Hatem al-Haj – FJT03 Fiqh of the Judiciary & Testimonies – The Book of the Judiciary

Hatem al-Haj
AI: Summary © The speakers discuss the importance of clear and verified evidence in a legal process, as it is crucial to avoid conflict and avoid loss of honor. They stress the need for history and proper testing, as well as the importance of proper honorary evidence and history confirmation. They also discuss the use of tangible evidence and the importance of history in court proceedings and the need for a record of actions. The speakers emphasize the need for trustworthiness and continuous evidence sharing to avoid confusion and misunderstandings.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:07 --> 00:00:08

It allowed me

00:00:09 --> 00:00:14

to proceed. Today inshallah we will have two chapters.

00:00:15 --> 00:00:17

The first one is

00:00:18 --> 00:00:30

about power, the power of the dollar, which is the chapter on conflicting claims. And the second is how can we get out of poverty or the chapter one correspondence of judges.

00:00:36 --> 00:00:39

We are on track to finish

00:00:40 --> 00:00:52

in three weeks. So we will have three more weeks controller to finish the entire sort of book up at Armada Hanbury primary according to the

00:00:53 --> 00:00:56

or primary recordings.

00:00:59 --> 00:01:08

Well, let's start by about tower the tower and even Kodama with it in the air 620. After the hedger, I said in his book on that, in fact,

00:01:10 --> 00:01:21

under the book cover, or judiciary, under the chapter of conflicting claims, or double, Tara da,

00:01:22 --> 00:01:25

he said, he got an answer on how to

00:01:28 --> 00:01:28

become a

00:01:30 --> 00:01:42

VC, if they a dispute over a shirt, wire, one of them is wearing it. The other is holding its sleeve, it will be for the one who is wearing it.

00:01:44 --> 00:01:51

It will be for the one who's wearing it. You may think it's a little bit trivial, like, you know, why do we know this is a primer?

00:01:53 --> 00:02:00

This is a manual. So why do we have to include sort of trivial disputes of this nature?

00:02:01 --> 00:02:17

The purpose of including sort of a trivial dispute of this lecture is that it gives you its approach to tie it is telling you that we act on what is called the VA hair, what's apparent.

00:02:19 --> 00:02:56

That is that can be also called Kareena corroborative evidence, which is short of bayona which is the admissible evidence admissible evidence and Islamic judiciary is called the bayona which means clear, clear cut. So that clear cut evidence is that the year and we spoke last time about the bayonet and we will go back and put everything together at the end of this session and when it comes to acknowledgement proud bayona which is the clear proof

00:02:57 --> 00:02:58


00:02:59 --> 00:03:22

basically a VA which is the Kareena which is the corroborate of evidence, and Nicole are near me and refusal to take an oath and pora which is drawn lots and mean, which is taken an oath. All of these are methods by which we try to ascertain

00:03:23 --> 00:03:29

justice in this mutation. And we will talk about the order

00:03:31 --> 00:03:35

according to the different primarily, of course, according to the hungry.

00:03:37 --> 00:03:38

But what this

00:03:40 --> 00:04:08

is mainly about this chapter is mainly about after he spoke after we spoke last time about the bayonet, which are the clear proofs and favoring one beginner over the other which we will come back today. After he spoke about this last time. He's talking here about VA which are sort of apparent hints, indications corroborative proofs or evidences on

00:04:10 --> 00:04:23

the entitlement of one over the other, the entitlement of one over the other. So here, if someone is wearing a shirt and someone is holding to the sleeve of the shirt,

00:04:25 --> 00:04:28

then we would give it to the one who's wearing the shirt.

00:04:29 --> 00:04:36

Because, you know, obviously this it's clear that he was wearing the shirt and this person wants to take it off of him.

00:04:38 --> 00:04:44

Then interesada humara keyboard, I will let him learn for Hello.

00:04:45 --> 00:04:59

If they dispute over a beast of burden, when one of them is writing it for has his belongings on it. It will be his it will be as the person who's writing so you're you know

00:05:00 --> 00:05:10

You have an indication here that this probably belongs to that. Keep in mind when, where and why are we doing this?

00:05:12 --> 00:05:18

Because this is important also to remember, why are we doing this? Because we don't have,

00:05:19 --> 00:05:30

we don't have a proof, we are only resorting to this because we didn't have a proof. last chapter was about the proofs and you know,

00:05:32 --> 00:05:37

favoring one proof over the other and so on and so forth.

00:05:38 --> 00:05:39

Which we said in the 100 emails,

00:05:40 --> 00:05:45

admissible proofs are treated as equal.

00:05:46 --> 00:06:04

But here, he keeps on telling us about these corroborative evidences hints, indications, to the entitlement of one over the other. He gives us another example, where internals are gone fi has been a

00:06:07 --> 00:06:53

fella who if they dispute over a piece of land that has trees, buildings or crops belonging to one of them, it will be his people know that this person used to harvest the crops or used to pick the fruits of these trees for the last so many years and people know that he owns those trees, but they don't know who owns the lands, who owns the land, because the be possible, you know, they don't know who owns the land could be it is possible to be someone else. And in this case, if no one of them has proof of ownership, then they will give it to the person who was basically picking the fruits or the harvesting of the crops.

00:06:55 --> 00:07:21

What internals are sanyang people mashido can Allah to call this an artisan Lisa hibiya if two craftsmen dispute over tools in a store, the tools of each craft will be for the one who practices because two people can come together one is a tailor, one is an embroider and they come together and establish a business. Now, they are

00:07:23 --> 00:07:26

breaking up and sort of having

00:07:28 --> 00:07:52

terminating the partnership, we will have to figure out which tools belong to whom. And in this case, if they don't have proves then whatever is used for embroidery, what before they embroider whatever is used for tailoring will be for the tailor. That's it That's how we figure this out.

