Channel: Hatem al-Haj
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
I'm about to proceed, how chapter on those whose testimony is rejected in
which is very primer
said under bad mantra do that to whom not to Sabine whereas at
Casa Catherine, what a second what a
testimony is not accepted from the child of the mentally incompetent the mute the unbeliever, the facet, or one who has heart condition in terms of credibility is unknown.
as much to unpack here,
we will talk about these issues in some detail. testimony is not accepted from the child. So, you have to be an adult, for your testimony to be accepted. And that's my agreement, the proud of the acknowledgement of the child when, with regard to the transactions that they are allowed to partake and is accepted. The acknowledgement of that child with regard to transactions they are allowed to partake in is accepted, is endure here, kid to the grocery store to buy something, your kid is 10 years old, discerning, not an adult, but discerning child, you permitted them to purchase something, that acknowledgment of this transaction will be accepted. But the testimony of the child is not
accepted even if the child is,
you know, the best of you know, it's just keep in mind, you can have like a 12 year old that is much more trustworthy than a 20 year old or a 16 year old and more pure bomber, but we're establishing standards here. And the standards have to apply across the board, because it is impossible to customize and tailor for every particular scenario or circumstance.
One is at
Know I'm sorry, the the mentally incompetent or the mentally incompetent, except when they are mentally competent because some people
have, they are in and out. And if they're in and out when they are competent mentally, that testimony won't be accepted. In the wild, they are competent.
What are for us the mute the mute testimony was not not be accepted. But there's some detail to this. If he writes, we will accept his testimony.
But we will not accept sign language in testimony. We will not accept sign language and system morning we will accept handwritten ham bellies
the unbeliever What are fast, the faster because the wretched who are the wicked person who commits sin without any sense of remorse or piety.
That's the first step
it does not have any is not conscious of God at all
over one, so, what is the so if you flip this and we talk about conditions not hindrances, flip it. So what is the first condition below? puberty? Or like majority majority? He flipped a second what is it sanity? He flipped the third with a candlin capable of speech he flipped the fourth Catherine facet together flipped them
which means what? trustworthy
what would have happened or one who was conditioned in terms of credibility is unknown.
Certainly you could flip the capital alone as Islam and flip the faster can met who the hell has had to say Islamorada and make two out of them. Or you say Nadella includes in Islam, and he may come
One out. So now we have majority, we have
sanity, being able to speak Islam
and have have the means what?
accuracy, competence, competence in the sense of, you're able to recall accurately.
Then he talks about other hindrances from accepting your Shahada. He says what I dabble in EDA and I've seen enough on what that
likewise it is not accepted from someone who will benefit himself or repair harm from it benefit himself or repel harm from it
benefit himself or if I, you know, they give an example, it's like a weird example, but if someone who owns a person from whom I would inheritance
and that person becomes sick, they may die from the wound, I cannot testify in this case, because eventually when they die, I will be entitled to that their
blood money. So, I have conflict of interest here. So, I cannot testify in this case. So, we will just have to make sure there is no conflict of interest what Jared and Ilan FC in Africa, like why it's not accepted from someone who would benefit himself or a peon harm from it.
Well as I have to add it in what in the what are the what I wanted in legality?
Wanna say it in the app T one v. One as to whom Allah who was dangerous or heavy.
Okay. So he says here, the parent However, many generations removed for the child, his shadow will not be accepted. The child for the parent not accepted the master for his or her own slave or more Khatib or more Khattab contracted slave, for their testimony for him or her.
one spouse for the other. All of this is not accepted. We said in the previous chapter, your testimony for your brother or friend would be accepted, not your ancestors, not your descendants, not your spouse's, not
your mouth, whether it is the master or the slave for each other.
Okay, for and against, you could testify against your relatives,
but you cannot testify for them. You can testify for your enemy, but you cannot testify against your enemy. So the Prophet sallallahu Sallam said,
and that's how he was reported by the lab and
talk about how to have the two
And here he talks about male or female
for the Shahada
Porter, why don't I have an invite?
Or come on?
So the testimony led up but will not be accepted. She had a testimony
in one of our
tractors, male or female.
Yeah. What are the Xamarin one with animosity,
one with animosity
against against his brother,
or the servant or the sort of someone who has, you know, could be your lawyer could be your servant, it could be just
the servant for the house, the people of the household, and the entire household.
His Shahada will not be accepted for them. Here it says against them. So if you have animosity,
here's how that will not be accepted against your enemy. If you are
Servant or piano like the father and the child,
the spouse and the other spouse, your Shahada will be accepted
against them, but not for them. If you come and testify against your father, we will accept your Shahada. If you come and testify for your father or your child, we will not accept. If you come and testify against your enemy, we will not accept. If you come into the fight for your enemy, we will accept
that's personal enmity, not religious enmity, by the way.
When it says here,
when asked how that was a female CEO, and he will work here the female who are keen on fee
or the testimony of the Guardian, about that which he which is under their custody, the agent about that which is within his power of attorney,
what I've said he want to set up my machete confy or the current partner about the partnership.
Why don't we had our other way
Moreover, the testimony of enemies against each other is not accepted.
One more often because it will account for the nor that of one who's known for frequent errors and oversights. As I said that have competency is condition.
One amandla, Maru Allahu
wa, medulla, at low caste, so karate Cassiopeia karate here, another ENFP, her mom. And
finally, testimony is not accepted. For one who has no moral
high translating rumors, integrity and rumor comes from humanity By the way,
I translated as integrity because that's what it means here.
