Is it based on what is established with him so that he may rule upon it, or based on what he has ruled upon so that it may be executed?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
And Abu Nu'aym said to us: "Ubayd Allah ibn Muharriz narrated to us: I came with a letter from Musa ibn Anas, the judge of Basra, and I established before him the evidence that I have such and such with so-and-so, who is in Kufa. I brought it to al-Qasim ibn 'Abd al-Rahman, and he approved it. He approved what? He approved the letter. Here, the judge's letter to the judge is either based on what he has ruled upon so that it may be executed, or based on what is established with him so that he may rule upon it? Is it based on what is established with him so that he may rule upon it, or based on what he has ruled upon so that it may be executed? Yes, the former. And al-Hasan and Abu Qilabah disliked testifying to a bequest until one knows what is in it, because he does not know that perhaps there is injustice in it. This dislike is out of fear that there may be injustice in it. However, the correct view is that there is no dislike, because he does not intend to testify to the validity of the bequest; he intends to testify that this is the bequest of so-and-so, the son of so-and-so. It is like giving him a sealed envelope and saying, "This is my bequest; when I die, give it to the heirs." There is no harm in this, for two reasons: first, the original presumption is the absence of injustice; and second, he does not intend to testify so that it may be executed or so that a ruling may be made; he intends to testify to establish it. Then, whatever is unjust in it will be sent back, and whatever is just will remain valid.
Al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
And Abu Nu'aym said to us: "Ubayd Allah ibn Muharriz narrated to us: I came with a letter from Musa ibn Anas, the judge of Basra, and I established before him the evidence that I have such and such with so-and-so, who is in Kufa. I brought it to al-Qasim ibn 'Abd al-Rahman, and he approved it. He approved what? He approved the letter. Here, the judge's letter to the judge is either based on what he has ruled upon so that it may be executed, or based on what is established with him so that he may rule upon it? Is it based on what is established with him so that he may rule upon it, or based on what he has ruled upon so that it may be executed? Yes, the former. And al-Hasan and Abu Qilabah disliked testifying to a bequest until one knows what is in it, because he does not know that perhaps there is injustice in it. This dislike is out of fear that there may be injustice in it. However, the correct view is that there is no dislike, because he does not intend to testify to the validity of the bequest; he intends to testify that this is the bequest of so-and-so, the son of so-and-so. It is like giving him a sealed envelope and saying, "This is my bequest; when I die, give it to the heirs." There is no harm in this, for two reasons: first, the original presumption is the absence of injustice; and second, he does not intend to testify so that it may be executed or so that a ruling may be made; he intends to testify to establish it. Then, whatever is unjust in it will be sent back, and whatever is just will remain valid.