00:07:53 --> 00:07:59

And then he says what internals as I mentioned bait for the Rajat myosin

00:08:01 --> 00:08:02

well marotti miles

00:08:03 --> 00:08:04


00:08:05 --> 00:08:16

from webinar Homer if two spouses dispute over the furniture and how to house where the husband will be entitled to that which is more suitable for men

00:08:17 --> 00:08:19

x for instance

00:08:21 --> 00:08:25

and the wife to that which is more suitable for women,

00:08:26 --> 00:08:31

they would say like needles sewing machine now

00:08:33 --> 00:08:40

and what is suitable for both will be divided between them, whether it's suitable for both will be divided between them.

00:08:43 --> 00:08:44

Then he moves on

00:08:45 --> 00:08:49

and says when it couldn't be a

00:08:51 --> 00:08:59

Hulu and min Homer for whoever in Homer in Canada, who then beginner a Hema for whoever who

00:09:00 --> 00:09:17

if they dispute over a wall that is attached to both of their buildings or that is not attached to either one, it will be for them both splitted if it is attached to the building of one of them alone, then it is his.

00:09:18 --> 00:09:21

So, here is the wall

00:09:23 --> 00:09:32

and sometimes the you know in order to keep the wall standing, they it will be there would be sort of what

00:09:37 --> 00:09:42

they know ropes to like yeah, ropes to hold it.

00:09:44 --> 00:09:59

And if the ropes are holding it to the to my side, then it is my wall. If the ropes are like next to the other side, if you place a beam like a woodlot on the wall that does not

00:10:00 --> 00:10:02

give you the right to claim as

00:10:03 --> 00:10:20

you're doing it for your benefit and the prophets of Salaam forbade neighbors from preventing their neighbors if the wall is yours, you're forbidden from preventing your neighbor to lay his beam on your wall if he needs for

00:10:22 --> 00:10:33

his structure, you know to place the wood lugs, there is a wall between me and you and he wants to place a wood line on the wall to have something for instance

00:10:34 --> 00:10:48

then the neighbor should not prevent his neighbor from that. So, that would not be approved that you know placing the wood lug on the wall that's not proof, but if the wall is attached through ropes

00:10:49 --> 00:10:52

to one side, then

00:10:53 --> 00:11:03

then it is an indication that the owner backside to which the ropes are attached is the owner of the wall.

00:11:07 --> 00:11:15

Okay, then he says what internet Hello was so fluffy, sexy lovey dovey. Now Homer alternate

00:11:17 --> 00:11:18

at the levy Bay Noma

00:11:19 --> 00:11:22

Commission on becoming a robot

00:11:23 --> 00:11:25

for her bainer

00:11:26 --> 00:11:28

likewise, he says

00:11:29 --> 00:12:12

if the owners of the upper and lower floors in a building this feud over the ceiling between them, it will be for both of them. Likewise, if the owners have a piece of land and a water stream dispute over the fence between them it will be for both of them. Finally FTP people dispute over shirt white one of them is holding its sleeve, but the other person has the rest of it. It will be for both of them. Keep in mind, he's not wearing he's just one is holding the sleeve and the other one is holding the rest of it. He could have overpower them easily and have the more of the of the shirt.

00:12:13 --> 00:12:31

So that would not be an indication that he owns it. They're both holding the garment. So if you're holding like a smaller piece of the garment it is not going to give an advantage to the one who's holding a bigger piece of the garment. They're saying if you are for instance,

00:12:33 --> 00:12:41

if this see it and this is the one in the on the lower level and the one on the upper level, this ceiling is between us.

00:12:42 --> 00:12:47

If we don't have proof, then the ceiling belongs to

00:12:48 --> 00:12:48


00:12:50 --> 00:13:02

both okay. So if this if it extends out like this and the person on the lower level does not own this land, it belongs to

00:13:04 --> 00:13:05

the one on the upper level.

00:13:08 --> 00:13:28

The one on the upper level. Now if you have stairway that is go into the upper level of the lungs to home. The upper level of the stairway is going to the that is given the okay if the stairway if there is a common a common

00:13:30 --> 00:13:34

lobby and the stairway is go into the upper level from the common lobby.

00:13:36 --> 00:13:37

The stairway belongs to home

00:13:41 --> 00:13:41


00:13:43 --> 00:14:01

Okay. So let us say you know there is a front yard here to stay away and we're not saying a common love even we're saying the front yard and the third way is go on to the upper level from the front yard. If the stairway is going to it.

00:14:03 --> 00:14:17

So So stairway starting here, from here to here. You know you're coming in from here and you would walk all the way to the stairway. This area is between them.

00:14:19 --> 00:14:28

It has advanced The both of them the area below the stairway if it has anything for the person on the lower level that belongs to them

00:14:30 --> 00:14:58

because that area, the person on the upper level does not need that area. He just needs to get to the stairway. We will give him you know part of the entrance to the stairway to get to the stairway. But since this is a front yard, common front yard, then it will be between them the person on the lower level and the person on the upper level.

00:15:00 --> 00:15:09

Okay, and this is like stream of water and this is land, this land belongs to A,

00:15:11 --> 00:15:26

that stream of water belongs to B. And there is a fence here, a wall here, between the stream of water and the land, this fence is going to be between them.

00:15:29 --> 00:15:31

All of this is when

00:15:32 --> 00:15:36

no one is able to produce proof that it belongs to them.

00:15:37 --> 00:15:38


00:15:40 --> 00:16:10

Now, we will come to, if a Muslim and an unbeliever dispute over a deceased person, each one claiming that the person died on his face, we will come to this but before we come to this, let me tell you that this is clearly proving that we did include in the Islamic judiciary, because if you look at the theory, if you look at the theorizing, the fuqaha are saying that we don't employ

00:16:12 --> 00:16:18

the prevalent view and these chapters is that we don't employ

00:16:19 --> 00:16:31

in the Islamic judiciary, that is what would be what in our times, would be basically all forensic science, we don't employ.

