Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/443)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Then note that this chapter, as we said previously, is an exception to general rulings on the basis of underlying causes, not explicit textual evidence. These causes may be strong enough to qualify a general ruling, weak, or intermediate. When the basis for qualification is strong, it does qualify it; when it is weak, it certainly does not; and when the two possibilities are evenly balanced, the matter is subject to consideration. In a particular case, the judge may rule to accept or reject the testimony on the basis of these factors.

His statement, “nor an enemy against his enemy,” means that such testimony is not accepted because of the suspicion of bias. However, if he is outstandingly upright despite all the disqualifying factors mentioned, his testimony is accepted because the suspicion is removed. The evidence concerning an enemy is Allah’s saying:

“O you who believe, stand firm for Allah as witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people lead you to be unjust. Be just; that is nearer to piety.” [al-Ma'idah: 8]

Shana'an means hatred and enmity. Thus, enmity and hatred must not lead you to abandon justice: “Be just; that is nearer to piety.” Therefore, if we know that this man is upright, then if he testifies against his enemy, his testimony is accepted—just as it would be if he were to pass judgment against him.

“Such as one who testifies against someone who accused him of unlawful sexual intercourse, or who waylaid him; and whoever is pleased by a person’s misfortune or distressed by his happiness is his enemy.”

His statement, “such as one who testifies against someone who accused him of unlawful sexual intercourse, or who waylaid him”: these are two examples of enmity. What the author mentions is illustrative, not exhaustive. A person who has been accused is one against whom an accusation of adultery or sodomy has been made. It is well known that adultery and sodomy tarnish a person’s honor, cause him to lose standing in people’s eyes, and violate his personal inviolability, for people will speak about him. Thus, if a man accuses someone of adultery, and then one day the accused person testifies against the one who accused him of adultery, that testimony is not accepted, because the accusation of adultery is a cause of enmity between them. As for someone who testifies that so-and-so accused him, this is not what the author means, because he is not a witness; rather, he is a claimant.

ثم اعلم أن هذا الباب كما قلنا سابقاً: مستثنى من عمومات بعللٍ لا بمسموعات، وهذه العلل قد تقوى على تخصيص العموم، وقد تضعف، وقد تتوسط، فهي مع قوة التخصيص مُخصِّصة، ومع ضعف التخصيص لا تُخصِّص قطعاً، ومع التساوي محل نظر، والقاضي في القضية المعينة يمكنه أن يحكم بقبول الشهادة، أو ردها بهذه الأمور. وقوله: «ولا عدو على عدوه» فلا تقبل للتهمة، لكن إذا كان مبرزاً في العدالة في جميع الموانع المذكورة فإنها تقبل لزوال التهمة، ودليل ذلك في العدو قوله تعالى: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَى أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُوا اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى﴾ [المائدة: ٨]، وشنآن بمعنى بغض وعداوة، فلا تحملكم العداوة والبغض على ترك العدل ﴿اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى﴾، فإذا علمنا أن هذا الرجل عادل فإنه إذا شهد على عدوه تكون شهادته مقبولة، كما إذا حكم عليه. كَمَنْ شَهِدَ عَلَى مَنْ قَذَفَهُ، أَوْ قَطَعَ الطَّرِيقَ عَلَيْهِ، وَمَنْ سَرَّهُ مَسَاءَةُ شَخْصٍ، أَوْ غَمَّهُ فَرَحُهُ فَهُوَ عَدُوُّهُ. قوله: «كمن شهد على من قذفه، أو قطع الطريقَ عليه» هذان مثالان للعداوة، فما ذكره المؤلف مثالاً لا حصر، رجل مقذوف والمقذوف هو الذي رُمِيَ بزنا أو لواط، ومعروف أن الزنا واللواط يخدشان كرامة الإنسان، ويسقطانه من أعين الناس، ويستبيحان عرضه، فإن الناس يتكلمون فيه، فإذا قذف رجل شخصاً بالزنا، ثم في يوم من الأيام شهد المقذوف على من قذفه بالزنا، فإن الشهادة لا تقبل؛ لأن قذفه إياه بالزنا سببٌ للعداوة، أما من شهد بأن فلاناً قذفه فليس هذا مراد المؤلف؛ لأن هذا ليس بشاهد ولكنه مدعٍ.