Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/471)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

that Zayd claims one thousand riyals from ‘Amr. They bring their dispute before the judge, and two witnesses testify that Zayd is owed one thousand riyals by ‘Amr. After the two witnesses give their testimony, the judge asks, “Who can attest to your trustworthiness?” Two men then attest to their trustworthiness, and the judge issues his ruling. Thereafter, the witnesses retract. It is the witnesses who are held liable, while those who attested to their trustworthiness are not held liable, because the judgment was directly based on the testimony of the witnesses. Those who attested to their trustworthiness may say, “How can you hold us liable when we did not testify? We merely attested to their trustworthiness.” Thus, liability rests upon the witnesses, not upon those who declared them trustworthy.

However, suppose that the party in whose favor the testimony was given accepts the witnesses’ retraction. May he then seek compensation from them? For instance, after the two men testify for the party in whose favor the testimony is given and judgment is issued in his favor, they retract, and he accepts their retraction. The property awarded to him by the judgment then becomes unlawful for him by virtue of his acknowledgment, and therefore he may not seek compensation from them. Thus, if he says, “I testify that your testimony is not valid,” we say: In that case, you may not seek compensation from them, for you have now accepted their retraction.

Likewise, suppose that, after judgment has been issued in favor of one person against another, the judgment creditor comes and releases him from the obligation. Then, after that, the witnesses retract. The released party may not seek compensation, because the holder of the right released him; he bears no liability, and may not seek compensation from the witnesses, since he himself waived the claim and the party against whom the testimony was given has suffered no loss.

Thus, when witnesses retract after judgment—whether before or after enforcement—the judgment is not overturned, but remains as it is. Liability, however, rests upon the witnesses, except in two cases:

The first is when the party in whose favor the testimony was given accepts their retraction. In that case, he may not take anything that he believes is not rightfully his.

على عمرو بألف ريال، وتحاكما عند القاضي، وشهد شاهدان بأن زيداً له على عمرو ألف ريال، ولما أدلى الشاهدان بشهادتهما قال القاضي: من يزكيكما؟ فجاء رجلان فزكياهما، ثم حكم القاضي، ثم رجع الشهود، فالذي يُضمَّن الشهود، وأما المزكون فلا يضُمَّنون؛ لأن الحكم إنما حصل مباشرة بشهادة الشهود، أما المزكون فيقولون: كيف تضمنوننا، ونحن ما شهدنا؟! نحن مزكون فقط، وحينئذٍ يكون الضمان على الشهود دون من زكاهم. لكن لو فرض أن المشهود له صَدَّق الشهود، فهل يرجع عليهم؟ يعني مثلاً لما شهد الرجلان للمشهود له، وحكم له، ثم رجعا، وصدقهما المشهود له في الرجوع، فالمال الذي حكم له به يكون حراماً عليه بإقراره، وحينئذٍ فلا يرجع، فلو قال: أنا أشهد أن شهادتكما ليست صحيحة، نقول: إذاً لا ترجع عليهما؛ لأنك الآن صدقتهما بالرجوع. كذلك لو فرض أنه حين حُكم لفلان على فلان، جاء المحكوم له فأبرأه، ثم بعد ذلك رجع الشهود فلا يرجع المبرَأ؛ لأن صاحب الحق أبرأه، ولا يضمن شيئاً، ولا يرجع عليهما؛ لأنه هو الذي أسقطه ولم يخسر المشهود عليه شيئاً. إذاً إذا رجع الشهود بعد الحكم، سواء قبل الاستيفاء أو بعده، لم ينقض الحكم ويبقى كما هو، ولكن الضمان يكون على الشهود إلا في صورتين: الأولى: إذا صدقهم المشهود له بالرجوع، فلا يجوز أن يأخذ شيئاً يعتقد أنه ليس له.