Is it permissible to testify before a judge without knowledge?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
O Shaykh, some people, for example, when you tell them a piece of information, sometimes regarding creed, they place themselves in the position of the person who gave them the information. They start asking skeptical questions. When you tell them why, they say, "Perhaps I am conveying this information to someone," and they start discussing it with me, even though I do not know it. They start discussing it because...
The Shaykh : For example?
The questioner : By Allah, no example comes to mind.
The Shaykh : O people, I did not understand the question.
The questioner : I mean, for example, you tell a person, a specific example, no...
The Shaykh : Now I did not understand the issue, but the example clarifies the picture. You say, "Information," and he conveys information. What is this? Give it to the one after you. Give it to Abdullah al-Sultan.
The questioner : In the name of Allah.
Two men went to greet one of the judges. When they entered, they found a man before the shaykh claiming that he owned a piece of land and wanted to obtain a deed for it. When these two men entered, and the judge knew them and knew that they had no connection to the matter and that they had come only to greet the judge, he said: "These two will testify." They agreed, so the judge wrote it down, they testified, and the matter was concluded, and the man took [the deed]. The town where the judge is located is kilometers away from the town where the land is located. What is the ruling on the testimony of these two witnesses?
The Shaykh : By Allah, you must know that testimony requires knowledge:[Az-Zukhruf 43:86]. The witness must know. Even one who testifies to the truth must know. I mean, right now: if two men are before you, and one claims against the other one hundred riyals, and the second denies it. I know that the claimant is truthful, a man with religion, trustworthiness, and scrupulousness, and that the other, the denier, is a man who is lax in religion and does not care to deny what is obligatory upon him. Now I know that the claimant is correct, is that not so? Do I have the right to testify? I know that the right is with Zayd, the claimant, because he is a man of scrupulousness and religion, and he cannot claim what is not his. But do I have the right to testify to this right which I believe to be true, while I do not know [the facts]? I ask you, O my brother Abdullah?
The questioner : No, you do not testify, but...
The Shaykh : Wait, leave the "but" aside, set it aside. Do I testify or not?
The questioner : Do not testify.
The Shaykh : I do not testify. Therefore: it is not permissible for any person to testify except with what he knows to be true. Even if he knows that this is true based on the condition of the claimant, it is not permissible for him to testify, unless he knows the case himself. Did you understand?
The questioner : The problem is that the judge made the matter easy, and as you say, the waters mixed with the waters. The judge wrote it, and they came and signed.
The Shaykh : In any case, I have taught you now. It is not permissible for witnesses to testify except with what they know, with what they know directly themselves. And it is not permissible for the judge to write their testimony while he knows that they did not witness the case.
O Shaykh, some people, for example, when you tell them a piece of information, sometimes regarding creed, they place themselves in the position of the person who gave them the information. They start asking skeptical questions. When you tell them why, they say, "Perhaps I am conveying this information to someone," and they start discussing it with me, even though I do not know it. They start discussing it because...
The Shaykh : For example?
The questioner : By Allah, no example comes to mind.
The Shaykh : O people, I did not understand the question.
The questioner : I mean, for example, you tell a person, a specific example, no...
The Shaykh : Now I did not understand the issue, but the example clarifies the picture. You say, "Information," and he conveys information. What is this? Give it to the one after you. Give it to Abdullah al-Sultan.
The questioner : In the name of Allah.
Two men went to greet one of the judges. When they entered, they found a man before the shaykh claiming that he owned a piece of land and wanted to obtain a deed for it. When these two men entered, and the judge knew them and knew that they had no connection to the matter and that they had come only to greet the judge, he said: "These two will testify." They agreed, so the judge wrote it down, they testified, and the matter was concluded, and the man took [the deed]. The town where the judge is located is
500
500The Shaykh : By Allah, you must know that testimony requires knowledge:
but only those who testify to the truth [can benefit], and they know.
إِلَّا مَنْ شَهِدَ بِالْحَقِّ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَThe questioner : No, you do not testify, but...
The Shaykh : Wait, leave the "but" aside, set it aside. Do I testify or not?
The questioner : Do not testify.
The Shaykh : I do not testify. Therefore: it is not permissible for any person to testify except with what he knows to be true. Even if he knows that this is true based on the condition of the claimant, it is not permissible for him to testify, unless he knows the case himself. Did you understand?
The questioner : The problem is that the judge made the matter easy, and as you say, the waters mixed with the waters. The judge wrote it, and they came and signed.
The Shaykh : In any case, I have taught you now. It is not permissible for witnesses to testify except with what they know, with what they know directly themselves. And it is not permissible for the judge to write their testimony while he knows that they did not witness the case.