Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām - Abd Allah al-Bassam - (7/194)

Tawḍīḥ al-AḥkāmAbd Allah al-Bassam

“ash-hadu.” Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyyah) and his disciple Ibn al-Qayyim adopted this opinion.

The Shaykh said, “This follows from the legal principles laid down by Aḥmad and others. I know of no text that contradicts it, nor is it reported from any Companion or Successor that they required the specific wording of the testimony.”

Ibn al-Qayyim added, “According to the soundest view, simply conveying the information is itself full testimony.”

This is also the position of the majority. The validity of testimony does not depend on uttering the phrase ash-hadu; whenever the witness says, “I saw,” “I heard,” or something similar, his words count as testimony. Nowhere in the Book of Allah or in the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ is there a single indication that the word “testify” is necessary, nor is such a stipulation attributed to any Companion. No analogy or juristic inference demands it; on the contrary, the many proofs drawn from the Quran, the Sunnah, the statements of the Companions, and the Arabic language all negate that requirement.

3 – The two hadiths appear to conflict. In the ḥadith of Zayd, the person who brings his testimony before being asked for it is praised, whereas in the ḥadith of ʿImrān those who testify before they are called upon are censured. Scholars have harmonized the reports in several ways.

The best reconciliation is that offering testimony unrequested is blameworthy unless the witness possesses evidence of a right whose owner is unaware of it. In that case he should go to the owner and inform him, or, if the owner has died, he should inform the heirs that he holds testimony in their favor. This is the soundest way of combining the two hadiths.

Al-Insāf states: “If someone holds testimony concerning another person and that person is aware of it, the witness should not present it until asked; but if the entitled party does not know, it is recommended that the witness inform him.”

4 – Shaykh al-Islam said: “Anyone who is asked to give testimony is obliged to do so; if a group jointly refuses, they are all sinful by scholarly consensus.”

Ibn al-Qayyim further stated: “If a witness conceals testimony that would establish a rightful claim, he becomes liable for the loss, for he was able to secure his brother’s right but failed to do so, and therefore liability rests upon him.”

أشْهَدُ؛ واختاره شيخ الإسلام، وتلميذه ابن القيم. قال الشيخ: وهو مقتضى قواعد أحمد وغيره، ولا أعلم نصًّا يخالفه، ولا يعرف عن صحابي، ولا تابعي اشتراط لفظ الشَّهَادة. وقال ابن القيم: الإخبار إشهادٌ محض في أصح الأقوال. وهو قول الجمهور؛ فإنَّه لا يشترط في صحَّة الشهادة لفظ أشْهَدُ، بل متى قال الشاهد: رأيتُ، أو سَمِعْتُ، أو نحو ذلك، كانت شهادةً منه، وليس في كتاب الله، ولا في سنَّة رسول الله ﷺ موضعٌ واحدٌ يَدُلُّ على اشتراط لفظ الشهادة، ولا عن رجلٍ واحدٍ من الصحابة، ولا قياس، ولا استنباط يقتضيه، بل الأدلَّةُ المتضافرةُ من الكتاب، والسنَّة، وأقوال الصحابة، ولغة العرب: تنفي ذلك. ٣ - الحِديثان متعارضان؛ فحديث زيد: مدح الَّذي يأتي بالشَّهادة قبل أنْ يُسْأَلَهَا، وتطلب منه، وحديث عمران: ذمَّ الَّذين يَشْهَدون قبل أنْ يُستَشْهدوا، وتُطلَبَ منهم، وجُمعَ بينهما بعدَّة أوجهٍ: أحسنها: كونه يَشْهَد قبل أنْ يُسْتَشهد مذمومٌ، إلاَّ أنْ يكون عنده شهادة بحق لا يعلم بها صاحب الحق، فيأتي إليه، ويخبره بها، أو يموت صاحبُ الحق فيأتي إلى ورثته، فيخبرهم بأنَّ عنده لهم شَهادة؛ فهذا هو أحسن الوجوه في الجمع بين الحديثَيْنِ. قال في الإنصاف: مَنْ عنده شهادة لآدمي يعلمها لم يقمها حتَّى يسأله، فإنْ لم يعلمها، استحب له إعلامه بها. ٤ - قال شيخ الإسلام: يجب على من طُلِبَتْ منه الشهادةُ أداؤها، فإذا امتَنَعَ الجماعةُ من الشهادة، أثموا كلهم باتفاق العلماء. وقال ابن القيم: إنَّ الشَّاهد إذا كتم الشهادة بالحقِّ، ضمنه؛ لأَنَّه أمكنه تخليص حق صاحبه، فلم يفعل؛ فلزمه الضمان.