Tirmidhi

Hadith Commentary:
In one narration, it is mentioned that there was a dispute over land between Ash'ath (radi Allahu anhu) and a Jew.
Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa (radi Allahu anhu) said that this verse was revealed regarding the person who, in the marketplace, placed some goods and swore a false oath, claiming that he had been offered such-and-such a price for the goods, but in reality, he had not been offered that amount.
The verse is general, and its ruling remains applicable even now.
How many people acquire unlawful wealth by repeatedly swearing false oaths!
How many people achieve success in false lawsuits!
All of these fall under the purview of this verse.

Hadith Commentary:
Selling out one’s religion and breaking covenants will be a cause of deprivation on the Day of Resurrection.
In another hadith, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:
“Whoever usurps the right of a Muslim by means of a false oath, Allah has made the Fire obligatory for him and has forbidden Paradise for him.”
The narrator asked:
O Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)! Even if it is something insignificant? (Will the Fire still be obligatory for him?)
He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) replied:
“Yes! Even if it is only a green twig of a tree.”
(Sahih Muslim, Al-Iman, Hadith: 353(137))
In any case, in the noble verse, five warnings are mentioned regarding breaking covenants.
And Allah is the One whose help is sought.

Hadith Commentary:
For justice, it is necessary that the judge first demands witnesses from the claimant (plaintiff).
If he does not have witnesses, then the defendant is made to swear an oath. If the defendant swears a false oath, he will be committing a grave sin. However, in court, many people do not consider it necessary to refrain from lying, even though false testimony is among the major sins (kabair).
Similarly, to usurp someone’s wealth by swearing a false oath is among the gravest of the major sins (akbar al-kabair), that is, an extremely great major sin.

Hadith Commentary:
According to this hadith, it is necessary for the court to first demand evidence from the claimant (plaintiff). If he cannot present witnesses or any proof for his claim, then the defendant should be made to take an oath.
If the defendant swears a false oath, he will be committing a grave sin, and if his falsehood is proven, the court can punish him, because giving false testimony is a major sin (kabirah).
And to usurp someone’s wealth by taking a false oath is an even greater crime than that.

Hadith Commentary:
Some Hanafis have taken this hadith as evidence that it is not permissible to judge based on an oath together with a witness (yamin ma‘a ash-shahid), and this inference is invalid, because the clause of yamin ma‘a ash-shahid is included in it. So the meaning is that there should be two witnesses, either two men, or one man and two women, or one man and one oath; otherwise, take an oath from the defendant.

These Hanafis do not reflect enough on whether it is better to reconcile the words of Allah and His Messenger or to create contradiction between them, acting upon one and abandoning the other.

(Wahidi)

All praise is due to Allah, for in the Sacred Sanctuary of the Prophet (Haram Nabawi), in Madinah al-Munawwarah, on 9 April 1970, sitting before the noble resting place of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), the text up to this point was carefully read.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In the aforementioned case, Ash'ath bin Qays (radi Allahu anhu) was the claimant, so the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said to him:
You must present two witnesses to establish your claim; otherwise, the defendant will take an oath, and the case will be decided in his favor.
In any case, it is the responsibility of the defendant to take an oath, provided that the claimant is unable to present two witnesses as proof of his claim, or at least one witness and an oath.
If he is unable to do so, then the defendant will be acquitted by taking an oath.
(2)
Some people are proponents of "yamin istizhar" (supporting oath).
This means that when the claimant establishes his claim through witnesses, the judge should have the claimant take an oath that what his witnesses have established is indeed based on truth, and there is no deception or fraud in it.
Qadi Shurayh, Imam Nakha'i, and Awza'i, among others, hold this view, but the majority of scholars do not agree with it because there is no evidence for it in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
The court is not aware of the unseen.
If a person, by making false statements and swearing false oaths, manages to obtain a verdict in his favor, even though he is in the wrong, then such a person is accursed in the sight of Allah; he is consuming a burning ember of fire into his belly.
On the Day of Judgment, he will be seized by the wrath of Allah.
He should firmly keep this reality in mind.
This is also an indication towards the false claim of those who say that the judge’s verdict is binding in every respect, both outwardly and inwardly.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
From the ahadith mentioned under this heading, it is established that lying is prohibited at all times, but taking a false oath is an even greater crime.
Especially, taking a false oath in front of a court and giving false testimony is a very grave sin.
A person who obtains a judgment in his favor by taking a false oath is accursed in the sight of Allah.
On the Day of Resurrection, he will be seized by Allah’s punishment.
One who takes a false oath should firmly keep this reality in mind.
(2)
There appears to be a contradiction between the two ahadith regarding the occasion of the revelation of the noble verse; two answers have been given concerning this:
➊ Ibn Abi Awfa (radi Allahu anhu) was not informed of the incident of Ash’ath ibn Qays (radi Allahu anhu), so he narrated according to his own knowledge.
➋ Both incidents occurred simultaneously, and the aforementioned verse was revealed after both events.
The wording of the verse encompasses both; there is no contradiction between them.
And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
The claimant, that is, Ash'ath (radi Allahu anhu), clearly expressed the fault of the Jew in the noble court of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) in explicit terms.
This is precisely the purpose of the chapter: that in a case, both the claimant and the defendant should clearly present their respective arguments before the court. This is not called backbiting (ghibah).