00:16:32 --> 00:16:59

We have to have a beginner and the beginner for the majority of the set the beginner has to be more proof has to be traceable to the proper seller has to be proven by the revelation, what is admissible evidence and what is not admissible evidence. They have the luxury to say that because the word has not changed, you know, for maybe

00:17:00 --> 00:17:04

1000 1100 years after the Prophet sallallahu Sallam

00:17:06 --> 00:17:11

to basically require any sort of

00:17:12 --> 00:17:18

reconsideration of this, do that, but you have to be truly.

00:17:21 --> 00:18:02

Thereby you have to be truly traceable to the Prophet sallallahu sallam. Well, maybe you would say yes, if it is very clear cut proof, needs to be traceable to the Prophet. But are we going to only rely on bayonet, in the Islamic judiciary, when we do away with forensic science nowadays, DNA testing fingerprints and all of that stuff. And certainly some of you will be able to cite some anecdotes where forensic medicine got it all wrong. And you will be able to send me video clips of you know, people talking about how forensic medicine sometimes forensic science sometimes gets it all wrong.

00:18:03 --> 00:18:05

These are anecdotes and

00:18:07 --> 00:18:35

they should not be they should not defy the facts, that forensic science is extremely needed for the establishment of justice and judiciary's, across the world rely on forensic science for establishing justice. And that is the ultimate goal. Yes, you could say that in Islam, we want to be careful in Islam, we want to be cautious.

00:18:36 --> 00:18:50

You want to have results randomize the results coming from two different labs results, this result you could always say that, but to say we will do away with forensic science, because one time

00:18:53 --> 00:19:05

fingerprints turns out to be wrong or one time, you know, DNA testing turned out to be wrong. That does not make sense. You are driven by your

00:19:06 --> 00:19:24

dogmatism. Like he wants to prove that the fuqaha that you love, were right, about excluding corroborative evidence that would be called tangible evidence that would be called physical evidence, that is called basically

00:19:26 --> 00:19:32

forensic science and our times, forensic investigations, forensic medicine, etc, etc.

00:19:33 --> 00:19:46

You want to prove your beloved, right? So you're looking for confirmation, and you will search YouTube for lots of video clips.

00:19:48 --> 00:19:56

To prove your point, but you will ignore the 99% and that is the nature of people who are the automatic

00:19:57 --> 00:19:59

they will always sort of clean and get to them.

00:20:00 --> 00:20:17

1% to prove their theory right, and ignore the 99%. So anyway, what you can say is that in Islam, we have to be careful when we use corroborative evidence when we use tangible evidence.

00:20:18 --> 00:20:32

physical evidence, we need to be careful. But at the same time, our bayonet always at the same time are but you're not always 100% certain. What are bayonet?

00:20:34 --> 00:20:35

What is it?

00:20:40 --> 00:20:47

Okay, for witnesses in certain cases, right. Not sexual crimes zinna.

00:20:49 --> 00:20:50

Two Witnesses

00:20:52 --> 00:20:58

in most cases, two witnesses in most other cases, one witness

00:20:59 --> 00:21:11

plus your oath, according to the majority in financial cases. Okay. That's the union refusal to take an oath.

00:21:12 --> 00:21:14

refusal to take

00:21:15 --> 00:21:16

an oath.

00:21:18 --> 00:21:21

Okay, for witnesses. You know,

00:21:25 --> 00:21:26

that is, you know,

00:21:28 --> 00:21:35

sort of an order you know, it is obvious for Xena two witnesses. That's the standard shader universitari compare them.

00:21:36 --> 00:21:39

For Roger on one writer, one witness

00:21:41 --> 00:21:45

one male witness to female

00:21:46 --> 00:21:59

witnesses. That is also in what financial? So financial two witnesses made witnesses one made witness to female weapon says one weakness plus the oath because

00:22:00 --> 00:22:27

the shady What do you mean? This was reported by Muslim reported by NSA and reported by others. So the majority aside from the harpies, the majority would judge on the basis of one witness plus your oath you bring in with you one witness taken oath aceveda. That's clear proof. Our refusal to take an oath, which we said this will be on whom the defendant

00:22:30 --> 00:22:37

is the one who will basically be asked to take an oath and if you refuse to take an oath, then we will judge against

00:22:38 --> 00:22:45

four reviews of the taken oath. Okay. Our v circuit 100% serving

00:22:46 --> 00:22:46


00:22:47 --> 00:22:50

So if you if you were talking about forensic

00:22:51 --> 00:23:04

science, not being 100% circuit is one weakness and your oath 100% circuit watch routine. Therefore, you know, preponderance like you know,

00:23:06 --> 00:24:00

are usually based on London violin at the end of the day. That is why the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said, you know, in the conductor Simona bahala Baba Khamenei akuna jetty him and Bob for up de la massana Furman provide to the who are familiar popoola who say I'm unhappy MP for intimate level 10 million for the aquas how he other so you bring your disputes to me and human beings when none of us are having a human being. So I may judge in favor of the one who is more eloquent. So whenever I give one of you something that belongs to his brother, I am giving him a piece of hardcore from the hellfire. Let him take it or leave it. It's strong beautiful bodies. Yeah.

00:24:04 --> 00:24:13

No, just just in general. Yeah. So if you come and say this, this, you will is mine.

00:24:15 --> 00:24:18

And this person took it from me.

00:24:19 --> 00:24:51

But it is mine. I will tell you, where is your proof? You will say I don't have proof. Then you have the right to say to the person who has been you take an oath that this meal is yours. And that you will walk away with it. Do you have it? So he couldn't produce a proof? take an oath and walk away with your meal. If you refuse to take the oath, we will give them you will to that claimant. Okay, so that's an oath.

00:24:52 --> 00:24:54

So the idea here is

00:24:56 --> 00:24:59

yes, we judge based on preponderance

00:25:00 --> 00:25:13

It is not certainty. And when we come back to talk about power that when conflicting proves, then we will talk more about this. But what I wanted to say is that the folks that said

00:25:15 --> 00:25:25

that we don't only rely on billionaires that department traceable to the revelation, they were visionary and what they were thinking way ahead

00:25:27 --> 00:25:31

that we don't rely on only on

00:25:32 --> 00:25:34

the mo Kufa

00:25:35 --> 00:25:42

or other than the beats are solid and we don't rely only on the unit that is traceable to the profits of alladia sanlam.

