Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/317)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

So, if two litigants bring their dispute before me and I know with certainty that the right is on the claimant’s side—because the defendant came to me yesterday and admitted it—what should I do? I should refer the case to another judge and serve as a witness.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that a judge does not rule on the basis of his own knowledge under any circumstances. However, the scholars have made exceptions in three cases, saying that he may rule on the basis of his knowledge in them:

The first is the integrity or discrediting of witnesses. If he knows the two witnesses to be upright, he may rule on the basis of their testimony without requiring attestation of their integrity. If he knows them to be discredited, he may reject their testimony without needing someone to impugn them. This is because it is not a direct judgment, for which the judge might be suspected; rather, it is a ruling connected to the judgment, or a ruling concerning that upon which the judgment is based.

The second is what he learns during the court session: he may rule by it. For example, two people bring a dispute before him, and at the beginning of the session the defendant admits the claim, but later denies it. The judge rules against him, since they are still in the same court session and he has heard the defendant’s admission. Therefore, he must rule by it; even if the defendant subsequently denies it, his denial is not accepted.

The third is where the matter is widely known, clear, and evident—equally known to the general public and to the judge. In such a case, he rules on the basis of his knowledge. An example is where it has long been widely known in a town that a certain property is an endowment for the poor, then the descendants of the endower come and say, “This belongs to us; it belonged to our father and our grandfather.” If the judge knows, just as everyone else knows, that this property is an endowment, then he rules on the basis of his knowledge, because it is publicly known, suspicion is precluded, and so too is the possibility of someone untrustworthy entering into the matter.

فإذا تحاكم إليَّ خصمان وأنا أعلم أن الحق مع المدعي علم اليقين؛ لأن المدعى عليه جاء عندي البارحة وأقر، فماذا أعمل؟ أحوِّل القضية إلى قاضٍ آخر، وأكون شاهداً. وظاهر كلام المؤلف أن القاضي لا يحكم بعلمه مطلقاً، ولكن هنا ثلاث مسائل استثناها العلماء، قالوا: إنه يحكم بعلمه فيها: الأولى: عدالة الشهود وجرح الشهود، فإذا كان يعلم عدالة الشاهدين حكم بشهادتهما بدون طلب تزكية، وإذا كان يعلم جرحهما رد شهادتهما بدون جارح؛ لأن هذا ليس حكماً مباشراً حتى يتهم القاضي فيه، وإنما هو حكم بسبب الحكم، أو حكم بالذي ينبني عليه الحكم. الثانية: ما علمه في مجلس الحكم فإنه يحكم به، مثل أن يتحاكم إليه اثنان، وفي أول الجلسة أقر المدعى عليه بالحق، ثم بعد ذلك أنكر، فيحكم عليه؛ لأنه ما زال في مجلس الحكم، وقد سمع من المدعى عليه الإقرار فوجب عليه أن يحكم به، حتى لو أنكر بعد ذلك ما يقبل. الثالثة: إذا كان الأمر مشتهراً واضحاً بيناً، يستوي في علمه الخاص والعام، القاضي وغيره، فهنا يحكم بعلمه، مثال ذلك: اشتهر في البلد أن هذا الملْك وَقْفٌ على الفقراء من أزمان طويلة، فجاءت ذرية الواقف، وقالوا: هذا لنا، هذا لأبينا ولجدنا، وكان القاضي يعلم كما يعلم سائر الناس أن هذا الملْك وقف، فهنا يحكم بعلمه؛ لأنه مشتهر والاتهام منتفٍ، ودخول من لا يوثق فيه ـ أيضاً ـ منتفٍ.