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
The purpose here is that during the hearing of a case, the plaintiff and the defendant may speak harshly to each other in the courtroom, and the court does not take any notice of it; this is permissible provided that such conversation does not involve obscene language or character assassination. However, if someone, through their speech, violates the respect of the court, then notice will be taken of it.

According to this hadith, Hazrat Ash'ath (radi Allahu anhu) stated before the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) regarding the Jew that he would take away his wealth by swearing a false oath.

Since Hazrat Ash'ath (radi Allahu anhu) was aware of the character of this Jew, the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not object to his statement.

(2)
A statement made before the court upon which no discretionary punishment (ta'zir) or prescribed punishment (hadd) becomes obligatory will not be counted as unlawful backbiting (ghibah), nor will it be considered as character assassination of the defendant.

(Fath al-Bari: 5/93)

Understanding of the Hadith:
From this hadith, it is understood that to usurp the wealth of a Muslim by swearing a false oath is a very grave sin. In one narration, it is stated that whoever, by swearing a false oath, usurped even a single branch of a peelu tree belonging to someone else, the Fire has become obligatory upon him. [مسلم : كتاب الايمان : مَنِ اقْتَطَعَ حَقَّ مُسْلِمٍ بِيَمِينٍ]

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
When the dispute over the well was brought before the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), he asked the claimant (plaintiff) to present witnesses. When he was unable to present witnesses, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) asked the defendant to take an oath, because the judicial law of Islam is that the claimant must present witnesses as proof of his claim, while taking an oath is the right of the defendant. Since bearing true witness is a distinguishing feature of this ummah, lying, taking a false oath, and giving false testimony are counted among the major sins.
(2)
Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) intends to show that ownership is established in wells, the court is authorized to hear cases related to them, and then it also has the authority to decide according to the truth. If it were a common property for all people, then what kind of case could be brought regarding it, and what could the court hear?
(3)
In our society, the decision of disputes between parties in the local council (panchayat) is often made in such a way that a third person takes an oath on behalf of the defendant. This method is entirely wrong because it is contrary to this hadith. The oath must be taken by the defendant himself, and the claimant should accept his oath. If he takes a false oath, he will be punished by Allah.

Hadith Commentary:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
(1)
Qadib:
A stick,
a branch.
Yamin sabr:
An oath upon which the one swearing restrains himself,
upon which the decision depends.
(2)
Yaqtaṭi‘u:
He suppresses,
he strikes,
he severs it from the owner.

Benefits and Issues:
To usurp someone’s right or to withhold property,
especially when the victim is one’s religious brother, a Muslim, is such a grave crime (particularly when a false oath by Allah is sworn for it,
whether the right is small or great)
that the perpetrator tramples upon Islam, which is the name of compassion and goodwill.
And he shows disrespect to the rank and status of Allah,
therefore, if he is not granted forgiveness, he is deserving of such a punishment that he will enter Hell,
and will be deprived of the honor of entering Paradise directly.