Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/465)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

to his testimony. This is derived from the expression, “Give me your full attention.” Thus, the original witness must ask the secondary witness to bear witness, saying, for example, “Bear witness to my testimony against so-and-so concerning such-and-such.” If he hears him speaking of his testimony without saying, “Bear witness to my testimony,” then it is not accepted, and the secondary witness may not testify concerning the original witness. For it is possible that he was speaking about testimony relating to a matter that has passed and ended, such that the claimant has received his due, or the like. So long as this possibility exists, it prevents certainty regarding the testimony; therefore, he may not testify to it.

Some scholars said that it is not a condition for the original witness to ask him to bear witness. Thus, if a person hears someone say, “I testify that so-and-so is owed such-and-such by so-and-so,” and then the speaker dies, while some people had heard him, the listener may testify even though the speaker did not ask him to bear witness. They answered the first reasoning by saying that the basic presumption is that what previously existed remains as it was. So long as this man heard so-and-so testifying to a right against so-and-so, he may testify concerning him, saying, “I testify that so-and-so testifies that so-and-so owes such-and-such,” but he should not say, “He made me a witness,” because he did not ask him to bear witness.

If someone other than the original witness asks him to bear witness—for example, if the claimant says to someone, “Listen to so-and-so’s testimony concerning my right against so-and-so”—and then the witness comes and testifies to so-and-so’s right against so-and-so, but thereafter dies or becomes absent, then according to the school’s authoritative position, he may not testify, because the original witness did not ask him to bear witness. According to the second view, however, he may testify. Indeed, this view is stronger here than in the case where no one asked him to bear witness. Thus, there are three cases:

The first is that the original witness asks him to bear witness. In this case, he may testify without any disagreement.

على شهادته، وهو مأخوذ من قولهم: أرعني سمعك، فلا بد أن يسترعي شاهدُ الأصل شاهدَ الفرع؛ بأن يقول: اشهد على شهادتي على فلان بكذا، فإن سمعه يتحدث بالشهادة دون أن يقول: اشهد على شهادتي فإنها لا تقبل، ولا يجوز لشاهد الفرع أن يشهد على شاهد الأصل؛ لأنه من الجائز أن يكون قد تحدث عن شهادته، ولكنه يتحدث عن أمر مضى وانقضى، وصاحب الحق استوفى حقه وما أشبه ذلك، وما دام هذا الاحتمال موجوداً فإنه يمنع القطع بالشهادة، فلا يجوز أن يشهد على شهادته. وقال بعض أهل العلم: لا يشترط أن يسترعيه، وأنه إذا سمع شخصاً يقول: أشهد أن فلاناً له عند فلان كذا وكذا، ثم مات هذا القائل وقد سمعه بعض الناس، فللسامع أن يشهد مع أنه لم يسترعِه، وردوا التعليل الأول بأن الأصل بقاء ما كان على ما كان، وما دام سمع هذا الرجلُ فلاناً يشهد بحقٍّ على فلان فله أن يشهد عليه، فيقول: أشهد أن فلاناً يشهد بأن على فلان كذا وكذا، ولا يقول: أَشْهَدَني؛ لأنه لم يشهده، فإن استرعاه غير الأصل، بأن قال صاحب الحق لشخص: اسمع شهادة فلان بحقي على فلان، ثم جاء وشهد الشاهد بحق فلان على فلان، وتوفي أو غاب، فعلى المذهب ليس له أن يشهد؛ لأن شاهد الأصل لم يسترعه، وعلى القول الثاني له أن يشهد، بل القول هنا أقوى من القول بما إذا لم يسترعِه أحد، فصارت الصور ثلاثاً: الأولى: أن يسترعيه شاهد الأصل، وفي هذه الصورة له أن يشهد قولاً واحداً.