Explanation of the author's statement: "And if the denier swore an oath, and then the claimant presented evidence, the judge ruled in his favor, and the oath did not remove the right."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "If the denier swears an oath", meaning, let him go. We say, "let him go" (khalī sabīluhu) or "let him go" (khalī sabīlahu). They say that both forms are permissible, so it is the same for one who knows Arabic and one who does not, meaning, one who reads well or one who does not read well.
The questioner : The rest is broken.
The Shaykh : No, no, you do not break it. It is permissible to say "khalī sabīlahu" and "khalī sabīluhu." If you say "khalī sabīlahu," the one being let go is the person, meaning, let the one who is striking his path go, or something like that, and "sabīlahu" becomes an adverb of place. And if we say "khalī sabīluhu," the thing being let go is the path, meaning, he left his path and did not interfere with him. In any case, both forms are permissible. Then, "If the denier swears an oath, and then the claimant presents evidence, the judge rules in his favor". This is a problem. After the denier left happy, saying, "Praise be to Allah, I have gotten rid of this man," the claimant comes and says, "I am suing you for one million riyals." The denier says, "I have no evidence," and he swears an oath before the judge. He swears on behalf of the judge and lets him go. Now he goes, saying, "Praise be to Allah, who has lightened my burden." The claimant comes with evidence before the judge and says, "I found witnesses, so-and-so and so-and-so, who are trustworthy." The judge rules based on the evidence. Why? Because the oath is intended to resolve the dispute, not to fully absolve the person. It is not an absolution, but a resolution of the dispute such that the claimant does not interfere with the defendant. Does the evidence establish the right or not? We say, now the right is established against you. "The right is established against me, one million riyals." He says, "One million, and how?" Yesterday you said, "I have no evidence." He says, "No, we found evidence." And for this reason, the author said, "And the oath did not remove the right". And the oath did not remove the right. Yes, the oath does not remove the right, but it removes what? Only the dispute. All right, look at the author's statement. First, if he said, "I have no evidence". If he said, "I have no evidence," his statement is now based on the claimant's statement, "I have no evidence." The apparent meaning of his statement, or the apparent context of his speech, is that if he brings evidence after saying "I have no evidence," it is not accepted. It is not accepted. Look, people, use your minds. Yes, look at the statement. Read the statement with me: "If the claimant says, 'I have no evidence,' the judge informs him that he has the right to have his opponent swear an oath according to the nature of his answer. If he requests that he be made to swear, he makes him swear and lets him go, and his oath is not considered before the claimant's issue. If he refuses, the judge rules against him for refusing, saying, 'If you do not swear, I will rule against you.' If he does not swear, the judge rules against him. And if the denier swears an oath, and then the claimant presents evidence, the judge rules in his favor, and the oath did not remove the right."
The questioner : It is based on his statement, "I have no evidence."
The Shaykh : The entire statement is based on the context of the claimant's statement, "I have no evidence." So the apparent meaning of the author's statement is that if he says "I have no evidence," and then we make his opponent swear and he swears, and then he brings evidence, what is the apparent meaning of his statement? That the evidence is accepted. That the evidence is accepted. And this is the opinion the author adopted, which is the apparent meaning of his statement. It is the truth in this issue; it is the correct one. As for the school of thought (madhhab), they say the evidence is not accepted. If he brings evidence, it is not accepted. The reason they give is that he is contradicting the evidence. He himself is contradicting the evidence. How is he contradicting the evidence? Yes, because he says, "I have no evidence." If you have no evidence, how does the evidence come? You created the evidence anew. So your statement contradicts the evidence. You are the first to testify to its falsehood. And how do you claim what the evidence testifies to as false? Is that right or not? This is their reasoning. But the one who followed the author, and this is the second opinion in the issue, says that the claimant's statement, "I have no evidence," may be according to his belief. He may have evidence he did not know about, or he may have evidence but forgot it, or he may have evidence that he thought had died, so there is no benefit. Someone says to me, "By Allah, I have evidence, and it is dead." This is like the one who was asked, "Did you pray Fajr today?" He said, "Yes." "Who testifies for you? Who was next to you?" He said, "Next to me was a stranger, and the wall was a stranger," meaning, an unknown person, and the wall wants to testify, but it is not a witness. He may have said, "I have no evidence," because he thought the evidence had died. And he said, "If I say I have evidence and it is dead, the statement is nonsense." In any case, we say that his statement, "I have no evidence," and then his bringing of evidence afterwards, does not necessarily imply contradicting the evidence. There is no logical necessity and no legal necessity. Why? Because he may have forgotten it, or he may have been unaware that he had evidence. A person may sit with his opponent in a place, they sit in a place and talk. "Do you remember, so-and-so, when you came to me and said, 'By Allah, I needed dirhams to get married, and they demanded one hundred thousand riyals from me, and they demanded another fifty thousand riyals, and they demanded gold worth fifty thousand riyals. That is two hundred riyals. I do not have two hundred riyals.'"