00:25:44 --> 00:25:46

Who are they? So?

00:25:53 --> 00:25:54

Anything man

00:25:55 --> 00:26:02

Hansard, certainly, you would see some awkwardness here because I will usually put them before

00:26:03 --> 00:26:06

the teacher before the student, but even apply him

00:26:07 --> 00:26:19

defend that more. And he you know, has basically more regard for corroborate of evidence, tangible evidence. In his book of

00:26:20 --> 00:26:26

widen the scope defended more you have a pinafore Kuhn.

00:26:28 --> 00:26:29

He's a Maliki

00:26:31 --> 00:26:33

you have Edna macaques

00:26:37 --> 00:26:38

who is a Hanafi

00:26:40 --> 00:26:54

you have many others. However, these are the main figures that talked about these issues in detail and defended the use of tangible evidence corroborated evidence

00:26:57 --> 00:27:07

that we can say nowadays they would be defending forensic science, the use of forensic science in the judiciary

00:27:10 --> 00:27:34

okay. So, in our event to be used as Muslims, we want to be careful in the employment of Quran, but at the end of the day, Justice is what we are seeking. And if we don't have the unit, then we should employ the kata and

00:27:35 --> 00:27:36


00:27:39 --> 00:27:47

Then, the CFX talks now about another issue and then after this, we should not forget to talk about

00:27:49 --> 00:27:52

against all this sort of

00:27:54 --> 00:28:12

bringing it all together. Look at the issue of conflicting evidences in the court. By the way, evidence is not accounted for in most usage. But in ecclesiastical and legal usage, evidence is account where you could say evidences

00:28:14 --> 00:28:31

went on as a Muslim on McAfee or on Mira pharma yet. He has done Minho. mahana Canada de fer no hurry pasado de comida de casa de for me raw food and Muslim when Canada In fact,

00:28:32 --> 00:28:36

we're in Canada, we had him at the Yana hokey mela, who they,

00:28:38 --> 00:28:45

if a Muslim and unbeliever dispute over a deceased person, each one claiming that the person died on his face.

00:28:46 --> 00:28:59

If his origin or religion is known, then that will be his religion. People know, you know, if his original religion is unknown, then the inheritance would belong to that Muslim.

00:29:02 --> 00:29:33

And likewise, if they both have proof of their claims, then his his inheritance would belong to the Muslim. However, if only one of them has proof, our judgment will be made in his favor. Of course, you know, when someone has approved for anything given that judgment will be made in favor of the person who has the proof, whatever, they don't have a proof. Do we know the original religion of the person? Now we don't. So

00:29:34 --> 00:29:41

two children here for two relatives. It doesn't have to be two children, two relatives, you're claiming that the deceased person

00:29:43 --> 00:29:59

died has a Muslim? You are a Muslim relative claiming that the deceased person died as a Muslim. You are a non Muslim relative claiming that the deceased person died as non Muslim. Why are we Why are they making the

00:30:00 --> 00:30:14

These claims because of his inheritance would go to his coreligionists his inheritance would go to his co religionists. Now, if if the if the original, if the person's religion is unknown

00:30:15 --> 00:30:18

and no one has proof, then the

00:30:20 --> 00:30:22

the weaker position in the madhhab is what happened

00:30:24 --> 00:30:55

to him Allah says here, so the Melvin Kodama here has citing the weaker position in the mouth. And when we say this, who are we to say that he does not know, or you know, what side the weaker position? No, it's just, this is a technical statement. This is not telling you about the truth, the ultimate truth, the truth in and of itself, and you have to grow up and just understand this when people talk, they're not telling you the ultimate truth, who knows the ultimate truth? You know, it's

00:30:56 --> 00:30:57

the ultimate truth.

00:30:58 --> 00:31:42

Maybe even Ahmed himself would have, you know, some one time said this, or one time said that, you know, because yesterday, America changed his mind. And that sometimes is based on how basically in added knowledge, but sometimes it's based on him being a human being, human beings get confused, yes, and human beings make errors and forget, and all of that stuff. So, so no one is setting you the ultimate truth here. But when we say that this is the author, and not the authorized the view, where it's at, it's not the authorized view, based on a technical definition, by the latter generations to another generation, say, the otherwise the view is going to be whatever it is.

00:31:43 --> 00:31:46

And then we'll agree on two books in the hunt valley

00:31:47 --> 00:31:49

that were written, you know,

00:31:51 --> 00:32:13

by, you know, in with activity than other generations, and based on these, the agreement of these two books, usually, if they agree, we take the agreement as the authorized position. So we're saying here, he's citing the weaker position, because they chose that other generations chose the opposite position, they said,

00:32:15 --> 00:32:27

if the Muslim, if the Muslim and non Muslim children after the seas, fight over their religion, we will give it all to the non Muslim why

00:32:33 --> 00:32:39

because, because, if we will give it all to the non Muslim, in which case,

00:32:40 --> 00:33:11

we give a call to the non Muslim, if there is proof, that the non Muslim child is actually the child of the deceased and the brother of the the other claimants, either proof or acknowledgement, if the Muslim acknowledges the Brotherhood of the non Muslim or there is proof, prove an acquittal, the whole inheritance will go to the non Muslim Why? Because they say that Muslim parent would not basically sit

00:33:12 --> 00:33:21

quiet about his child apostatize. You know, he would have made it would have been in the news.

00:33:22 --> 00:33:24

So if

00:33:28 --> 00:33:32

now, the weaker position is that weaker position is what they've been

00:33:34 --> 00:34:12

citing here, he's saying, we will give it to the Muslim because of us, Islam, you know, and in a Muslim country, that default is that he is Muslim. In a, you know, in a Muslim polity, the default is that he's Muslim, so, by default, we will give it to the Muslim and the default in general and human beings. That's what we Muslims say that the default the origin and state is a slap, you know, kuramoto, the Euro dollar fatra every child will be born on the fitrah the natural disposition, accepting one God only believing in one God only.

