Explanation of the Book of Fitnahs and Rulings-10a

The reciter: Abdullah ibn Yusuf narrated to us, Malik informed us from Abu Layla. H. Isma'il narrated to us, Malik informed me from Abu Layla, the son of Abdullah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Sahl, from Sahl ibn Abi Hathmah, who informed him and men from the elders of his tribe: .

The Shaykh : This is the heading by which al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) titled it: "The Book of the Ruler to his Governors and the Judge to his Trustees." The ruler here seems to mean the executive ruler, the prince, and the like, and the judge is the judicial ruler. Then he mentioned the hadith of Abdullah ibn Sahl and Muhayisa, where they went out to Khaybar and Abdullah ibn Sahl was killed. That reached the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), so he wrote to the Jews: , meaning that they pay the blood money, , because this is a breach of the covenant between them and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). So they wrote that they had not done anything, that they had not killed him. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) asked the Banu Sahl to swear fifty oaths and claim his blood. They said, "We will not swear, for we did not see it and we did not witness it." He said: . They said, "We do not accept, because they are not Muslims." So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) paid the blood money from his own possession, from the camels of the public treasury. It is possible that it was from the camels of charity, but the first is more apparent, because the camels of charity belong to their owners. In this hadith is an indication of the implementation of al-qasamah. We have previously mentioned its meaning, which is repeated oaths in a claim of the killing of a protected person. This al-qasamah consists of repeated oaths in a claim of the killing of a protected person, made by the relatives of the deceased. They swear fifty oaths that this is the one who killed our companion. If they do not do so, the accused swears fifty oaths and is absolved. However, there must be indications pointing to the truth of the claim. Otherwise, if people were given what they claimed, men would claim the blood and wealth of others. Are these indications any indication, or only the indication of open enmity? The scholars have two opinions on this. The first opinion is that it is the indication of open enmity, such as that between the Jews and the Muslims. The second opinion is that anything that makes it likely that the claim is true is an indication by which al-qasamah is implemented. Do you understand now? Do you understand? Yes. Good. Zayd claims that 'Umar killed his brother, Zayd's brother. Is this accepted without evidence? No, it is not accepted except with the evidence of two just male witnesses, if the killing was intentional, or one witness and the oath of the claimant, or one witness and two women, if the killing was accidental. This is the original rule. If the accused are enemies of the claimants with open, clear enmity, then the evidence is not two men, or a man and two women, or a man and an oath. Instead, it becomes oaths sworn by the claimants, and their number is fifty oaths, like what was between the Muslims and the Jews. There was open enmity between them that made it likely that the Muslims' claim against the Jews was true. So the Muslims claimed against the Jews that Abdullah ibn Sahl was killed. They claimed against them that they killed their companion Abdullah ibn Sahl, and they had no evidence. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) asked them, or rather the family of Sahl, to swear fifty oaths that the Jews killed their companion. If they did that, the killing would be established against the Jews. But the Muslims, the family of Sahl, refused to swear. They said, "We did not see them kill him, and we did not witness it. How can we swear to something we did not see and did not witness?" So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) informed them that the Jews would be absolved of his blood if they swore fifty oaths. Do you understand why the oaths of the claimants were considered sufficient in place of evidence in this issue? It is due to the presence of an indication that validates their claim. What is the indication? It is open enmity. We specified open enmity, as opposed to hidden enmity, such as that between one person and another. Open enmity is like that between tribes. Is al-qasamah restricted to this indication, i.e., open enmity, or do we say that anything that makes it likely that the claimants are true, al-qasamah is implemented in it? The well-known view in the school of thought is the first, that it is restricted to what was transmitted. They reasoned that al-qasamah is contrary to the original rule in claims. The original rule in claims is that the oath is on the accused, and the evidence is on the claimant. What is the evidence? The witnesses. In al-qasamah, the oaths are on the side of the claimant in place of evidence. They said, "What departs from the original rule cannot be used as an analogy." The jurists said that, just as the grammarians said that. The grammarians say that the anomalous in language is preserved and not used as an analogy. The jurists said that what departs from the original of general rulings is preserved and not used as an analogy. But the second opinion, that anything that makes it likely that the claimants are true, al-qasamah is implemented in it, is the correct one. This is because the rulings of the Shari'ah are tied to their causes and considerations, so the effect does not depart from its cause. What is the difference between open enmity and a person we saw fleeing with a knife stained with blood, and behind him a man spitting blood? Here, the likelihood that this fleeing person is the killer is greater than the likelihood obtained through enmity.