The questioner : Two hundred thousand.
The Shaykh : Yes, two hundred thousand. Yes, two hundred thousand riyals. I do not have two hundred thousand riyals. You want to lend me, and you lent me. And now, life is lived and died. I acknowledge that I owe you two hundred thousand riyals. And the reason is that no one was there, but there might be one or two people listening. It is possible that this one or that one is possible, whether they are walking in the market or sitting in a place, or in a mosque, or elsewhere. It is possible that he has evidence he did not know about and said, "I have no evidence." It is possible that he has evidence and forgot it. And sometimes we always say, "This did not happen," but it did happen, and we forgot it, or not. And Muhammad ibn Wasil says, "We did not mention this, and we mentioned it. I do not know if he is present or not." In any case, a person may forget, may forget and deny based on his forgetting. He may think the evidence has died, and if it has died, who will bring it? So the claim is, in his view, dead evidence, foolishness in the eyes of people, so he does not speak. Clearly, the correct opinion, without doubt, is what is the apparent meaning of the author's statement: that if he brings evidence of justice, the judge rules in his favor, and the oath did not remove the right. Then, the layperson, meaning, if we concede and say that the statement we mentioned is a possibility, and it is the possibility of forgetting or ignorance or death, if we concede, does the layperson distinguish between "I have no evidence" and "I do not know that I have evidence"? The layperson never distinguishes. If he is asked, "Did you not divorce your wife?" He says, "Yes." Does he divorce or not? If it is linguistic, he does not divorce. If it is colloquial, he divorces, because he understands "yes" to mean "yes," meaning "yes." So the layperson, in reality, does not distinguish between "I have no evidence" and his saying, "I do not know that I have evidence." Unless the claimant is a man experienced in lawsuits, like what they call a lawyer. Lawyers study lawsuits as an art, yes, like an engineer studies engineering as an art. He is an engineer of lawsuits, so you find him bringing arguments greater than mountains, even if they are false, even if he is lying, because he earns two things with this: the money set for him, and his cleverness in lawyering and his ability to practice law. If he fails, people no longer want him. If he writes a sign on his desk bigger than the shop door that he is a lawyer, people do not accept him. So the result is that we say the second opinion in the issue, which is the apparent meaning of the author's statement and is the correct one, is that if he says "I have no evidence" and then presents it, it is accepted. Then the author said, the time for questions has come.
The questioner : The rest is broken.
The Shaykh : No, no, you do not break it. It is permissible to say "khalī sabīlahu" and "khalī sabīluhu." If you say "khalī sabīlahu," the one being let go is the person, meaning, let the one who is striking his path go, or something like that, and "sabīlahu" becomes an adverb of place. And if we say "khalī sabīluhu," the thing being let go is the path, meaning, he left his path and did not interfere with him. In any case, both forms are permissible. Then, "If the denier swears an oath, and then the claimant presents evidence, the judge rules in his favor". This is a problem. After the denier left happy, saying, "Praise be to Allah, I have gotten rid of this man," the claimant comes and says, "I am suing you for one million riyals." The denier says, "I have no evidence," and he swears an oath before the judge. He swears on behalf of the judge and lets him go. Now he goes, saying, "Praise be to Allah, who has lightened my burden." The claimant comes with evidence before the judge and says, "I found witnesses, so-and-so and so-and-so, who are trustworthy." The judge rules based on the evidence. Why? Because the oath is intended to resolve the dispute, not to fully absolve the person. It is not an absolution, but a resolution of the dispute such that the claimant does not interfere with the defendant. Does the evidence establish the right or not? We say, now the right is established against you. "The right is established against me, one million riyals." He says, "One million, and how?" Yesterday you said, "I have no evidence." He says, "No, we found evidence." And for this reason, the author said, "And the oath did not remove the right". And the oath did not remove the right. Yes, the oath does not remove the right, but it removes what? Only the dispute. All right, look at the author's statement. First, if he said, "I have no evidence". If he said, "I have no evidence," his statement is now based on the claimant's statement, "I have no evidence." The apparent meaning of his statement, or the apparent context of his speech, is that if he brings evidence after saying "I have no evidence," it is not accepted. It is not accepted. Look, people, use your minds. Yes, look at the statement. Read the statement with me: "If the claimant says, 'I have no evidence,' the judge informs him that he has the right to have his opponent swear an oath according to the nature of his answer. If he requests that he be made to swear, he makes him swear and lets him go, and his oath is not considered before the claimant's issue. If he refuses, the judge rules against him for refusing, saying, 'If you do not swear, I will rule against you.' If he does not swear, the judge rules against him. And if the denier swears an oath, and then the claimant presents evidence, the judge rules in his favor, and the oath did not remove the right."