00:34:13 --> 00:34:24

So, so that's why this is the that's the weaker position that email been citing here, but the stronger position in the family in the in the mouth hub is that you know, have this

00:34:26 --> 00:34:45

if we are sure now that this non Muslim child is the brother of the other claimant and the son of the disease, then we will give it all to the non Muslim because a Muslim parent would have made the big commotion if his child apostatize.

00:34:49 --> 00:34:55

Bye, but anyway, there were times it was a little different. They would not be particularly embarrassed

00:34:59 --> 00:34:59


00:35:00 --> 00:35:26

But the other thing that he says And likewise, if they, if they both have proof of their claims, he said to give it to the, to the, to the Muslim, if they both have proofs, I have proof, I have proof that they both have proofs, give it to the Muslim in the authorize the view in the mouth hub splitted between them not don't give it to the Muslim or split it between them if they both have proofs, yes,

00:35:27 --> 00:35:28


00:35:30 --> 00:35:31


00:35:38 --> 00:35:59

That is why that is why each one of them is trying to claim that the person died on their face, so that they are entitled to the inheritance. But since we are unable to figure this out, we are unable to figure out, you know the religion that the person died on, then, where we're asking for proof. And if they have

00:36:00 --> 00:36:06

proofs, then we will split according to the authorized position in the mother we will split the inheritance between them.

00:36:10 --> 00:36:14

But we are unable to prove the religion of the Father.

00:36:15 --> 00:36:29

That's the whole issue. If we are able to prove the religion of the Father, it would be clear cut. If he was Muslim, his Muslim child will take the inheritance. If he was non Muslim, his non Muslim child will take his inheritance if we're unable to figure out how what what do we do?

00:36:31 --> 00:36:52

Yeah, if each one of them has a Vienna, we will split it between them. If they have no Vienna, then they disagree in the mother. So when people say that the fault is Islam, when people say if he were really Muslim, he would have not said quiet about the apostille CFS child and it would have been no.

00:36:54 --> 00:37:05

Okay, so we've gone through the chapter on conflicting claims. And now it's time to put it all together. Because last time we talked about that, you know,

00:37:06 --> 00:37:11

let's just try to put it all together so that we have this default

00:37:13 --> 00:37:14

view of

00:37:15 --> 00:37:16

the whole issue.

00:37:31 --> 00:37:42

Maybe he's told us was not the right word, because there would be a little bit more detail than just like a skips thought this field, but anyway, we will say

00:37:46 --> 00:37:47

you know, two people are now coming

00:37:49 --> 00:38:07

What is the strongest evidence they employ or what is basically the you know, and lie and have all the evidences that we talked about what what would be the one to be given precedence

00:38:09 --> 00:38:22

across or bayona they disagree, if they occur and if we have a crowd or they disagree, whether we judge it by the Accra, which is acknowledgement confession or the unit and why would they disagree?

00:38:23 --> 00:38:32

Why would they say Rob say that I did. They say confession is the best the greatest of all evidences, but they say

00:38:34 --> 00:38:48

they say, you know, in the deagan Maxim's they say the XR is a deficient evidence, why is it deficient passerines deficient, why is the club deficient? A crowd is deficient, because

00:38:49 --> 00:38:52

the the person who makes the acknowledgement

00:38:54 --> 00:38:56

is the only one bound by this

00:38:58 --> 00:39:10

other people are not bound by my acknowledgement. So, if people dispute over a property and I acknowledge your ownership of this property, other people are not bound by that acknowledgement. But it's

00:39:12 --> 00:39:16

the proof is there is basically

00:39:18 --> 00:39:27

one transitive evidence meaning it will cross it will apply to everybody, we have established the proof now,

00:39:28 --> 00:39:29

it is not just me

00:39:30 --> 00:39:33

or confession of one disputing

00:39:35 --> 00:39:37

of one dispute. So, but

00:39:39 --> 00:39:57

aside from it being hubzu cassara from being from being in transitive, proof, efficient, limited to the mockery, that one makes making the acknowledgement parshad Come on top because it ends everything great. They're

00:39:59 --> 00:39:59


00:40:00 --> 00:40:01

Come on, Tom

00:40:04 --> 00:40:23

does attend everything right there controversial because some people would say, No, let's listen to the you know, so we judge according to the BNF. So that, you know, the judgment is transitive not in parens the motor they're not cost. But anyway, acknowledgement.

00:40:28 --> 00:40:37

acknowledgement by tuna would come right here. But yet I would be proof evidence

00:40:38 --> 00:40:43

would come right here. And we talked about a b&m

00:40:45 --> 00:40:49

for witnesses to witnesses

00:40:50 --> 00:40:54

in cold cases aside from for witnesses are needed for sexual crimes

00:40:57 --> 00:41:05

one male plus two female witnesses, one male plus the oath

00:41:12 --> 00:41:13

Anything else?

00:41:14 --> 00:41:16

reviews of the taken oath?

00:41:22 --> 00:41:26

What do you what do you say that this is by no are you would you add it

00:41:27 --> 00:41:28


00:41:30 --> 00:41:41

He would say in his availa because there's proven that the profits are acted on as reviews of the taken Oh, so he said shahida we know who they said okay.

00:41:42 --> 00:41:53

He said you produce your two witnesses or he takes an oath. Here. In fact, none but that. And this was reported by Bukhari say that we need

00:41:54 --> 00:42:44

your two witnesses for his oath, when you claim that something in the position of another person is actually yours, not his produce your evidence, your two witnesses for his O's, you're entitled to nothing other than this, the hanafis will take this, and certainly would like to take this and say, Look, you guys are saying otherwise you guys are saying one witness and his oath. But the Prophet is saying your two witnesses or his oath, you're entitled to nothing other than this, then that dude would say, but they will say the other Hadith where the prophets are judged by one witness and an oath. And sometimes if, you know, we don't know that can tax then we don't know all the details, but

00:42:44 --> 00:42:56

we're trying to figure out to the best of our ability, the intent of the legislator, why did the profit judge Why Why did he say to Hidaka we mean when he did not offer him one

00:42:58 --> 00:43:18

p could have said to him bring me one chair head and take notes for he will take notes He did not say that. So, it is it is not always clear cut although some people would like to see everything as clear cut and if you have exposure to the evidences of your method only

00:43:19 --> 00:43:23

then you will end up being somewhat dogmatic because you will see things as

00:43:25 --> 00:43:26

black and white.

