Explanation of the Book of Fitnahs and Rulings-09b

The reciter: Isحاق ibn Nasr narrated to us, Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us, Sufyan informed us from Mansur and al-A'mash from Abu Wa'il, who said: Abdullah said: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: لا يحلف على يمين صبر يقتطع مالاً وهو فيها فاجر إلا لقي الله وهو عليه غضبان ، فأنزل الله : إن الذين يشترون بعهد الله وأيمانهم ثمناً قليلاً الآية فجاء الأشعث وعبد الله يحدثهم فقال في نزلت وفي رجل خاصمته في بئر فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : ألك بينة ، قلت لا قال : فليحلف ، قلت إذاً يحلف فنزلت : إن الذين يشترون بعهد الله ... الآية No one swears a deliberate oath to cut off wealth while being a sinner in it, except that he will meet Allah while He is angry with him. So Allah revealed: "Indeed, those who purchase the covenant of Allah and their oaths for a small price..." the verse. Then al-Asht and Abdullah came and were narrating to them, and he said: It was revealed regarding a man with whom I had a dispute over a well. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Do you have evidence?" I said: No. He said: "Let him swear." I said: Then he will swear. So it was revealed: "Indeed, those who purchase the covenant of Allah..." the verse..

The Shaykh : The author ruled by titling the chapter "The Ruling in the Well and the Like of It," and the hadith indicates that the chapter is for one who swears while lying. What actually happened in the story of al-Asht is that he disputed with a man over a well, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: . He said: No. He said: . I said: Then he will swear, meaning he does not care. So Allah revealed the verse upon him: the verse. In this hadith is evidence that the path of judgment, when two men dispute with a person, is to begin first with the claimant and say to him: "Do you have evidence?" unless the defendant takes the initiative and admits, in which case there is no need to ask for evidence. But the second case is rare, except if the claimant and the defendant agree on a matter to drop a third party's right or to compete with him in his right, so the claimant claims and the defendant admits. The claimant claims and the defendant admits. An example of this is if a man owed one hundred thousand to Zayd, and he agreed with a person and conspired with him to claim against him one hundred thousand, other than the first hundred thousand. The first hundred thousand is a right, and they agreed with the debtor to claim against him one hundred thousand in order to compete with the first creditor. So he said: Let us go, you and I, to the judge, and I will claim against you, and you will admit to one hundred thousand. So he goes with him to the judge and says: I claim against this man present one hundred thousand. At that time, the defendant says: Yes, I admit to that. So the judge rules that one hundred thousand is established for the claimant against the defendant. And at that time, the debtor has two hundred thousand: the first hundred thousand and the second hundred thousand. So if we return to his wealth, we find that he has only one hundred thousand. So the two debtors share proportionally. The first truthful claimant gets how much? Fifty thousand, and the second gets fifty thousand. So I say that the defendant admitting with such ease cannot happen unless there is a conspiracy between the claimant and the defendant. Otherwise, if he wanted to admit with such ease, he would have admitted first, and there would have been no need for the presence of the judge. Yes, so the important point is that his saying "Do you have evidence?" indicates that we begin with the claimant and ask him for evidence. If he says: I have no evidence, the oath is directed to the defendant. If he swears, he is cleared and nothing is ruled against him. But if the claimant establishes evidence after that, do we rule for him with the right, or do we say that the defendant's oath dropped the right? The first option, unless the claimant said: I have no evidence, and then established evidence after that, in which case it is not accepted, because his saying "I have no evidence" and then establishing evidence means he is lying about it, because he denied it. For this reason, one should be cautious, and the claimant should say: I do not know that I have evidence. If he says: I do not know that I have evidence, and then establishes it, it is accepted. But some of the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, said that this is for the one who knows the Arabic language, who can distinguish between his saying "I have no evidence" and "I do not know that I have evidence." But the common person does not distinguish between "I do not know that I have evidence" and his saying "I have no evidence." So if he is a common person and we know that he does not distinguish between the words, and he said "I have no evidence" and then established fair and acceptable evidence, we accept it, even if he said "I have no evidence," because he will say: I do not know, I was forgetting. And he may say "I have no evidence" because he was not aware that anyone knew it. And it may be that he knew, in the sense that he and the defendant were walking in the market, and the claimant was informing the defendant of what was in his debt, and the other was saying: Yes. But we ask Allah to make the matter easy, and there are people behind him hearing his words, and the claimant does not know. This can happen. So in any case, if he says: I have no evidence, or I do not know that I have evidence, the oath is directed to the defendant. If he swears, let him go. Then if the claimant establishes evidence after that, it is accepted.