Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/431)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

The most important issue in this chapter is that of uprightness, for if we were to apply to Muslim society today the criteria for uprightness mentioned by the jurists, may Allah have mercy on them, we would find virtually no one who met them. Rights would consequently be lost.

If we return to the evidence relied upon by the jurists in stipulating uprightness, we find it in two verses, or more, though their meaning is one: “And bring to witness two just men from among you” [al-Talaq 65:2]; and: “O you who believe, if a sinful person comes to you with news, then verify it” [al-Hujurat 49:6]. Upon reflection, however, the two verses may not prove what the jurists stipulated. For Allah says, “And bring to witness two just men from among you,” meaning: two men possessing uprightness. Yet the fact that they possess uprightness does not necessarily mean that they are characterized by absolute uprightness. Rather, it may be said that the meaning of the verse, “And bring to witness two just men,” is that they should be upright in their testimony. Whenever a person is upright in giving testimony, his testimony is accepted; as for his religious conduct, that is a matter between him and Allah, Exalted is He.

Thus, if a person lacks uprightness with respect to lying, we undoubtedly do not accept him, because testimony depends entirely upon truthful transmission. If a person is known to lie, we do not accept his testimony, because this quality—lying—undermines the very foundation of testimony. Testimony is founded upon truthfulness in reporting; indeed, it is itself a report. Therefore, if he is a liar, this unquestionably compromises his testimony, and we do not accept it.

But if a man shaves his beard, while we know that he is truthful in reporting and incapable of lying—we have dealt with him and followed his reports—then how can we reject his report?! Or consider a man who backbites people. Backbiting is among the major sins and impairs uprightness even if committed only once; yet, despite his backbiting people, he is truthful in reporting and incapable of lying. According to the school of law, it is rejected.

وأهم شيء في هذا الباب مسألة العدالة، لأننا لو طبقنا ما ذكره الفقهاء ﵏ فيما يعتبر للعدالة لو طبقناه على مجتمع المسلمين اليوم لم نجد أحداً إلا نادراً، وحينئذٍ تضيع الحقوق، وإذا رجعنا إلى مستند الفقهاء في اشتراط العدالة وجدنا ذلك في آيتين أو أكثر، لكن معناهما واحد ﴿وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِنْكُمْ﴾ [الطلاق: ٢]، ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا﴾ [الحجرات: ٦]، وعند التأمل قد لا يكون في الآيتين دليل على ما اشترطه الفقهاء؛ لأن الله قال: ﴿وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِنْكُمْ﴾، أي: صاحبي عدل، ولا يلزم من كونهما صاحبي عدل أن يتصفا بالعدالة المطلقة، بل يمكن أن نقول: إن معنى الآية ﴿وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ﴾ في شهادته، فمتى كان ذا عدل في الشهادة فإنه يقبل، ودينه لله ﷿؛ ولهذا لو كان الإنسان مخالفاً للعدالة في الكذب فإننا لا نقبله بلا شك؛ لأن الشهادة تعتمد اعتماداً كلياً على الصدق في النقل، وإذا كان هذا الإنسان معروفاً بالكذب فهذا لا نقبل شهادته؛ لأن هذا الوصف ـ وهو الكذب ـ مخلٌّ بأصل الشهادة، فإن الشهادة مبنية على الصدق في الخبر، وهي خبر في الواقع، فإذا كان كاذباً فلا شك أن هذا يخل بشهادته ولا نقبلها، أما لو كان الرجل يحلق لحيته لكن نعلم أنه في باب الأخبار صدوق لا يمكن أن يكذب، وقد ماشيناه وتتبعنا أخباره، فكيف نرد خبره؟! أو رجل يغتاب الناس، والغيبة من كبائر الذنوب تخدش العدالة ولو مرة واحدة، لكن مع كونه يغتاب الناس صدوق الخبر لا يمكن أن يكذب، فعلى المذهب ترد