Does the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in the hadith, “Three people to whom Allah does not respond in supplication,” in which it is mentioned, “a man who lent his wealth and did not have it witnessed,” indicate
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner :-May Allah preserve you, O Shaykh- The saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in the noble hadith: , does the hadith indicate obligation, and if not, what is the factor that diverts it, may Allah preserve you?
The Shaykh : In my opinion, the hadith is to be understood in light of the reality that existed in all these centuries, starting from the first century and those after it. This reality indicates that witnessing is not obligatory, so the hadith is to be understood as referring to a man who is in doubt about the good faith of the borrower. In this case only, the obligation in the hadith is understood to mean that witnessing is necessary, and not absolutely. Because this absolute application was not practiced by the Muslims in the early period, let alone in the periods after that. For this reason, I say: “That every text that is absolute or general, if the practice of some of its parts has not been carried out, then that indicates that it is not prescribed to act upon it, whether the negation of its legitimacy is absolute or the negation of a type of legitimacy, which is here the obligation”. So it is beyond doubt for a researcher that there is difficulty and hardship if the practice of this hadith is applied to every lender and borrower. Such a thing was not customary, as we mentioned earlier. So the hadith is to be understood as referring to a loan between two men where it is feared that the loan will turn into harm and cause problems between the lender and the borrower. Here, for the lender to secure his right, he must have it witnessed. Otherwise, if each is confident in his brother and his good faith, there is no need for it to be witnessed. The hadiths that indicate that this is not obligatory are numerous. We can recall on this occasion the story of that Bedouin who borrowed a camel from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). When the time for repayment came, he demanded his right. Some of his companions answered that there was no camel in the treasury of the Muslims like the camel that had been lent to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to give him a camel older than the previous one, and he mentioned on this occasion his saying.
And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) died while his armor was pledged with a Jew, and neither in this hadith nor that one was writing or witnessing mentioned. So that indicates that the ruling mentioned in the hadith of the three is not absolute and obligatory, but rather sometimes and sometimes. And on this basis, all verbal hadiths must be interpreted in accordance with what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) practiced in his life, and then his Companions after him.
The questioner : O Shaykh, is it possible?
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : I am content with the ruling, but I have an additional inquiry to dispel some doubts!
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : The hadiths you mentioned are sufficient as witnesses from those who transmitted the hadith to us, whether regarding the camel or his pledged armor (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : It is not mentioned in the hadith that when the Messenger of Allah borrowed the barley or the camel, he had the lender witnessed. There is nothing of this in it. As for the fact that those who narrated it did so, that was afterwards and not during the contract, for example during the loan. This was not mentioned in the hadith, neither in this one nor that one. Then the stories in this regard are many and very many. So we can say: We do not know of a single incident in which a loan was made and then witnessed. So when such a hadith comes, it should be understood as referring to very rare cases, which, as I mentioned earlier, are when there is doubt or a possibility that the borrower will not fulfill the right of the lender. Here, to secure his right, it must be witnessed.
The questioner : So that they can be reconciled?
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.
Three people to whom Allah does not respond in supplication -and among them was mentioned- a man who lent his wealth and did not have it witnessed
ثلاثة لا يستجيب الله دعاءهم -وذكر منهم- رجل أقرض ماله فلم يُشهد عليهThe Shaykh : In my opinion, the hadith is to be understood in light of the reality that existed in all these centuries, starting from the first century and those after it. This reality indicates that witnessing is not obligatory, so the hadith is to be understood as referring to a man who is in doubt about the good faith of the borrower. In this case only, the obligation in the hadith is understood to mean that witnessing is necessary, and not absolutely. Because this absolute application was not practiced by the Muslims in the early period, let alone in the periods after that. For this reason, I say: “That every text that is absolute or general, if the practice of some of its parts has not been carried out, then that indicates that it is not prescribed to act upon it, whether the negation of its legitimacy is absolute or the negation of a type of legitimacy, which is here the obligation”. So it is beyond doubt for a researcher that there is difficulty and hardship if the practice of this hadith is applied to every lender and borrower. Such a thing was not customary, as we mentioned earlier. So the hadith is to be understood as referring to a loan between two men where it is feared that the loan will turn into harm and cause problems between the lender and the borrower. Here, for the lender to secure his right, he must have it witnessed. Otherwise, if each is confident in his brother and his good faith, there is no need for it to be witnessed. The hadiths that indicate that this is not obligatory are numerous. We can recall on this occasion the story of that Bedouin who borrowed a camel from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). When the time for repayment came, he demanded his right. Some of his companions answered that there was no camel in the treasury of the Muslims like the camel that had been lent to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). So he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered them to give him a camel older than the previous one, and he mentioned on this occasion his saying.
And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) died while his armor was pledged with a Jew, and neither in this hadith nor that one was writing or witnessing mentioned. So that indicates that the ruling mentioned in the hadith of the three is not absolute and obligatory, but rather sometimes and sometimes. And on this basis, all verbal hadiths must be interpreted in accordance with what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) practiced in his life, and then his Companions after him.
The questioner : O Shaykh, is it possible?
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : I am content with the ruling, but I have an additional inquiry to dispel some doubts!
The Shaykh : Please proceed.
The questioner : The hadiths you mentioned are sufficient as witnesses from those who transmitted the hadith to us, whether regarding the camel or his pledged armor (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh : It is not mentioned in the hadith that when the Messenger of Allah borrowed the barley or the camel, he had the lender witnessed. There is nothing of this in it. As for the fact that those who narrated it did so, that was afterwards and not during the contract, for example during the loan. This was not mentioned in the hadith, neither in this one nor that one. Then the stories in this regard are many and very many. So we can say: We do not know of a single incident in which a loan was made and then witnessed. So when such a hadith comes, it should be understood as referring to very rare cases, which, as I mentioned earlier, are when there is doubt or a possibility that the borrower will not fulfill the right of the lender. Here, to secure his right, it must be witnessed.
The questioner : So that they can be reconciled?
The Shaykh : Yes, I do.