْتِي سَيِّدُ الْأَمَةِ إِلَى الرَّجُلِ الَّذِي تَزَوَّجَهَا فَيَقُولُ : ابْتَعْتَ مِنِّي جَارِيَتِي فُلَانَةَ. أَنْتَ وَفُلَانٌ بِكَذَا وَكَذَا دِينَارًا. فَيُنْكِرُ ذَلِكَ زَوْجُ الْأَمَةِ. فَيَأْتِي سَيِّدُ الْأَمَةِ بِرَجُلٍ وَامْرَأَتَيْنِ. فَيَشْهَدُونَ عَلَى مَا قَالَ. فَيَثْبُتُ بَيْعُهُ. وَيَحِقُّ حَقُّهُ، وَتَحْرُمُ الْأَمَةُ عَلَى زَوْجِهَا. وَيَكُونُ ذَلِكَ فِرَاقًا بَيْنَهُمَا، وَشَهَادَةُ النِّسَاءِ لَا تَجُوزُ فِي الطَّلَاقِ. ¤
Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said that if there is only one witness in matters of divorce and emancipation, then an oath is required from the husband and the master, because emancipation is a legal limit (hadd) in which the testimony of women is not valid. This is because when a slave is freed, his sanctity is established, and the legal limits apply to him as they do to others, and the limits of others apply to him. If he commits adultery and is muhsan (married), he will be stoned; if someone kills him, the killer will also be killed; and his heirs will be entitled to inheritance. If someone argues that when a master frees his slave, and then a person comes to claim his debt from the master and establishes his debt with the testimony of one man and two women, then the debt will be established upon the master. If the master has no wealth except that slave, then the emancipation of the slave will be annulled. From this, it might be inferred that the testimony of women is valid in emancipation, but this is not so, because the testimony of women was accepted in the establishment of the debt, not in emancipation. The example is that a person frees his slave, then his creditor establishes his debt upon the master with one witness and an oath, and due to this, the emancipation is annulled. Or, if someone claims a debt upon the master and has no witness, then an oath is taken from the master, and if he denies, then an oath is taken from the claimant and his debt is established, and the emancipation is annulled. Similarly, if a person marries a slave woman, then the master of the slave woman says to the husband that you and such-and-such person together bought this slave woman from me for such-and-such dinars, and the husband denies it, then the master brings one man and two women as witnesses to his claim. In this case, the sale will be established, and the slave woman will become unlawful for the husband, and the marriage will be annulled, even though the testimony of women is not valid in divorce.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ : وَمِنْ ذَلِكَ أَيْضًا الرَّجُلُ يَفْتَرِي عَلَى الرَّجُلِ الْحُرِّ، فَيَقَعُ عَلَيْهِ الْحَدُّ. فَيَأْتِي رَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ فَيَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ الَّذِي افْتُرِيَ عَلَيْهِ عَبْدٌ مَمْلُوكٌ. فَيَضَعُ ذَلِكَ الْحَدَّ عَنِ الْمُفْتَرِي بَعْدَ أَنْ وَقَعَ عَلَيْهِ. وَشَهَادَةُ النِّسَاءِ لَا تَجُوزُ فِي الْفِرْيَةِ. ¤
Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Similarly, if a person accuses another of slander, then a man or two women testify that the person who was accused is a slave, the hadd (punishment) will be dropped from the accuser, even though in the case of slander, the testimony of women is not valid.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ : وَمِمَّا يُشْبِهُ ذَلِكَ أَيْضًا مِمَّا يَفْتَرِقُ فِيهِ الْقَضَاءُ، وَمَا مَضَى مِنَ السُّنَّةِ، أَنَّ الْمَرْأَتَيْنِ يَشْهَدَانِ عَلَى اسْتِهْلَالِ الصَّبِيِّ، فَيَجِبُ بِذَلِكَ مِيرَاثُهُ حَتَّى يَرِثَ، وَيَكُونُ مَالُهُ لِمَنْ يَرِثُهُ. إِنْ مَاتَ الصَّبِيُّ. وَلَيْسَ مَعَ الْمَرْأَتَيْنِ اللَّتَيْنِ شَهِدَتَا، رَجُلٌ وَلَا يَمِينٌ. وَقَدْ يَكُونُ ذَلِكَ فِي الْأَمْوَالِ الْعِظَامِ. مِنَ الذَّهَبِ وَالْوَرِقِ وَالرِّبَاعِ وَالْحَوَائِطِ وَالرَّقِيقِ وَمَا سِوَى ذَلِكَ مِنَ الْأَمْوَالِ. وَلَوْ شَهِدَتِ امْرَأَتَانِ عَلَى دِرْهَمٍ وَاحِدٍ. أَوْ أَقَلَّ مِنْ ذَلِكَ أَوْ أَكْثَرَ. لَمْ تَقْطَعْ شَهَادَتُهُمَا شَيْئًا، وَلَمْ تَجُزْ إِلَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَعَهُمَا شَاهِدٌ أَوْ يَمِينٌ. ¤
Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said that this is also an example: if two women testify regarding a child's crying, then inheritance will be established for that child, and if that child has died, then his heirs will receive the inheritance, even though there is neither a man nor an oath with those two women. And sometimes the inheritance property is abundant, such as gold, silver, land, gardens, slaves, etc. If these same two women testify regarding one dirham or even less, then nothing will be established by their testimony until there is a man or an oath along with them.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ : وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَقُولُ لَا تَكُونُ الْيَمِينُ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ الْوَاحِدِ. وَيَحْتَجُّ بِقَوْلِ اللّٰهِ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى، وَقَوْلُهُ الْحَقُّ : ﴿وَاسْتَشْهِدُوا شَهِيدَيْنِ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ، فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ مِمَّنْ تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاءِ﴾ [البقرة: 282]، يَقُولُ : فَإِنْ لَمْ يَأْتِ بِرَجُلٍ وَامْرَأَتَيْنِ فَلَا شَيْءَ لَهُ، وَلَا يُحَلَّفُ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ.
Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said that some people say that a right is not established by one oath and one witness, because of the saying of Allah the Exalted: “If there are not two men...” (the verse). So the argument against these people is: Do you not see that if a person claims wealth from another person, is not an oath taken from the defendant? If he swears, then this right is nullified; if he refuses, then the claimant is made to swear. This is a matter in which there is no disagreement among the people, nor in any of the cities. So by what evidence have you excluded this, and in which Book of Allah have you found this issue? So when you acknowledge this matter, you must also acknowledge the oath with the witness, even though it is not in the Book of Allah, but it is present in the hadith. A person should recognize the correct path and see the place of evidence; in this case, if Allah wills, his difficulty will be resolved.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ : فَمِنَ الْحُجَّةِ عَلَى مَنْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ الْقَوْلَ، أَنْ يُقَالَ لَهُ : أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلًا ادَّعَى عَلَى رَجُلٍ مَالًا : أَلَيْسَ يَحْلِفُ الْمَطْلُوبُ مَا ذَلِكَ الْحَقُّ عَلَيْهِ. فَإِنْ حَلَفَ بَطَلَ ذَلِكَ عَنْهُ. وَإِنْ نَكَلَ عَنِ الْيَمِينِ حُلِّفَ صَاحِبُ الْحَقِّ إِنَّ حَقَّهُ لَحَقٌّ. وَثَبَتَ حَقُّهُ عَلَى صَاحِبِهِ. فَهَذَا مَا لَا اخْتِلَافَ فِيهِ عِنْدَ أَحَدٍ مِنَ النَّاسِ. وَلَا بِبَلَدٍ مِنَ الْبُلْدَانِ. فَبِأَيِّ شَيْءٍ أَخَذَ هَذَا؟ أَوْ فِي أَيِّ مَوْضِعٍ مِنْ كِتَابِ اللّٰهِ وَجَدَهُ؟ فَإِنْ أَقَرَّ بِهَذَا فَلْيُقْرِرْ بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ. وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ ذَلِكَ فِي كِتَابِ اللّٰهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ. وَأَنَّهُ لَيَكْفِي مِنْ ذَلِكَ مَا مَضَى مِنَ السُّنَّةِ. وَلَكِنِ الْمَرْءُ قَدْ يُحِبُّ أَنْ يَعْرِفَ وَجْهَ الصَّوَابِ وَمَوْقِعَ الْحُجَّةِ. فَفِي هَذَا بَيَانُ مَا أَشْكَلَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ. إِنْ شَاءَ اللّٰهُ تَعَالَى.
Malik said: So among the proofs against the one who says that statement is to say to him: What do you think if a man claims money against another man—does not the one being claimed from swear an oath that this right is not upon him? If he swears, that claim is nullified against him. But if he refuses to swear, the owner of the right is made to swear that his right is indeed true, and his right is established against the other. This is something about which there is no disagreement among any of the people, nor in any land among the lands. So by what was this taken? Or in what place in the Book of Allah did he find it? If he acknowledges this, then let him acknowledge the oath along with the witness. And if that is not in the Book of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, then what has passed from the Sunnah is sufficient for that. But a person may wish to know the aspect of correctness and the place of the proof. So in this is clarification of what is problematic from that, if Allah, Exalted is He, wills.
قَالَ مَالِكٌ : وَإِنَّمَا يَكُونُ ذَلِكَ فِي الْأَمْوَالِ خَاصَّةً. وَلَا يَقَعُ ذَلِكَ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنَ الْحُدُودِ. وَلَا فِي نِكَاحٍ وَلَا فِي طَلَاقٍ، وَلَا فِي عَتَاقَةٍ وَلَا فِي سَرِقَةٍ، وَلَا فِي فِرْيَةٍ. فَإِنْ قَالَ قَائِلٌ : فَإِنَّ الْعَتَاقَةَ مِنَ الْأَمْوَالِ، فَقَدْ أَخْطَأَ. لَيْسَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى مَا قَالَ. وَلَوْ كَانَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى مَا قَالَ، لَحَلَفَ الْعَبْدُ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ، إِذَا جَاءَ بِشَاهِدٍ أَنَّ سَيِّدَهُ أَعْتَقَهُ. وَأَنَّ الْعَبْدَ إِذَا جَاءَ بِشَاهِدٍ عَلَى مَالٍ مِنَ الْأَمْوَالِ ادَّعَاهُ، حَلَفَ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ وَاسْتَحَقَّ حَقَّهُ كَمَا يَحْلِفُ الْحُرُّ. قَالَ مَالِكٌ : فَالسُّنَّةُ عِنْدَنَا أَنَّ الْعَبْدَ إِذَا جَاءَ بِشَاهِدٍ عَلَى عَتَاقَتِهِ اسْتُحْلِفَ سَيِّدُهُ مَا أَعْتَقَهُ وَبَطَلَ ذَلِكَ عَنْهُ. ¤
Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said that judgment based on one oath and one witness will only be in claims regarding wealth, and it is not permissible to judge based on one witness and one oath in matters of hudud (prescribed punishments), marriage, divorce, emancipation, theft, or slander. And whoever included emancipation among claims regarding wealth has made a mistake, because if that were the case, then when a slave brings one witness to the effect that his master has set him free, it would be necessary to take an oath from the slave and set him free, whereas this is not the case. Rather, when a slave brings one witness regarding his freedom, an oath will be taken from his master; if the master swears, then freedom will not be established.
