Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/277)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

is to be understood as imposing an obligation when examination establishes that it is free of contextual indicators that would imply otherwise. Evidence that this is his position lies in his argument that a person must complete any act of devotion he has begun, citing the apparent meaning of the commands in Allah’s words:

“Do not invalidate your deeds.” [Muhammad: 33]

And His words:

“Complete Hajj and umrah for Allah.” [Al-Baqarah: 196]

Section

Since his position is that a command imposes an obligation when unaccompanied by contextual indicators, his view that Allah’s command to call witnesses to a sale is a recommendation rather than an obligation rests on clear evidence. This includes His words:

“If you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then a pledge should be taken into possession. But if one of you entrusts another, let the one entrusted discharge his trust.” [Al-Baqarah: 283]

Since it is permissible to dispense with the pledge, which takes the place of testimony, and to trust the other party, it is permissible to dispense with calling witnesses; for the opposing party distinguishes between dispensing with witnesses and dispensing with the pledge that takes their place—indeed, he holds each to be obligatory.

Another piece of evidence is His statement:

“O you who believe, fulfil your contracts.” [Al-Mā’idah: 1]

A sale is a contract, so Allah’s command to fulfil it proves that it is valid without witnesses. A command to fulfil it when witnesses are present would serve no purpose, since, if a party denied it, the witnesses would establish his obligation.

Evidence from the Sunnah includes the report:

“The Prophet, peace be upon him, bought a horse from a Bedouin without calling witnesses. When the Bedouin disputed the matter with him and denied the sale, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said, ‘Who will testify for me?’ Khuzaymah ibn Thābit said, ‘I will testify for you.’ He asked, ‘On what basis do you testify?’ He replied, ‘I believe what you tell us about the Hereafter; should I not believe what you tell us about this world?’ He, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ruled in his own favour on the strength of his testimony. Khuzaymah was therefore called Dhū al-Shahādatayn (the man whose testimony counted as that of two witnesses).”

Further evidence for this is the consensus on

محمول على الوجوب- إذا دل النظر على تعريته من القرائن التي تخرجه عن الوجوب، والذي يدل على ذلك من مذهبه أنه احتج لوجوب إتمام ما دخل الرجل فيه من القرب بظواهر الأوامر من قَوْله تَعَالَى: ﴿وَلا تُبْطِلُوا أَعْمَالَكُمْ﴾ [محمد: ٣٣]. وقَوْله تَعَالَى: ﴿وَأَتِمُّوا الْحَجَّ وَالْعُمْرَةَ لِلَّهِ﴾ [البقرة: ١٩٦]. فصل فإذا كان مذهبه أن الأمر محمول على الوجوب إذا تعرى من القرائن، فإنما قال: إن أمر الله تعالى بالإشهاد على البيع ندب وليس بواجب، للأدلة الظاهرة على ذلك، منها قَوْله تَعَالَى: ﴿وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ وَلَمْ تَجِدُوا كَاتِبًا فَرِهَانٌ مَقْبُوضَةٌ فَإِنْ أَمِنَ بَعْضُكُمْ بَعْضًا فَلْيُؤَدِّ الَّذِي اؤْتُمِنَ أَمَانَتَهُ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٨٣] فلما جاز أن يترك الرهن الذي هو بدل الشهادة ويؤتمن صاحبه، جاز ترك الإشهاد، إذ يفرق المخالف بين ترك الإشهاد والرهن الذي هو بدله، بل يقول بوجوب كل واحد منهما، ومنها قوله: ﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَوْفُوا بِالْعُقُودِ﴾ [المائدة: ١]، والبيع عقد من العقود، فأمر الله تعالى بالوفاء به، دليل على جوازه بغير إشهاد؛ لأن الأمر بالوفاء مع الإشهاد لا معنى له؛ لأنه إن جحد لزمه الحق بالشهود، ومن طريق السنة «أن النبي ﵇ ابتاع من أعرابي فرسه ولم يشهد، فلما نازعه الأعرابي وأنكر البيع قال النبي ﵇: من يشهد لي؛ فقال خزيمة بن ثابت أنا أشهد لك، قال وبم تشهد؟ قال: أصدقك في أخبار الآخرة ولا أصدقك في أخبار الدنيا؛ فقضى ﷺ لنفسه بشهادته فسمي ذا الشهادتين» ومن الدليل أيضا على ذلك: الإجماع على