Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

two men, each of whom says, “I am a relative of so-and-so,” then the claimant must state the particular degree of kinship. He should say, “I am his paternal uncle, his brother, his nephew,” or the like. But if he has no rival claimant, it is sufficient for him to say, “I am his relative.” This is, however, a condition for the claim to be heard, because stating the cause is part of properly defining the claim; it is not a condition for establishing the inheritance itself. For we must require him to produce evidence testifying that he is related to that man.

If a woman dies and a man comes forward saying, “I am her heir by virtue of marriage,” his claim is heard. But if he says only, “I am her heir,” we do not hear his claim until he specifies the cause.

Likewise, if an enslaved man owned by someone dies, and a man comes forward saying, “I am his heir,” we say to him, “State the cause.” If he says, “I am his former master,” then we hear his claim and subsequently require evidence.

Is it a condition that the prerequisites be stated and the impediments negated? This is based on what has preceded, and the correct view is that it is not a condition.

His statement: “The probity of the evidence is to be considered both outwardly and inwardly.” We have previously mentioned that when one person makes a claim against another, he is required to produce evidence. In the Sacred Law, evidence is everything that makes the truth manifest and demonstrates it. This is why the Books sent down from heaven are called clear proofs: because they manifest and clarify the truth. Likewise, in the chapter on oaths in cases of suspected murder, in the Book of Criminal Offences, manifest enmity is termed a presumption and evidence; hence, the oaths of the claimants alone suffice in such a case.

However, the evidence required in claims involving property is two men, or one man and two women, or one man together with the claimant’s oath, due to His saying, Exalted is He:

“And call upon two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men, then a man and two women.” [al-Baqarah 2:282]

And it is established by the explicit, authentic sunnah that

رجلان كل منهما يقول: أنا قريب فلان، فلا بد في الدعوى أن يذكر جهة القرابة، فيقول: أنا عم، أخ، ابن أخ، وما أشبه ذلك، وإن لم يكن له منازع يكفي أن يقول: أنا قريبه، ولكن هذا شرط لسماع الدعوى؛ لأن ذكر السبب من تحرير الدعوى، لا لثبوت الإرث؛ لأنه لا بد أن نطالبه ببينة تشهد بأنه قريب لهذا الرجل. ولو ماتت امرأة فجاء رجل وقال: أنا وارثها بالزوجية سمعت دعواه، فإن قال: أنا وارثها فقط، فإننا لا نسمع دعواه حتى يعين السبب. ولو مات عبد مملوك مولى لبعض الناس، فجاء رجل فقال: أنا وارثه، نقول له: بيِّن السبب، فإن قال: أنا مولى له، فإننا نسمع دعواه، ثم نطلب البينة. وهل يشترط ذكر الشروط وانتفاء الموانع؟ هذا ينبني على ما سبق، والصحيح أنه لا يشترط. قوله: «وتعتبر عدالة البينة ظاهراً وباطناً» سبق لنا أنه إذا ادعى شخص على شخص بشيء طولب بالبينة، والبينة في الشرع كل ما أبان الحق وأظهره، ولهذا تسمى الكتب النازلة من السماء بينات؛ لأنها تظهر الحق وتبينه، كذلك ـ أيضاً ـ في باب القسامة في كتاب الجنايات تسمى العداوة الظاهرة لوثاً وبينة، ولهذا يكتفى فيها بيمين المُدَّعِين، لكن البينة في دعوى الأموال رجلان، أو رجل وامرأتان، أو رجل ويمين المدعي؛ لقوله تعالى: ﴿وَاسْتَشْهِدُوا شَهِيدَيْنِ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٨٢]، وثبت بالسنة الصحيحة الصريحة أن

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies