And in the same subject are reports from Ali, Ibn Abbas, Jabir, and Masruq (9). Al-Nasa'i (10) said: The chain of narration for the hadith of Ibn Abbas regarding the oath with the witness is a sound (jayyid) chain. Furthermore, the oath is legislated for the one whose truthfulness has become manifest and whose position has been strengthened; it is for this reason that it was legislated for the possessor of the property (sahib al-yad) due to the strength of his position, and for the denier due to the strength of his position, as the fundamental principle is the exoneration of his liability (bara'at dhimmatuhu). The claimant here has had his truthfulness manifested, so it is necessary that the oath be legislated for him. They have no argument in the verse, for it merely indicates the legitimacy of two witnesses, or a man and two women, and there is no dispute regarding this. As for their statement that an addition to the text constitutes abrogation, it is incorrect; because abrogation is the raising (refuting) and removing of a ruling, whereas an addition to something is a confirmation of it, not a removal. Judging by a witness and an oath does not prevent judging by two witnesses, nor does it remove it. Furthermore, if an addition were connected to that which it is added to, it would not remove it nor be considered abrogation, and thus it is the same if it is detached from it. Moreover, the verse is regarding the recording of testimony (tahammul), not its delivery (ada'), which is why it states: "Lest one of them errs, and the other reminds her." The dispute is regarding delivery. Their hadith is weak and is not intended for exclusivity, as evidenced by the fact that the oath is legislated for the bailee if he claims the return of the deposit or its destruction, for trustees due to the manifest strength of their position (12), for the one performing lian (invoking curses), and in the qasamah (homicide liability) cases. It is also legislated for the seller and buyer if they disagree on the price while the goods remain. Muhammad's statement regarding invalidating the ruling of one who judges by a witness and an oath includes a statement to invalidate the judgment of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the Caliphs who judged by it. Allah the Almighty said: "But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves, and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full] submission" (13). Judging by what Muhammad ibn Abdullah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) judged is more appropriate than the judgment of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan which contradicts it.
Section: Al-Qadi said: It is permissible to swear an oath regarding what testimony is not allowed for, such as
(9) In [B] and [M]: "Masruq" (a typo). See: Aridat al-Ahwadhi 6/90, and Nasb al-Rayah 4/100. (10) In al-Sunan al-Kubra. See: Tuhfat al-Ashraf 5/187. (11) Surah al-Baqarah 282. (12) In [A], [B], and [M]: "jinayatuhum" (their crimes/offenses) - [a correction to the reading "janibuhum" (their position)]. (13) Surah al-Nisa 65.
وفى الباب عن علىٍّ، وابنِ عباسٍ، وجابرٍ، وسُرَّقٍ (٩). وقال النَّسائِىُّ (١٠): إسْنادُ حديثِ ابنِ عباسٍ فى اليَمِينِ مع الشاهدِ إسْنادٌ جَيِّدٌ. ولأنَّ اليَمِينَ تُشْرَعُ فى حقِّ مَن ظهرَ صدقُه، وقَوِىَ جانِبُه، ولذلك شُرِعَتْ فى حقِّ صاحبِ اليَدِ لقُوَّةِ جَنَبَتِه بها، وفى حقِّ المُنْكِرِ لِقُوَّةِ جَنَبتِه، فإنَّ الأصلَ بَراءةُ ذِمَّتِه، والمُدَّعِى هاهُنا قد ظهرَ صِدْقُه، فوجبَ أن تُشْرَعَ اليَمينُ فى حقِّه. ولا حجَّةَ لهم فى الآيةِ؛ لأنَّها دلَّتْ على مَشْروعيَّةِ الشاهِدَيْن، والشَّاهدِ والمرأتَيْنِ، ولا نِزاعَ فى هذا. وقولُهم: إنَّ الزِّيادةَ فى النَّصِّ نَسْخٌ. غيرُ صحيحِ؛ لأنَّ النَّسْخَ الرَّفعُ والإزالَةُ، والزِّيادةُ فى الشىءِ تقريرٌ له، لا رَفْعٌ، والحُكْمُ بالشَّاهدِ واليَمِينِ لا يَمْنَعُ الحُكمَ بالشاهدَيْنِ، ولا يَرْفعُه، ولأنَّ الزيادةَ لو كانتْ متَّصلةً بالمَزِيدِ عَليه لم ترْفَعْه، ولم تكُنْ نَسْخًا، فكذلك إذا انْفصَلَتْ عنه، ولأنَّ الآيةَ واردةٌ فى التَّحَمُّلِ دون الأَداءِ، ولهذا قال: {أَنْ تَضِلَّ إِحْدَاهُمَا فَتُذَكِّرَ إِحْدَاهُمَا الْأُخْرَى} (١١). والنِّزاعُ فى الأداءِ، وحديثُهم ضعيفٌ، وليس هو للحَصْرِ؛ بدليلِ أنَّ اليَمِينَ تُشْرع فى حقِّ المُودَعِ إذا ادَّعَى رَدَّ الوَديعةِ وتَلَفَها، وفى حقِّ الأُمَناءِ لظُهورِ جانِبِهم (١٢)، وفى حقِّ المُلاعِنِ، وفى القَسامَةِ، وتُشْرَعُ فى حقِّ البائعِ والمُشْترِى إذا اخْتلَفا فى الثَّمنِ والسِّلْعةُ قائمةٌ. وقولُ محمدٍ فى نَقضِ قَضاءِ مَن قَضَى بالشَّاهدِ واليَمينِ، يَتضمَّنُ القولَ بنَقْضِ قضاءِ رسولِ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-، والخلفاءِ الذين قضَوا به، وقد قال اللهُ تعالى: {فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا} (١٣). والقضاءُ بما قضَى به محمدُ بنُ عبدِ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-، أوْلَى من قضاءِ محمدِ بنِ الحسنِ المُخالِفِ له.
فصل: قال القاضى: يجوزُ أن يَحْلِفَ على ما لا تَسُوغُ الشَّهادةُ عليه؛ مثل
(٩) فى ب، م: "مسروق" تحريف. وانظر: عارضة الأحوزى ٦/ ٩٠، ونصب الراية ٤/ ١٠٠.(١٠) فى السنن الكبرى. انظر: تحفة الأشراف ٥/ ١٨٧.(١١) سورة البقرة ٢٨٢.(١٢) فى أ، ب، م: "جنايتهم".(١٣) سورة النساء ٦٥.
