Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/360)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

at the recipient judge, he enforces it. He has no right to re-examine the case, for it remains the responsibility of the first judge.

His statement, “even in cases of slanderous accusation,” indicates that there is a difference of opinion. Some later scholars mentioned that when the scholars say “even,” the disagreement is weak; when they say “if,” the disagreement is strong; and when they say “were it,” the disagreement is stronger still. This is a generally applicable convention, not an absolute rule.

Regarding his statement, “slanderous accusation”: is it a right of Allah or a right of an individual? The scholars differed over this. It was said that it is an individual’s right, and it was said that it is a right of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He. Those who hold that it is an individual’s right say that it is like all other rights, and a judge’s letter to another judge is accepted in such a case. Those who hold that it is a right of Allah say that a judge’s letter to another judge is not accepted in such a case. But the author maintains that it is accepted, because it has two aspects: an aspect of Allah’s right and an aspect of the individual’s right. The latter is more evident, because it is the individual who is stained by the accusation and whose reputation is harmed.

An example is that Zayd claims that Amr slanderously accused him. The judge asks the claimant for evidence, and he brings two witnesses who testify that Amr did indeed accuse him. However, the judge dislikes ruling against him because the defendant is his cousin. He says: “If I rule against him, it will lead to a severing of kinship ties between us. So I shall refer the case to the second judge, informing him that such-and-such has been established before me, so that he may rule.” When it reaches the judge to whom the letter is addressed, he examines the matter; and if, in his judgment, a ruling is warranted, he rules. This is the first scenario.

The second scenario is where the first judge has already ruled in his favor, so that the recipient judge may enforce it,

إلى القاضي ينفذ، وليس له الحق أن ينظر في القضية، وتكون على ذمة القاضي الأول. قوله: «حتى القذف» هذا إشارة خلاف، لكن ذكر بعض المتأخرين أن العلماء إذا قالوا: «حتى» فالخلاف ضعيف، وإذا قالوا: «إن» فالخلاف قوي، وإذا قالوا: «لو» فالخلاف أقوى، وهذا اصطلاح أغلبي وليس دائماً. وقوله: «القذف» هل هو حق لله، أو للآدمي؟ اختلف فيه العلماء، فقيل: إنه حق للآدمي، وقيل: إنه حق لله ﷿، فمن قال: إنه حق لآدمي، قال: هو كسائر الحقوق، يقبل فيه كتاب القاضي إلى القاضي، ومن قال: هو حق لله، قال: لا يقبل فيه كتاب القاضي إلى القاضي، ولكن المؤلف يقول: إنه يقبل فيه كتاب القاضي إلى القاضي؛ لأن فيه شائبتين: شائبة حق الله، وشائبة حق الآدمي، وهي في حق الآدمي أظهر؛ لأن الذي يتلطخ بالقذف وتساء سمعته هو الآدمي. مثال ذلك: ادعى زيد على عمرو بأنه قذفه، فطلب القاضي من المدعي البينة، فأتى بشاهدين يشهدان بأنه قذفه، ولكنه كره أن يحكم عليه؛ لأن المدعى عليه ابن عمه، وقال: لو أحكم عليه لصار بيني وبينه قطيعة رحم، فأنا أرفع القضية إلى القاضي الثاني، بأنه ثبت عندي كذا وكذا فاحكم، فإذا وصلت إلى القاضي المكتوب إليه، ينظر فيها، فإذا اقتضى نظره أن يحكم حكم، هذه الصورة الأولى. الصورة الثانية: فيما حكم له لينفذه القاضي المكتوب إليه،