The questioner : It is based on his statement, "I have no evidence."
The Shaykh : The entire statement is based on the context of the claimant's statement, "I have no evidence." So the apparent meaning of the author's statement is that if he says "I have no evidence," and then we make his opponent swear and he swears, and then he brings evidence, what is the apparent meaning of his statement? That the evidence is accepted. That the evidence is accepted. And this is the opinion the author adopted, which is the apparent meaning of his statement. It is the truth in this issue; it is the correct one. As for the school of thought (madhhab), they say the evidence is not accepted. If he brings evidence, it is not accepted. The reason they give is that he is contradicting the evidence. He himself is contradicting the evidence. How is he contradicting the evidence? Yes, because he says, "I have no evidence." If you have no evidence, how does the evidence come? You created the evidence anew. So your statement contradicts the evidence. You are the first to testify to its falsehood. And how do you claim what the evidence testifies to as false? Is that right or not? This is their reasoning. But the one who followed the author, and this is the second opinion in the issue, says that the claimant's statement, "I have no evidence," may be according to his belief. He may have evidence he did not know about, or he may have evidence but forgot it, or he may have evidence that he thought had died, so there is no benefit. Someone says to me, "By Allah, I have evidence, and it is dead." This is like the one who was asked, "Did you pray Fajr today?" He said, "Yes." "Who testifies for you? Who was next to you?" He said, "Next to me was a stranger, and the wall was a stranger," meaning, an unknown person, and the wall wants to testify, but it is not a witness. He may have said, "I have no evidence," because he thought the evidence had died. And he said, "If I say I have evidence and it is dead, the statement is nonsense." In any case, we say that his statement, "I have no evidence," and then his bringing of evidence afterwards, does not necessarily imply contradicting the evidence. There is no logical necessity and no legal necessity. Why? Because he may have forgotten it, or he may have been unaware that he had evidence. A person may sit with his opponent in a place, they sit in a place and talk. "Do you remember, so-and-so, when you came to me and said, 'By Allah, I needed dirhams to get married, and they demanded one hundred thousand riyals from me, and they demanded another fifty thousand riyals, and they demanded gold worth fifty thousand riyals. That is two hundred riyals. I do not have two hundred riyals.'"
The questioner : Two hundred thousand.
The Shaykh : Yes, two hundred thousand. Yes, two hundred thousand riyals. I do not have two hundred thousand riyals. You want to lend me, and you lent me. And now, life is lived and died. I acknowledge that I owe you two hundred thousand riyals. And the reason is that no one was there, but there might be one or two people listening. It is possible that this one or that one is possible, whether they are walking in the market or sitting in a place, or in a mosque, or elsewhere. It is possible that he has evidence he did not know about and said, "I have no evidence." It is possible that he has evidence and forgot it. And sometimes we always say, "This did not happen," but it did happen, and we forgot it, or not. And Muhammad ibn Wasil says, "We did not mention this, and we mentioned it. I do not know if he is present or not." In any case, a person may forget, may forget and deny based on his forgetting. He may think the evidence has died, and if it has died, who will bring it? So the claim is, in his view, dead evidence, foolishness in the eyes of people, so he does not speak. Clearly, the correct opinion, without doubt, is what is the apparent meaning of the author's statement: that if he brings evidence of justice, the judge rules in his favor, and the oath did not remove the right. Then, the layperson, meaning, if we concede and say that the statement we mentioned is a possibility, and it is the possibility of forgetting or ignorance or death, if we concede, does the layperson distinguish between "I have no evidence" and "I do not know that I have evidence"? The layperson never distinguishes. If he is asked, "Did you not divorce your wife?" He says, "Yes." Does he divorce or not? If it is linguistic, he does not divorce. If it is colloquial, he divorces, because he understands "yes" to mean "yes," meaning "yes." So the layperson, in reality, does not distinguish between "I have no evidence" and his saying, "I do not know that I have evidence." Unless the claimant is a man experienced in lawsuits, like what they call a lawyer. Lawyers study lawsuits as an art, yes, like an engineer studies engineering as an art. He is an engineer of lawsuits, so you find him bringing arguments greater than mountains, even if they are false, even if he is lying, because he earns two things with this: the money set for him, and his cleverness in lawyering and his ability to practice law. If he fails, people no longer want him. If he writes a sign on his desk bigger than the shop door that he is a lawyer, people do not accept him. So the result is that we say the second opinion in the issue, which is the apparent meaning of the author's statement and is the correct one, is that if he says "I have no evidence" and then presents it, it is accepted. Then the author said, the time for questions has come.