What is your opinion regarding the statement of those who say that a report from a single narrator (khabar al-ahad) is not accepted if it concerns a matter of widespread concern?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... If the report is from a single narrator ... concerning a matter of widespread concern, then we do not accept it, because if it were ...
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : We do not accept it, I mean.
The Shaykh : And how?
The questioner : If it is a matter of widespread concern, if it is an issue of widespread concern and it is a report from a single narrator, then I do not take the report of the single narrator.
The Shaykh : How? Does the matter of widespread concern support the report of the single narrator?
The questioner : They say no, we do not accept it, because he says that since it is not ... a matter of widespread concern.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : ... through one or two channels.
The Shaykh : No, that is not it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If the report is of a kind where the motives for transmitting it are abundant, but it was not transmitted except through one channel, meaning if a man came to us, the most just of people, and said that the preacher on Friday said such and such, and everyone in the mosque says he did not say it, do we believe him or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Or if he said, for example, that the preacher on Friday came down from the pulpit, went away, drank, came back, and completed the sermon, and all the people say we did not see this, do we believe him?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, so some of the scholars say that if the motives for transmitting it are abundant, and only one person transmits it, it is not accepted. This is not because his report is not accepted, but because the reality contradicts it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and by Allah, in its absolute sense, no, I mean it must be distinguished. It is undoubtedly true that if it is of a kind where the motives for transmitting it are abundant, and if it were established, it would have been transmitted in a mass-transmitted manner, this is correct, meaning it necessitates doubt.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : For this reason, some scholars said that if a witness testifies to the entry of Ramadan, saying he saw the crescent, and there is a large group with him, and they say they never saw it, we do not accept his report. Why? He says no, if it were true, the people would have witnessed it. How can the people present with him, who have better eyesight and better vision than he does, say they did not see it, while he comes and says he saw it? So some scholars held that the testimony of one person is not accepted if he is with a group equal to him in eyesight, and they say they did not see it, while he says he saw it.
The questioner : If it were not ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and I think the author of al-Furu' mentioned that a judge was approached by an old, trustworthy man who said, "I saw the crescent." The judge asked, "Did anyone see it with you?" He said, "No." The judge asked, "Do you have people with you who are looking for it?" He said, "Yes, I have a group of people with me." The judge asked them, and they said, "We did not see it." This trustworthy man insisted that he saw it, saying, "I definitely saw it. I testify that I saw the crescent." So this judge, by his intelligence, said, "How can this man, who is advanced in age, and has young men with him who have better eyesight than he does, not see it? There must be a reason." So he went with him to the place of the sighting and said, "Come, look, do you see it now?" He said, "Yes, I see it." The judge said, "Okay," and wiped his eyebrow. The judge wiped the man's eyebrow. When he wiped his eyebrow, he asked him, "Do you see it now?" He said, "I do not see it. What? So it was a white hair in the eyelid, and he was straining his eyes and testifying that he saw it."
The questioner : If he is trustworthy, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Trustworthy, I mean?
The Shaykh : Yes, trustworthy, there is no problem, but he was mistaken.
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : We do not accept it, I mean.
The Shaykh : And how?
The questioner : If it is a matter of widespread concern, if it is an issue of widespread concern and it is a report from a single narrator, then I do not take the report of the single narrator.
The Shaykh : How? Does the matter of widespread concern support the report of the single narrator?
The questioner : They say no, we do not accept it, because he says that since it is not ... a matter of widespread concern.
The Shaykh : Yes, yes.
The questioner : ... through one or two channels.
The Shaykh : No, that is not it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If the report is of a kind where the motives for transmitting it are abundant, but it was not transmitted except through one channel, meaning if a man came to us, the most just of people, and said that the preacher on Friday said such and such, and everyone in the mosque says he did not say it, do we believe him or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Or if he said, for example, that the preacher on Friday came down from the pulpit, went away, drank, came back, and completed the sermon, and all the people say we did not see this, do we believe him?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, so some of the scholars say that if the motives for transmitting it are abundant, and only one person transmits it, it is not accepted. This is not because his report is not accepted, but because the reality contradicts it.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and by Allah, in its absolute sense, no, I mean it must be distinguished. It is undoubtedly true that if it is of a kind where the motives for transmitting it are abundant, and if it were established, it would have been transmitted in a mass-transmitted manner, this is correct, meaning it necessitates doubt.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : For this reason, some scholars said that if a witness testifies to the entry of Ramadan, saying he saw the crescent, and there is a large group with him, and they say they never saw it, we do not accept his report. Why? He says no, if it were true, the people would have witnessed it. How can the people present with him, who have better eyesight and better vision than he does, say they did not see it, while he comes and says he saw it? So some scholars held that the testimony of one person is not accepted if he is with a group equal to him in eyesight, and they say they did not see it, while he says he saw it.
The questioner : If it were not ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, and I think the author of al-Furu' mentioned that a judge was approached by an old, trustworthy man who said, "I saw the crescent." The judge asked, "Did anyone see it with you?" He said, "No." The judge asked, "Do you have people with you who are looking for it?" He said, "Yes, I have a group of people with me." The judge asked them, and they said, "We did not see it." This trustworthy man insisted that he saw it, saying, "I definitely saw it. I testify that I saw the crescent." So this judge, by his intelligence, said, "How can this man, who is advanced in age, and has young men with him who have better eyesight than he does, not see it? There must be a reason." So he went with him to the place of the sighting and said, "Come, look, do you see it now?" He said, "Yes, I see it." The judge said, "Okay," and wiped his eyebrow. The judge wiped the man's eyebrow. When he wiped his eyebrow, he asked him, "Do you see it now?" He said, "I do not see it. What? So it was a white hair in the eyelid, and he was straining his eyes and testifying that he saw it."
The questioner : If he is trustworthy, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : Trustworthy, I mean?
The Shaykh : Yes, trustworthy, there is no problem, but he was mistaken.