00:43:27 --> 00:43:29

Okay, so the yen

00:43:32 --> 00:43:36

so we said the account we said that the yen and then we should put our VA here

00:43:38 --> 00:43:49

a VA have we put a VA here. Now, to be honest with you, to be honest with you, are we giving the oaths

00:43:51 --> 00:44:08

to the person before we employ a va? No. We're employing the VA the Kareena the corroborate of evidence before giving the oath to the defendant. Therefore refusal to take an oath even though it is at the end of the process of themselves.

00:44:10 --> 00:44:16

But this is not basically the real beginner. So we're having it here.

00:44:17 --> 00:44:19

And record is after the VA

00:44:21 --> 00:44:38

and Nicole reviews have taken office after and then we have Cora Cora and good witches refused to take an oath, the VA hat which is the app which is a parent forum Kareena which has corroborative

00:44:40 --> 00:44:41


00:44:43 --> 00:44:44


00:44:45 --> 00:44:46


00:44:49 --> 00:44:53

Okay, and record reviews of the bigger nose and then we have a corner which is drawing lots

00:44:59 --> 00:44:59


00:45:00 --> 00:45:08

And then we have the I mean, only, sometimes we said it would be they mean.

00:45:10 --> 00:45:19

And keep in mind, I want you to pay attention to this. Whenever we judge by anything short of short of

00:45:21 --> 00:45:21


00:45:23 --> 00:45:26

short of the tuna, we need the mean as well.

00:45:27 --> 00:45:29

When do they mean as well. So if we jump to buy,

00:45:32 --> 00:46:12

before we give it to one of them, we tell him to take take an oath. If we judge you by when we judge abide by no code, you know, someone reviews thinking over the defendant reviews thinking, Oh, if I told you that the position I believe in, which is the weaker position in the matter, is that the oath goes back to that claimant. But stronger position in the mother is not the oath does not go back to the claimant, of course, the habeas where the prophet SAW Sutherland gave the oath back to the claimant is weak, so we're not, but it makes perfect sense. It's just this because if you're going to walk away with taking notes, you know,

00:46:15 --> 00:46:15


00:46:19 --> 00:46:20

So then,

00:46:23 --> 00:46:30

and of course, also, when when they draw lots, it's not that they're going to draw lots and that would decide

00:46:31 --> 00:47:14

they will be an office What? So if you are if your mark comes out, you're not going to walk away with it. Just because your last card came out, you will take the oath, then you won't be entitled to taking the oath then the you know, the Prophet sallallahu sallam, and it was reported by Makati as one Muslim, the Prophet sallallahu sallam, he ordered people to take an oath for Astra fee. So they all rushed to take the oath for Mr. Aeneas Hana, they know. So the prophet SAW Southern Command that they draw lots to determine who takes the oath first. Okay.

00:47:15 --> 00:47:34

So these are all different ways. But you wouldn't find that the burning desire for justice, quite clear here, we're trying to get to the bottom of it. And we're employing everything possible. The idea of the drone launch, this may sound ridiculous to you.

00:47:35 --> 00:47:49

But when, when at the end of the day, we have nothing to go by, nothing to go by. So who should we give it to that guy who's taller or shorter or fatter or slimmer?

00:47:51 --> 00:47:55

Well, there are lots, we have nothing to go by. draw lots.

00:47:58 --> 00:47:58


00:47:59 --> 00:48:10

about a year mean, whenever we're judging by anything short of Vienna, there will be in addition to this, I mean, take the O's and taking those, you know,

00:48:11 --> 00:48:13

Manhattan, meeting,

00:48:14 --> 00:48:15

happy happy.

00:48:21 --> 00:48:35

So whoever takes an oath, the Prophet sallallahu Sallam whatever it takes an oath to take something from his brother. Well, if you have while he is treacherous or lying about it, Allah will

00:48:37 --> 00:48:40

make paradise forbidden for him. And we'll

00:48:42 --> 00:48:45

enter him into the hellfire. So the idea of

00:48:46 --> 00:49:36

you know shattered Zoo Providence Zoo has like genre of Hades about the you know, shattered zoo, false testimony. Turner of it is about cortisone false statement about the mean, in particular, taking an oath, in particular, in which you are lying, to take, you know, something, some of the rights of your brother. So, the judges used to remind people of those hobbies, remind people of the gravity, and sometimes and we have this record that people did walk away and refuse to take the oath after it was right there. They could have taking the property to Sopranos. And when they were reminded, they walked away and did not take the oath. So

00:49:37 --> 00:49:37


00:49:40 --> 00:49:53

one of the things that we talked about the department Vienna and putting the crown against the Vienna and we said that a cloud is a jackass or intransitive or the deficient it will apply only to the mocker the person making the acknowledgement

00:49:55 --> 00:50:00

and if there is a Vienna I would say, let us also listen to the

00:50:00 --> 00:50:15

But you know, if someone make their confession or acknowledgement, let's also listen to the beginner so that we have judged for the claimant not only on the basis of economic, but also on the basis of the Yana so that he has this power

00:50:17 --> 00:50:28

not only against the person who's making the acknowledgement, but against anyone else, then one of the things that are to be discussed here is

00:50:29 --> 00:50:30


00:50:37 --> 00:50:41

one of the things that that we want to discuss here is

00:50:43 --> 00:50:45

our old begging Ax equal

00:50:47 --> 00:50:50

are all being equal. So

00:50:51 --> 00:50:53

one person per brought by no

00:50:55 --> 00:50:58

one person, okay, so one person brought

00:51:01 --> 00:51:02

300 witnesses.

