موطا امام مالك رواية يحييٰ
Muwatta Imam Malik (Riwayat Yahya)
كتاب الأقضيةBook: On the Explanation of Judges
بَابُ الْقَضَاءِ بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِRuling by oath along with a witness
Hadith 1421B4
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.
