Explanation of the Book of Fitnahs and Rulings-07a

The Reader: Chapter: Testimony regarding sealed documents, what is permissible therein, and what is restricted, and the letter from the ruler to his governor and from the judge to the judge. Some people said that the ruler's letter is permissible except in matters of hudud (fixed punishments). Then he said that if the killing was accidental, it is permissible, because in his opinion this is a matter of wealth, and it only became a matter of wealth after the killing was established, so accidental and intentional killing are the same. 'Umar wrote to his governor regarding hudud, and 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz wrote regarding a broken tooth. Ibrahim said that the judge's letter to another judge is permissible if the document and the seal are recognized. Al-Sha'bi used to accept the sealed document containing the judge's ruling. It is narrated from Ibn 'Umar similarly. Mu'awiyah ibn 'Abd al-Karim al-Thaqafi said: I witnessed 'Abd al-Malik ibn Ya'la, the judge of Basra, Iyad ibn Mu'awiyah, al-Hasan, Thumamah ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Anas, Bilal ibn Abi Burdah, 'Abd Allah ibn Buraydah al-Aslami, 'Amir ibn 'Ubbadah, and 'Ubbad ibn Mansur accepting the judges' documents without the presence of witnesses. If the person against whom the document was brought claimed it was forged, he was told: Go and seek a way out of that. The first to demand evidence (bayinah) for the judge's document was Ibn Abi Layla and Suwar ibn 'Abd Allah. Abu Nu'aym said to us: 'Ubayd Allah ibn Muhraz narrated to us: I brought a document from Musa ibn Anas, the judge of Basra, and I presented evidence before him that I had a certain amount with so-and-so, who was in Kufa. I brought it to al-Qasim ibn 'Abd al-Rahman, and he accepted it. Al-Hasan and Abu Qilabah disliked testifying regarding a will until one knows what is in it, because one does not know if there is injustice in it. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wrote to the people of Khaybar: Al-Zuhri said regarding testimony for a woman behind a screen: If you recognize her, testify; otherwise, do not testify.

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Chapter: Testimony regarding sealed documents and the judge's letter to the judge. This is an important issue in judicial matters: testimony regarding sealed documents, what is permissible therein, and what is restricted, and the letters from rulers to governors and from judges to judges. Regarding testimony on a sealed document, if a person recognizes the handwriting and the seal, he testifies to it. But if he does not recognize the handwriting, he does not testify. This is because testimony regarding an unknown matter is forbidden, as testimony is not permissible except based on knowledge. By "sealed," it is meant that wax has been applied to it and its contents are not visible. It is not the seal placed at the bottom of the writing, even though that is called a seal. The intended meaning is the rolled document sealed with wax, as they used to do in the past. Scholars differed on this issue of testimony regarding a sealed document. Some permitted it for both taking on the testimony and delivering it, while others prohibited it, saying it is not permissible to testify to a sealed document, especially if there is a fear of injustice in it. This is because the sealed document might contain injustice, such as a father giving one of his sons something and writing it in this roll, then telling the witness to testify to what is in it. It is known that testifying to injustice is not permissible, due to the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): Similarly, if he asks him to testify to a sealed will, there might be injustice in the will, such as a bequest to an heir or a bequest exceeding one-third, or the like. For this reason, some scholars held that it is not permissible to testify to a sealed document. However, according to this opinion, I do not think it is prohibited to testify that the man gave him this sealed paper and said, "Testify to what is in it." I say it is not prohibited to say, "I testify that this paper is from the hand of so-and-so, and he asked me to testify to what is in it." The letter from the ruler to his governor means the prince to his governor, because in the past, princes had governors in regions whom they appointed over them, which is a specific emirate. So, is it permissible to write to him a sealed letter and send it to him, or not? Some scholars permitted that if the seal is recognized. Others said no, the writer must bring two witnesses who testify to what is in it and carry it to the recipient, out of fear of forgery. Similarly, the judge's letter to another judge, where a judge in one country writes to another judge in another country. The judge's letter to another judge is of two types. Pay attention: The first is that he writes to him what has been established with him so that the recipient judge can rule based on it. For example, two men dispute before a judge, and the plaintiff brings evidence. The judge writes to the other judge: "So-and-so and so-and-so disputed before me, and it was established with me by evidence that the plaintiff is truthful, so rule accordingly." Then the letter is sent to the judge, who rules based on it and executes it. Scholars said there is no harm if this occurs between two judges, even if they are in the same country, because this is a writing for the purpose of establishing the ruling. The second type is that he writes to him the ruling so that he can execute it. The writing judge says: "So-and-so and so-and-so disputed before me, and the plaintiff brought evidence, so I ruled in his favor with the right, so execute it." The letter reaches the second judge, who executes it. They say there must be a distance of qasr (shortening of prayer) between them, because the ruling of two judges is not executed in one country. Then there are conditions for the judge's letter to the judge, which al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) indicated. The correct view is that the judge's letter to the judge is established for what he ruled so that the recipient judge can execute it, and for what was established with him so that he can rule based on it, whether there is a distance of qasr between them or not, and there is no difference, because there is no evidence for that. Especially in our current time, you find how many judges are in a court. Then they differed on how this sealed message is delivered. The school of thought (madhhab) says the writing judge must bring two witnesses, read to them what he wrote, then fold it in front of them, seal it, and say, "Go with the letter to Judge So-and-so." They take the letter together until they send it to the recipient judge. The second opinion, which is more correct, is that it is sufficient for the writing judge to write the letter, seal it, and hand it to a trustworthy person to deliver it. This is the correct view and the one practiced from the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to today. In our time, means of transport have changed, so there is no need for a person to take it to the recipient judge. It is sent to him by post, sealed with an official seal, and sent by post. It arrives, and there may be specific, large, and important issues, for example, written to the highest authority in the state. This may require a special person to deliver it, with the president handing it over personally to prevent tampering. But ordinary letters from judges are sent by post and have no special remarks.