Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/338)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

testimony is an acceptable witness. A distinction is made between undertaking testimony and delivering it. When testimony is undertaken, we have no one bear witness except one who is upright according to both religious law and customary standards, lest we find ourselves in difficulty later. But when testimony is delivered, we accept anyone whom people deem reliable, even if he is not upright in his religion.

According to the Shaykh’s view, the testimony of a man known for backbiting is accepted if he is trustworthy in his testimony and not under suspicion; according to the school, it is not accepted.

According to the Shaykh’s view, the testimony of one who shaves his beard is accepted if he is not under suspicion in his testimony; according to the school, it is not accepted.

According to the Shaykh’s view, the testimony of one who eats in the marketplace is accepted—even in a town where it is not customary to eat in the marketplace—whereas according to the school, it is not accepted, because he has violated the standards of respectable conduct and thus forfeited his probity.

In any case, the Shaykh’s words—may Allah have mercy on him—are sound in cases of necessity; otherwise, the rights of many people would be lost. For today, who is there that does not backbite about someone? Only those upon whom Allah has mercy. Backbiting is exceedingly widespread among people—even among those who are righteous, who attend the mosques, perform the Friday prayers, and pray at night. You still find them backbiting about others.

I say that this is a serious matter. If we were to require the standard of probity defined by the jurists, no one would be free of some blemish in his probity. In sum, according to the school, probity is required both outwardly and inwardly, except in a limited number of matters, such as the marriage contract and the call to prayer. According to the second view, only outward probity is required, so long as the person is not under suspicion. If there are grounds for suspicion, his testimony is not accepted until it becomes clear that this suspicion no longer applies.

الشهادة فهو مقبول الشهادة، ويُفرَّقُ بين التحمل والأداء، فعند التحمل لا نشهد إلا من هو عدل شرعاً وعُرفاً، حتى لا نقع في ورطة فيما بعد، وعند الأداء نقبل من يرضاه الناس، وإن لم يكن عدلاً في دينه. فعلى رأي الشيخ تقبل شهادة الرجل المعروف بالغيبة، إذا كان مأموناً في شهادته غير متهم، وعلى المذهب لا تقبل. وعلى رأي الشيخ تقبل شهادة حالق اللحية إذا كان غير متهمٍ في شهادته، وعلى المذهب لا تقبل. وعلى رأي الشيخ تقبل شهادة من يأكل بالسوق، في بلد لم تجرِ العادة فيه بالأكل في السوق، وعلى المذهب لا تقبل؛ لأنه خالف المروءة، فخرج عن العدالة. وعلى كل حال، كلام الشيخ ﵀ جيد عند الضرورة؛ وإلا ضاعت حقوق كثير من الناس، فاليوم من الذي لا يغتاب أحداً؟! إلا من رحم الله، فالغيبة في الناس كثيرة جداً! حتى في الناس الذين هم أهل خير، ويتقدمون إلى المساجد ويصلون الجمعات، ويتهجدون في الليل، تجدهم يغتابون الناس! فأقول: إن المسألة عظيمة، لو اعتبرنا العدالة التي حددها الفقهاء؛ إذ لا يخلو أحد من الناس من خدش في عدالته. والحاصل أن العدالة معتبرة ظاهراً وباطناً على المذهب إلا في مسائل محدودة كعقد النكاح والأذان، وعلى القول الثاني العدالة معتبرة ظاهراً فقط إذا لم يكن متهماً في ريبة فلا تقبل شهادته حتى يتبين زوال هذا الاتهام.