00:51:07 --> 00:51:08

One person brought

00:51:13 --> 00:51:15

seven witnesses.

00:51:18 --> 00:51:21

One person brought two witnesses.

00:51:24 --> 00:51:32

One person brought one witness and his oath, one witness and

00:51:34 --> 00:51:35

one person brought

00:51:36 --> 00:51:40

one made witness to female witnesses.

00:51:42 --> 00:51:46

Are they all equal? Should we move from here to here,

00:51:48 --> 00:51:50

because each one of them has a beginner.

00:51:52 --> 00:52:01

So the person who brought 300 witnesses, and the person who brought one witness and was willing to take his oath

00:52:03 --> 00:52:04

are going to be equal.

00:52:06 --> 00:52:11

Okay. So by default in the hunt Valley must have

00:52:13 --> 00:52:13

called equal

00:52:15 --> 00:52:40

Why? Because this is gonna be another profit consider this as a non profit, consider this a Vienna. So he established what is considered admissible proof. So he established his right to the property or to his claim by an admissible proof. I don't care if you brought if your seven witnesses are Korean Muslim, and I would hold an intermediate and say,

00:52:41 --> 00:52:42

you know, what a mama.

00:52:45 --> 00:52:50

And you're one witness is, whatever.

00:52:54 --> 00:52:55

I don't care.

00:52:58 --> 00:53:11

So that's, that's the equivalent position in the mother. But this will try to talk about this in some detail, because it's important. What one thing that they would all agree on.

00:53:12 --> 00:53:28

And I'm presuming that honeyberries would also agree on this is tomato. So the 300 witnesses coming from different parts of town and from different backgrounds and not related to each other have never seen each other. This establishes what we call

00:53:29 --> 00:53:30

the water.

00:53:31 --> 00:53:37

And this water establishes yuppie norvan certainty or, or preponderance.

00:53:39 --> 00:54:04

And just like in any way, and the employee that rules everyone a lot, and the defense will also say, Shahada is not likely why, and the you know, whoever is invoking the rules of rewire, will always say, Shahada, and somewhat likely why in this particular regard, it should be likely Why are treated likely why the defense would say no Shahada is not likely why, but anyway,

00:54:06 --> 00:54:08

in rewire do we give,

00:54:09 --> 00:54:16

that's also sometimes controversial anyway, like you have a hobby that is reported by seven people than if it is reported by one.

00:54:18 --> 00:54:36

But if the trustworthy and they are trustworthy, then they will disagree over, you know, if they conflict, they'll disagree over we should give preference to the one that is reported by seven, core core three or two or four, versus the one who has

00:54:39 --> 00:54:40


00:54:41 --> 00:54:59

lumbo pelvic range, that he said that the man was walking by the master, and he saw when he was refused to create Facebook groups, and the man yelled into the machine while they went into a pool and said that he's square by law, and he solved the problem that he prayed with the promise of a lump sum

00:55:00 --> 00:55:16

Prophet was praying clagett facing metal, and all of the people turn is one name. But this is anyway, this is not this is this is basically another disputation. This is not something. This is not about disputation. This is about a report copper. And

00:55:18 --> 00:55:29

this is the report of a one trustworthy person. And we act on this we have these are mostly about a hand or singular reports. But the idea here is,

00:55:31 --> 00:55:35

in a nutshell, because this is this will take several

00:55:36 --> 00:55:41

sessions several days to talk about TGF beta,

00:55:42 --> 00:55:45

which is favoring some of the bayonet over others.

00:55:47 --> 00:55:48

Very quickly,

00:55:50 --> 00:55:53

there is this agreement, you will find that

00:55:56 --> 00:55:59

majority wins give

00:56:01 --> 00:56:09

you'll find that the majority will tend to hold the billionaire's equal except in a few cases,

00:56:11 --> 00:56:20

there has removed the water out of the picture because the locker establishes certainty. We're removing this out of the picture, but let us talk about

00:56:25 --> 00:56:34

300 witnesses from different backgrounds and it wouldn't have been impossible for them to collude on false

00:56:35 --> 00:56:44

because it's talking about, you know, seven witnesses versus two that is 30 blood that is favoring based on numbers.

00:56:45 --> 00:56:50

So, what would the majority say here, seven witnesses like to

00:56:54 --> 00:57:03

and keep in mind, we don't have something clearly established from the Prophet sallallahu Sallam therefore, therefore,

00:57:06 --> 00:57:08

it is basically

00:57:11 --> 00:57:13

you know, when there is room

00:57:15 --> 00:57:19

then we will do that which is more

00:57:23 --> 00:57:33

closer to the intent of the legislator and more suitable for our circumstances more suitable for the times there is no clear cut evidence from the province.

00:57:34 --> 00:57:39

We talked to before last time we talked about when two people have a beginner

00:57:41 --> 00:57:50

or they don't have a unit like something that is not possessed by any one of them. And the each one of them has a unit

00:57:52 --> 00:57:55

or none of them have a unit

00:57:56 --> 00:58:00

and we said that in the Hungarian method we we go to Cora

00:58:04 --> 00:58:11

Okay. And then why do we draw lots to determine who will take

00:58:12 --> 00:58:17

and the person who will think those who do take it all for himself? Okay.

00:58:18 --> 00:58:24

Well in the in the in the Hanafi madhhab which is something I would actually favor.

00:58:26 --> 00:58:31

And this is another report that the company might have and that's the beauty of you will always find some report

00:58:33 --> 00:58:33


00:58:35 --> 00:58:39

you know some variant report. So, another important method is that

00:58:40 --> 00:58:43

particularly when they when they both have a unit

00:58:45 --> 00:58:52

and they both have a you know the other important number, which is the happy position is that after if they both have a Vienna

00:58:54 --> 00:58:59

we will split it between them. Each one of them will take an oath and we will split it between them.

00:59:00 --> 00:59:00


00:59:01 --> 00:59:03

within the authorized report and

00:59:04 --> 00:59:11

they will take all of it. The first one who draws the locks will take all of it and walk away.

00:59:14 --> 00:59:32

There are no two reports in the company map about the lack of beginner they will say draw lots, take notes walk away with but when both have a beginner, they will say split each one will take notes, but split and that is

00:59:34 --> 00:59:59

the hanafy position. But they both do not have a Vienna the Hanafi is and some sapphires as well said split it also split it also between them because they both don't have a year. Is it closer to jobs to justice, that we let them draw lots. And whoever whosoever is lot comes out, takes an oath and takes it all for himself.

01:00:00 --> 01:00:03

For closer to justice, to split,

01:00:05 --> 01:00:12

each one will take an oath and if they both took the oath will split. So, here

01:00:14 --> 01:00:18

you have reports from the prophets of Allah, Allah that

01:00:23 --> 01:00:23

many yes

01:00:24 --> 01:00:50

or no human is fine, you have different reports from the prophets all sudden the two men disputed over a beast of burden and the prophets Allah commanded them to draw lots, okay, you have another report that that the prophets have split it between them split between them the value would be sold and then they would split the value

01:00:52 --> 01:01:02

you have here you have more shade chain wise, chain wise the chains are on the very side

01:01:05 --> 01:01:06

to some extent

01:01:08 --> 01:01:11

to the drawing lots will be will be superior.

01:01:13 --> 01:01:13

But the

01:01:17 --> 01:01:28

habit there that is a judgment corroborates the hobbies in which the prophets Allah was reported to have splitted between them have a split between them.

01:01:30 --> 01:01:33

So, you went have basically the

01:01:34 --> 01:01:51

the the textual proofs are to some extent conflicting and unclear and on this size, but then in this case, you employ the principles, the principles, and whatever it is closer to justice,

01:01:52 --> 01:02:20

you will go by whether you believe it is drawing lots or splitting it drawing lots and given one of them that the whole thing is luck came out or splitting it between them and taking an oath for each one of them. So, there is Oh there is this room and you have to use rigidity will make the problem with rigidity that makes me go back and keep on going back to this I will not

01:02:21 --> 01:02:27

basically grow weary of warning against rigidity is that it makes the cherry our

01:02:28 --> 01:02:31

design sustainable inapplicable

01:02:34 --> 01:02:36

and this is a crime against this idea.

01:02:37 --> 01:02:41

But anyway, so but you know, here if

01:02:42 --> 01:02:46

I believe that they should not be all treated equally,

01:02:48 --> 01:03:00

the authorized position and the Hanbury Meza, Bayonetta all treated equally. You bring one man to women, you bring two men, you bring seven men, your brain,

01:03:02 --> 01:03:23

one man and your oath, even that whole should be treated equally. So you you're a beginner, one man and your oath has been a seven trustworthy men of the top tier Bukhari and Muslim and coming for to testify for

01:03:24 --> 01:03:27

you know, are coming to testify.

01:03:29 --> 01:03:29

Doesn't matter.

01:03:31 --> 01:03:32


01:03:33 --> 01:03:52

DML other favoring by numbers homebodies would say no. The other position would say yes, favoring by other that trustworthiness. Combat is in the authorized view? No. But combat is also the other view and many others will say, yes.

01:03:54 --> 01:04:17

30 are favoring by the type of beginner? Well, I favor two main witnesses over one main witness and two female witnesses. Controversial? I don't I honestly and it's not it's not modern, or anything i i think that you know, to mate witnesses should not be stronger than one male and two females.

01:04:19 --> 01:04:21

But I truly believe

01:04:22 --> 01:04:31

and this is the position of the majority, that two main witnesses should be superior to one made witness and your oath.

01:04:33 --> 01:04:41

We're giving you the oath as an exception or condition. We said that the prophet and Buhari said to the man shall we or mean or who they said

01:04:42 --> 01:04:59

your two witnesses or his oath you are entitled to nothing other than this, the fact that the prophets on them, sometimes judged by one witness and the oath. We don't know the exact context that may have been an exception of case. Yes, we will employ

01:05:00 --> 01:05:30

high side with the majority. We were employed, we were employed basically when we don't have anything better to go by. But if someone is bringing you like six witnesses, and someone is bringing you one witness and their oath, to me, it is straightforward. You know, one banner here is stronger than the other. And before we move to other preponderance raters, we will

01:05:31 --> 01:05:34

favor one banner over another.

01:05:42 --> 01:05:42


01:05:50 --> 01:05:54

Is it sort of giving clear,

01:05:55 --> 01:06:11

you know, probably the first thing, that's the master of all evidences, but it is a master of all evidences, again, it's the person making the acknowledge acknowledgement, not other people. But Yana. And Bina

01:06:13 --> 01:06:21

not all being Korean were created equal, but vary among themselves, somebody another stronger than others.

01:06:22 --> 01:06:39

Kareena corroborated evidence, we're seeing how they judge by corroborative evidence, we're seeing how they judge by law. Therefore, the incorporation of tangible proofs, or in the Islamic judiciary is warranted. Forensic Science

01:06:40 --> 01:07:11

is important for the Islamic judiciary. We're saying that a new code, reviews have to take an oath, I believe that if someone if we, if it would come down to taking house, and the defendant refused to take the oath, I believe it should go back to the claimant, and he would walk away. I believe that certainly is a is an excellent way of figuring things out, when we don't have any other thing to go by.

01:07:13 --> 01:07:20

And it is a pure justice. And anytime we're judging by anything short of

01:07:22 --> 01:07:37

the person that we are judging in their favor, would not walk away without taking an oath. If he's going to walk away with this property with this mute with this anything, he will take an oath first before he walks away.

01:07:39 --> 01:07:44

And that brings us to the end of this chapter on conflicting evidences.

01:07:46 --> 01:07:59

And the next one in sha Allah, which we will go over in seven minutes when the lab hook Mickey tabqa the or the chapter on correspondence of judges

01:08:01 --> 01:08:02

haven't suffered

Share Page

Related Episodes