Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/409)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “or drinking”: Likewise, if he testifies that someone drank wine, saying, “I testify that so-and-so drank wine,” the author says that he must describe that wine. Thus, he should say: “He drank such-and-such a type; he drank in such-and-such a place, at such-and-such a time.” In short, he must describe everything connected to this testimony. It is not sufficient for him merely to say, “I testify that he drank wine.”

The correct view, however, is that this is sufficient, because the punishment is attached to the mere drinking of wine. If there is an impediment to punishment—such as coercion, for example—then let the one against whom the testimony was given raise it.

If someone were to say, “It is possible that this witness saw him drinking wine while he was coerced, or while he did not know that it was wine,” we reply: coercion is an impediment, and ignorance that it was wine is also an impediment. We rule that he drank wine and apply the ruling entailed by that drinking. If the drinker then claims something that prevents this punishment, saying that he was coerced, or that he drank this beverage without knowing that it was wine, then we waive the punishment from him.

His statement, “or slander, in which case he must describe it”: Likewise, if he testifies to slander, he must describe it. Slander is an accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse or sodomy—may Allah grant us safety. Three consequences follow from it, as Allah mentioned in His saying:

“Those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses—flog them with eighty lashes.”

This is the first. Then:

“And never accept their testimony.”

This is the second. Then:

“They are the defiantly disobedient.” [al-Nur: 4]

This is the third. Thus, if he testifies to slander, he must describe it, because he may mistake something that is not slander for slander. For example, he may testify that a man said to another, “You are an adulterer,” or, “You are a sodomite,” and the like. But if he merely says, “He slandered him,” this is insufficient, because it is possible

قوله: «أو شرب» لو شهد ـ أيضاً ـ بشرب خمر، قال: أشهد أن فلاناً شرب خمراً، يقول المؤلف: لا بد أن يصف ذلك الخمر، فيقول: شرب من النوع الفلاني، شرب في المكان الفلاني، في الوقت الفلاني، المهم يصف كل ما يتعلق بهذه الشهادة، ولا يكفي أن يقول: أشهد أنه شرب الخمر. والصواب أنه يكفي ذلك؛ لأن العقوبة مرتبة على مجرد شرب الخمر، فإن كان هناك مانع من العقوبة، كإكراه ـ مثلاً ـ فليدع ما شهد عليه. لو قال قائل: يحتمل أن هذا الشاهد رآه يشرب الخمر، لكنه مكره، أو غير عالم بأنه خمر، نقول: الإكراه مانع وعدم العلم بأنه خمر مانع، فنحن نحكم بأنه شرب الخمر، ونحكم بمقتضى هذا الشرب، فإن ادعى الشارب ما يمنع هذه العقوبة، وقال: إنه مكره، أو إنه شرب هذا الشراب ولم يعلم أنه خمر، فحينئذٍ نسقط عنه العقوبة. قوله: «أو قذف فإنه يصفه» كذلك لو شهد بقذف فلا بد من أن يصفه، والقذف هو الرمي بالزنا أو اللواط نسأل الله العافية، فيترتب عليه ثلاثة أشياء ذكرها الله في قوله: ﴿وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاءَ فَاجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَانِينَ جَلْدَةً﴾ هذا الأول، ﴿وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا لَهُمْ شَهَادَةً أَبَدًا﴾ هذا الثاني، ﴿وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ﴾ [النور: ٤] هذا الثالث، فإذا شهد بقذف فلا بد أن يصفه؛ لأنه قد يظن ما ليس بقذف قذفاً، كأن يشهد أنه قال لفلان: أنت زانٍ، أنت لوطي، وما أشبه ذلك، أما إذا قال: إنه قذفه فقط فلا يكفي؛ لاحتمال