The saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): “Three people call upon Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and their supplication is not answered,” and among them he mentioned
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah preserve you, O Shaykh. The saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in the noble hadith: “Three people whose supplication Allah does not accept,” and among them he mentioned a man who lent money but did not bear witness to it. Does the hadith indicate obligation? And if not, what is the correct view? May Allah preserve you.
The Shaykh : In my opinion, the hadith is to be understood in light of the reality that has been the case in all these centuries, starting from the first century and those after it. This reality indicates that bearing witness is not obligatory. Therefore, the hadith is to be understood as referring to a man who is in doubt about the other’s good faith in repayment. In this case only, the hadith indicates that it is necessary to bear witness, and not absolutely. Because this absolute ruling was not practiced by the Muslims in the early period, let alone in the periods after that. For this reason, I say: every text that is absolute or general, but whose practice has not been carried out in some of its parts, indicates that it is not prescribed to act upon it; whether the negation of its legitimacy is absolute, or a type of legitimacy, which is here the obligation. It is not in doubt for a researcher that there is difficulty and hardship if the practice of this hadith were applied to every creditor and debtor. Such a practice was not customary, as we mentioned earlier. Therefore, 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 discord between the creditor and the debtor. Here, for the creditor to secure his right, he must bear witness. Otherwise, if each is confident in his brother and his good faith in repayment, there is no need to bear witness. The hadiths that indicate that this is not obligatory are numerous. On this occasion, we can recall 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 came and said that there was no camel in the house 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 on this occasion he mentioned his saying (peace and blessings be upon him)...
... the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his armor were pledged with a Jew. Neither in this hadith nor in that book was bearing witness mentioned; so that indicates that the ruling mentioned in the hadith of the three is not absolute and obligatory, but rather sometimes and sometimes not. And on this basis, all verbal hadiths must be interpreted in accordance with what he (peace and blessings be upon him) practiced in his life, and then his Companions after him.
The questioner : O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : ... until some of the doubts were refuted. The hadiths you mentioned are sufficient as witnesses for those who transmitted the hadith to us; whether in the case of the camel or the pledged armor (peace and blessings be upon him)?
The Shaykh : It was not mentioned in the hadith that when the Messenger borrowed the barley or the camel, he bore witness to the lender. Nothing of the sort. As for the fact that those who narrated it did so, that was afterwards, and not during the contract, during the loan, for example. It was not mentioned in the hadith, neither in this one nor in that one. Then, the stories in such matters are numerous and very numerous; that is: we can say that we do not know of a single incident in which a loan was made and then witnessed to. So when such a hadith comes, it should be understood as referring to a very rare case; which is, as I mentioned earlier, when there is doubt or a possibility that the borrower will not fulfill the right of the lender. Here, to secure his right, it is necessary to bear witness to it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
The Shaykh : In my opinion, the hadith is to be understood in light of the reality that has been the case in all these centuries, starting from the first century and those after it. This reality indicates that bearing witness is not obligatory. Therefore, the hadith is to be understood as referring to a man who is in doubt about the other’s good faith in repayment. In this case only, the hadith indicates that it is necessary to bear witness, and not absolutely. Because this absolute ruling was not practiced by the Muslims in the early period, let alone in the periods after that. For this reason, I say: every text that is absolute or general, but whose practice has not been carried out in some of its parts, indicates that it is not prescribed to act upon it; whether the negation of its legitimacy is absolute, or a type of legitimacy, which is here the obligation. It is not in doubt for a researcher that there is difficulty and hardship if the practice of this hadith were applied to every creditor and debtor. Such a practice was not customary, as we mentioned earlier. Therefore, 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 discord between the creditor and the debtor. Here, for the creditor to secure his right, he must bear witness. Otherwise, if each is confident in his brother and his good faith in repayment, there is no need to bear witness. The hadiths that indicate that this is not obligatory are numerous. On this occasion, we can recall 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 came and said that there was no camel in the house 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 on this occasion he mentioned his saying (peace and blessings be upon him)...
... the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his armor were pledged with a Jew. Neither in this hadith nor in that book was bearing witness mentioned; so that indicates that the ruling mentioned in the hadith of the three is not absolute and obligatory, but rather sometimes and sometimes not. And on this basis, all verbal hadiths must be interpreted in accordance with what he (peace and blessings be upon him) practiced in his life, and then his Companions after him.
The questioner : O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner : ... until some of the doubts were refuted. The hadiths you mentioned are sufficient as witnesses for those who transmitted the hadith to us; whether in the case of the camel or the pledged armor (peace and blessings be upon him)?
The Shaykh : It was not mentioned in the hadith that when the Messenger borrowed the barley or the camel, he bore witness to the lender. Nothing of the sort. As for the fact that those who narrated it did so, that was afterwards, and not during the contract, during the loan, for example. It was not mentioned in the hadith, neither in this one nor in that one. Then, the stories in such matters are numerous and very numerous; that is: we can say that we do not know of a single incident in which a loan was made and then witnessed to. So when such a hadith comes, it should be understood as referring to a very rare case; which is, as I mentioned earlier, when there is doubt or a possibility that the borrower will not fulfill the right of the lender. Here, to secure his right, it is necessary to bear witness to it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.