Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/138)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

is trustworthy, truthful, and careful in safeguarding what is entrusted to him, and he claims that he returned it. Thus, his statement is accepted, though he must take an oath.

Circumstantial indications have their due weight. Consider the judge who ruled between Joseph—peace be upon him—and the wife of al-ʿAzīz. What did he say when Joseph—peace be upon him—defended himself: “She sought to seduce me”? [Joseph 12:26] She had claimed that he intended evil toward her. Here, the judge ruled on the basis of the indication; he did not declare either the woman or Joseph—peace be upon him—innocent. Rather, he said:

“If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth and he is of the liars. But if his shirt is torn from behind, then she has lied and he is of the truthful.” [Joseph 12:26–27]

For if it was torn from behind, this meant that the man had fled from her and she caught up with him and seized his shirt; but if it was torn from the front, then the woman had been defending herself until she tore the shirt. This, then, is a circumstantial indication.

The same applies to qasāmah—the procedure of repeated oaths in cases of homicide. In homicide cases, judgment may be rendered on the basis of circumstantial indication, notwithstanding the original presumption. Qasāmah is where a group alleges that a tribe killed one of their people, when there is enmity between them. The heirs of the slain person have no evidence, but they swear that a certain man from that tribe killed their relative. The original presumption is that this did not occur, and this concerns the taking of a life; yet, because of the indication—namely, the evident hostility between the two tribes—qasāmah is carried out. If the heirs of the slain person swear fifty oaths that this man killed their relative, he is executed. This is a judgment based on circumstantial indication.

Accordingly, it should be said that the jurists’ unqualified statements in cases such as this apply so long as no strong indication exists that outweighs the original presumption. But when there is a strong indication that outweighs the original presumption, it is acted upon.

ادعى الرد ثقة صدوق حافظ، فيكون القول قوله لكن لا بد من اليمين. والقرائن تعمل عملها، أرأيتم الحاكم الذي حكم بين يوسف ﵇ وبين امرأة العزيز، ماذا قال حينما دافع يوسف ﵇ عن نفسه؟ ﴿قَالَ هِيَ رَاوَدَتْنِي عَنْ نَفْسِي﴾ [يوسف: ٢٦] وهي ادعت أنه أراد بها سوءاً؟ فهنا الحاكم حكم بالقرينة، ولم يحكم بالبراءة للمرأة، ولا ليوسف ﵊ ولكن قال: ﴿إِنْ كَانَ قَمِيصُهُ قُدَّ مِنْ قُبُلٍ فَصَدَقَتْ وَهُوَ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ﴾ ﴿وَإِنْ كَانَ قَمِيصُهُ قُدَّ مِنْ دُبُرٍ فَكَذَبَتْ وَهُوَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ *﴾ [يوسف] لأنه إذا كان من دبر فمعناه أن الرجل هرب منها ولَحِقَته فأمسكت بقميصه، وإذا كان من قُبُل فالمرأة هي المدافعة عن نفسها حتى مزقت القميص، فهذه قرينة. كذلك القسامة: في القتل يُحكم فيها بالقرينة، ويُهدر الأصل، والقسامة أن يدعي جماعة على قبيلة أنهم قتلوا صاحبهم، وكان بينهم عداوات، وأولياء القتيل ليس عندهم بينة، لكن حلفوا أن فلاناً من هذه القبيلة هو الذي قتل قتيلهم، فالأصل عدم ذلك وهذا قتل نفس، لكن لوجود القرينة وهي العداوة الظاهرة بين القبيلتين تُجرى القسامة، وإذا حلف أولياء المقتول خمسين يميناً أن هذا الرجل هو الذي قتل صاحبهم قُتِل، فهذا حكم بالقرينة، فينبغي أن يقال: إن إطلاق الفقهاء في مثل هذا ما لم تقم قرينة قوية تغلب على الأصل، فإذا وجد قرينة قوية تغلب على الأصل فإنه يُعمل بها.