al-Moulakhas al-Fiqhi - Salih Al-Fawzan - (2/635)

The judge renders judgment on the basis of upright testimony so long as he is unaware of anything that contradicts it; but if he learns of something contrary to what has been attested, it is unlawful for him to rule by that testimony.

If the judge does not know the integrity of a witness, he asks those who possess inside knowledge of him—through close companionship, business dealings, or neighborhood. ʿUmar—may Allah be pleased with him—once said to a man who vouched for another: “Are you his neighbor?” He replied, “No.” ʿUmar asked, “Have you travelled with him—the journey that reveals the true character of men?” He replied, “No.” He asked, “Have you engaged in financial dealings with him in dinars and dirhams?” He replied, “No.” ʿUmar said, “Then you do not know him.”

When commendation and discrediting (jarḥ and taʿdīl) concerning a witness conflict, the discrediting is given precedence: the critic possesses additional knowledge hidden from the commender; the critic speaks of an inner reality, whereas the commender speaks only of outward appearance. The critic affirms, the commender negates, and affirmation is preferred over negation.

If the defendant himself declares the witnesses reliable or acknowledges the truth of their testimony, that suffices as verification, for examining their integrity is his right; his admission of their uprightness constitutes a confession that establishes the claim against him, and he is held to his confession.

Once the judge is certain of the witnesses’ uprightness, he rules on their testimony and needs no further attestation; likewise, if he knows they lack uprightness, he must not rule by it. Should he harbor doubts about the witnesses, he asks them: “When did you assume this testimony, and where did you assume it?”

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said: “This questioning is obligatory for the judge; if he abandons it, he sins and is unjust in his ruling. Two men once testified before ʿAlī—may Allah be pleased with him—against a man, claiming he had stolen. ʿAlī suspected them, ordered that the man’s hand be cut off, and the two witnesses fled.”

ويحكم القاضي بالبينة العادلة ما لم يعلم خلافها، فإن علم خلاف ما شهدت به؛ لم يجز له الحكم بها. ومن جهل القاضي عدالته من الشهود؛ سأل عنه ممن له به خبرة باطنه بصحبة أو معاملة أو جوار، قال عمر ﵁ لرجل زكى رجلاً عنده: أنت جاره؟، قال: لا، قال: صحبته في السفر الذي تظهر فيه جواهر الرجال؟، قال: لا، قال: عاملته بالدينار والدرهم؟، قال: لا، قال: لست تعرفه. وإن تعارض الجرح والتعديل في الشاهد؛ قدم الجرح؛ لأن الجارح معه زيادة علم خفيت على المزكي، والجارح يخبر عن أمر باطن، والمزكي يخبر عن أمر ظاهر فقط، والجارح مثبت، والمزكي ناف، والمثبت مقدم على النافي. وتعديل الخصم للبينة وحده أو تصديقه لها تعديل؛ لأن البحث عن عدالتها لحقه، ولأن إقراره بعدالة البينة إقرار بما يوجب الحق عليه لخصمه، فيؤخذ بإقراره. وإذا علم القاضي عدالة البينة؛ حكم بها، ولم يحتج إلى التزكية، وكذا لو علم عدم عدالتها؛ لم يحكم بها، وإن ارتاب في الشهود؛ سألهم تحملوا الشهادة؟ وأين تحملوها؟. قال الإمام ابن القيم: "وذلك واجب عليه متى عدل عنه أثم وجار في الحكم، وشهد رجلان عند علي ﵁ على رجل أنه سرق؛ فاستراب منهما، فأمرهما بقطع يده، فهربا".