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 1421B7
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.
