Al-KāfīIbn Abd al-Barr

Anyone who plainly shows eagerness that his testimony be accepted and presses for it to take effect is, in Mālik’s estimation, a suspect witness, for even an upright man may be accused of seeking some personal gain or averting some loss. Allah says about the human being: “Indeed, he is—in his love of wealth—intense” (Q 100:8).

If a person takes the same delight in some benefit reaching his father or his son as he would in it reaching himself, his testimony in their favor is not admissible. For this reason a father may not testify for his son, however many generations down, nor may a son testify for his father, however many generations up, even though both might be accepted as upright in relation to other people. Their testimony against one another, however, is valid.

Should a son testify for one parent against the other, that testimony is likewise ruled inadmissible—unless, Mālik says, the son’s integrity is of an exceptional and widely acknowledged caliber. Some have said that his testimony for his father against his mother is never accepted, whereas his testimony for his mother against his father may be accepted in a minor matter, provided he is an outstandingly upright witness. Mālik also held that the testimony of an upright person on behalf of one parent against the other is not to be accepted, for he is still testifying in favor of one of them; all of these positions are attributed to Mālik.

If two sons testify that their father pronounced a divorce, and the mother herself is the one claiming the divorce, their testimony is not accepted. If she denies it, however, their testimony is accepted, because in that case it is testimony against both parents alike.

As a general rule, whenever a person’s testimony is not accepted against someone, it is nevertheless accepted in that person’s favor. An apparent exception concerns a guardian (waṣī) testifying about matters that affect his ward: Mālik expressed two views, at one time disallowing it and at another time permitting it. The correct view is the permissive one—so long as the ward is pleased with it and the witness is indeed his appointed guardian.

ومن ظهرت عليه محبة قبول شهادته والحرص البين في نفوذها فهو عند مالك ظنين لما كان العدل يتهم بالجر إلى نفسه والدفع عنها لقول الله ﷿ في الإنسان ﴿وَإِنَّهُ لِحُبِّ الْخَيْرِ لَشَدِيدٌ﴾ (العاديات:٨) وكان يسره في أبيه وابنه ما يسره في نفسه لم تقبل شهادته لهما ومن هذا لم تجز شهادة الأب لابنه وإن علا ولا شهادة الابن وإن سفل لأبيه وإن كانوا عدولا على غيرهم وتجوز شهاده عليهم فإن شهد الابن لأحد أبويه على الآخر لم تجز أيضا إلا أن يكون منقطعا في العدالة عند مالك وقد قيل لا تجوز شهادته لأبيه على أمه بحال وتجوز شهادته لأمه على أبيه في الشيء اليسير إذا كان عدلا مبرزاوقد قال لا تجوز شهادة العدل لأحد أبويه على الآخر لأنه شاهد لأحدهما وكل ذلك عن مالك فإن شهد اثنان على أبيهما بطلاق مهما فإن كانت الأم مدعية بالطلاق لم تجز شهادتهما وإن كانت منكرة جازت شهادتهما لأنها شهادة على الأبوين جميعا وكل من لم تجز شهادته عليه فشهادته له جائزة إلا أنه اختلف قول مالك في شهادة الوصي على من يليه فمرة منع منها ومرة أجازها وإجازته لها هو الصواب وقال أن كان رضي وكان وصيا

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies