Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/386)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Thus, neither a claim nor a denial is valid except from one legally competent to transact; and the guardian of one who lacks such competence takes his place.

“If two parties lay claim to a specific item that is in the possession of one of them, it belongs to the possessor upon his taking an oath—unless he has evidence, in which case he need not swear. If each of them produces evidence that it belongs to him, judgment is given in favor of the party not in possession on the basis of his evidence, and the evidence of the possessor is disregarded.”

His statement, “If two parties lay claim to a specific item that is in the possession of one of them, it belongs to the possessor upon his taking an oath—unless he has evidence, in which case he need not swear,” means, for example, that two men dispute a specific item, each saying, “It belongs to me,” while it is in the possession of one of them. It belongs to the possessor if he takes an oath, unless he has evidence, in which case he does not swear, since the evidence suffices.

For example, Zayd claims from ‘Amr that the recorder in his possession belongs to Zayd. ‘Amr replies, “It is not yours.” Since the item is in ‘Amr’s possession, we say: It is yours if you take an oath. If he swears and says, “By Allah, this recorder belongs to me and not to so-and-so,” then it belongs to him. However, if he has evidence, there is no need for an oath, because evidence is stronger than an oath. What is weaker does not override what is stronger; rather, it is subsumed by it. Therefore, the evidence alone suffices.

Someone may ask: How can evidence be accepted from him when he is the defendant, whereas the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “The evidence is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies” (1)? Thus, he placed the evidence on the claimant’s side and the oath on the defendant’s side.

The answer is that the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, said this because the oath is the minimum requirement for establishing the case. Since the item is in his possession, his side is given greater weight, and so an oath suffices. But when something stronger is present—namely, evidence—it suffices instead.

(1) Its source reference has previously been provided on p. 318.

إذاً لا تصح الدعوى إلا من جائز التصرف، وكذلك الإنكار، وغير جائز التصرف يقوم وليه مقامه. وَإِذَا تَدَاعَيَا عَيْناً بِيَدِ أَحَدِهِمَا فَهِيَ لَهُ مَعَ يَمِينِهِ، إلاَّ أَنْ تَكُونَ لَهُ بَيِّنَةٌ فَلَا يَحْلِفُ، وَإِنْ أَقَامَ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ بَيِّنَةً أَنَّهَا لَهُ، قُضِيَ لِلْخَارِجِ بِبَيِّنَتِهِ، وَلَغَتْ بَيِّنَةُ الدَّاخِلِ. قوله: «وإذا تداعيا عيناً بيد أحدهما فهي له مع يمينه، إلا أن تكون له بينة فلا يحلف» مثال ذلك: رجلان تداعيا عيناً كل واحد منهما يقول: هي لي، وهي بيد أحدهما فهي له بيمينه، إلا إذا كان له بينة فإنه لا يحلف اكتفاء بالبينة، مثال ذلك: ادعى زيد على عمرو أن المسجل الذي معه له، فقال: عمرو ليس لك، والعين بيد عمرو، فنقول: هي لك بيمينك، فإذا حلف وقال: والله إن هذا المسجل لي وليس لفلان فهو له، إلا إذا كان عنده بينة فلا حاجة لليمين؛ لأن البينة أقوى من اليمين، ولا يرد الأضعف على الأقوى بل يدخل فيه، وحينئذٍ يكتفى بالبينة. وقد يقول قائل: كيف يعمل بالبينة وهو مدعى عليه، وقد قال النبي ﷺ: «البينة على المدعي واليمين على من أنكر» (١)، فجعل البينة في جانب المدعي وجعل اليمين في جانب المدعى عليه؟ فالجواب أن يقال: الرسول ﵊ قال هذا اكتفاءً بأدنى موجب ومثبت وهو اليمين؛ لأنه لما كانت العين بيده ترجح جانبه فاكتفي فيه باليمين، فإذا وجد ما هو أعلى وهو البينة اكتفي بها.

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٣١٨).