Benefits of the Hadith: (… from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: When Umm Sulaym gave birth, she said to me:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In this is evidence of the humility of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and his care for the wealth of the Muslims.
In it is also evidence of the permissibility of branding camels, even if it involves burning, because there is a benefit in it, which is the preservation of wealth. By analogy, this applies to what some people do with pigeons, where they pluck the tips of their wings so that they do not fly away, allowing them to grow in their possession. In this, there is preservation of their wealth, and even if it causes pain, it is slight pain for the sake of benefit.
In it is also evidence of the permissibility of acting upon apparent signs, because branding is one of the apparent signs.
In it is also evidence that *bayyinah* (clear proof) is broader than two witnesses or one witness and two women, and that *bayyinah* is anything by which a matter is clarified and made apparent. Otherwise, if we did not say that, if we did not act upon these signs, what would branding be? It would be futile with no benefit. Therefore, if we see, for example, a person’s seal on a document, we rule that the document belongs to him. And if we see a document in a mosque or a public library with the word *waqf* (endowment) written on it, we rule that it is an endowment based on the apparent sign, provided that nothing stronger contradicts it. However, if something stronger contradicts it, the ruling goes to the stronger. So if a man has a camel branded with the mark of the family of so-and-so, it belongs to the family of so-and-so according to the apparent sign. But if he brings *bayyinah* (clear proof) that he bought it from them, we give precedence to the *bayyinah* because it is stronger evidence. Yes.
In it is also evidence of the permissibility of branding camels, even if it involves burning, because there is a benefit in it, which is the preservation of wealth. By analogy, this applies to what some people do with pigeons, where they pluck the tips of their wings so that they do not fly away, allowing them to grow in their possession. In this, there is preservation of their wealth, and even if it causes pain, it is slight pain for the sake of benefit.
In it is also evidence of the permissibility of acting upon apparent signs, because branding is one of the apparent signs.
In it is also evidence that *bayyinah* (clear proof) is broader than two witnesses or one witness and two women, and that *bayyinah* is anything by which a matter is clarified and made apparent. Otherwise, if we did not say that, if we did not act upon these signs, what would branding be? It would be futile with no benefit. Therefore, if we see, for example, a person’s seal on a document, we rule that the document belongs to him. And if we see a document in a mosque or a public library with the word *waqf* (endowment) written on it, we rule that it is an endowment based on the apparent sign, provided that nothing stronger contradicts it. However, if something stronger contradicts it, the ruling goes to the stronger. So if a man has a camel branded with the mark of the family of so-and-so, it belongs to the family of so-and-so according to the apparent sign. But if he brings *bayyinah* (clear proof) that he bought it from them, we give precedence to the *bayyinah* because it is stronger evidence. Yes.