Like the one who acts foolishly, causing himself to be mocked,
tells jokes all the time they say the one who exposes his private parts in public and the like.
Not only that, but keep in mind that our data and our data is what comes from largely means what fair just but in this regard, it would mean what a pride
that comes from fairness and justice, fairness and justice comes from what
in order to align the two equal to equal like slides from that, that come down from the
when you have like, what is it called, I forgot that
when you put something on top of your beast of burden
to carry stuff in it sculpted the headline
What is it called, you know,
when you put something on top of a mute or a horse to carry stuff in the pockets, the two pockets on both sides, I guess are called that because of their equality, you know, so, it has, so justice and equality are intertwined that word has to do with justice and equality are intertwined in the same word. So that comes from all of this. So is more attended via Hawaii, it has to do with straightness and uprightness, and it has to do with justice and fairness. But when they take give you the technical definition of raw data, it goes beyond this. And they say that this data which is uprightness
is two parts. One part has to do with Salah had Dean
that's not Dean who would agree to that, but he uprightness in the religion
and the other part has to do with Salaam Salaam and Carmen Maru. So in Adana, in the Hanbury method has two parts, Salah had Dean
or uprightness, and uprightness in the religion, uprightness
and the other one is
salamah min fo Rm
So, how do you
how do you define this? is basically integrity.
integrity as a salon owner in Harlem and co animate howden means compromise the things that compromise Marula is integrity. Salama has to be free or clear of the things that would compromise your integrity. So at the end of the day integrity Okay, now Salahuddin is two parts one part is
and the other part is talkin haram
or unfounded target Mohamed Salah is what can performance commitments to obligations
here fulfillment of obligations torquing is abandonment of harm
founded for roads 100 found that for roads they will add something called
you know that you should not abandon
few abandoned sooner robotic completely like you don't pray as soon as the routine centers if you completely abandoned center they will not accept your testimony. Because he you are not careful about your the
you're just running on like the edge. So doing the fara ad, but you're not giving yourself any cushion.
So you're not being careful. So that that's part of our data. But anyway, said I'm gonna call them and motto which is integrity.
What does that mean?
2 million things.
That is why remember me or him Allah say that frequently worked in the hospital.
Because sometimes wonderful could have become too technical. It can result and he was
I don't want to say I want to use a good word not obsessed. But like a good word like this. He was obsessed with making the Sharia functional, sustainable
in all times, so whenever he sees excessiveness, he tries to attack that. So the idea of not accepting women's testimony, for instance, as we said, when it's something that happens among them, he finds this to be
a threat to the sustainability of the city on
accounts, like being excessive in the requirements of
that when the threat to the sustainability of the Sharia. So, if, okay, so, for instance, the cranberries would say,
if you lean
way where you're sitting and you lean like this, and then you're basically, you're not on the same level of any everyone else that said, you're done.
You're just the one who will not be accepted. So like, we're all sitting and you lean like this. So
you're now at the same level of everyone else.
If you stretch out your legs, you're done.
If you go with your head uncovered, you're done.
If you eat in the market, except to like one bite or something, but if you eat in the market, you're done. If you sit in the streets, you're done. If you uncover something that would be unexpected for you to uncover, that is not your outer.
But let's say I come here with shorts down to the knees. Done. That's an unexpected.
I come with wearing a Hawaiian shirt. Done.
I make jokes too often in done,
someone who would accept to be slapped like this, if you if you accept someone to slap you like this done.
And we can go on and on and about, you know the things that will compromise your integrity
as a person of Moodle,
these, all of these things will compromise your integrity. Now, they make it a point to say,
not what people of affluence consider to be
considered to be compromising of integrity, such as carrying your child, for instance, or carrying food for your family. That actually was how,
you know, it's this person thing, but my father would have never been caught carrying a shopping bag, because he was like in the Army during the time of King Pharaoh. And if you were seeing carrying a shopping bag, you were actually fired from the army, because it is
become an army officer, particularly during the Royal
era, to be seen industry carrying a shopping bag.
So in the Hanbury method, they make it a point, they say, no, that does not compromise your integrity. That's what people of affluence and higher socioeconomic status, consider to compromise the integrity. These are things that Sahaba used to do regularly. It does not compromise your integrity.
But the things that would compromise your integrity are the things that would be considered the knee or unbecoming can be fitting for a person of
complete integrity, religious integrity
would not be doing they make it a point also to make distinctions between different people because it has different circumstances. They make it a point to say that, that you are having a lowly profession, nobody in what sense.
And people's because there is nobody professional Islam as long as but in people's
perception of your profession.
If you are a sweeper, for instance, or if you are a janitor or something like this,
they say that this is not does not compromise your integrity. But the same thing that you may be allowed to do as a janitor, like let's say you got higher than you sat in the street.
If you are a scholar, and you did the same thing that will compromise your integrity.
So they also make room for you know, your circumstances and your social standing. And what compromises the integrity of someone may not be compromising the integrity of another one. And they haven't they made him a whole lot had that huge factor of times or different times change. Whatever applies to one time does not apply to another time. And the whole issue of our data is all too time dependent. Because if you apply the same standards nowaday nowadays, and someone who does not who abandons the sun, and he is praying the five daily prayers in the masjid, but he's not doing the Senate. If you exclude those from testifying,
who are you gonna have,
you know, 2% of the population. So you're only having 2% capable of testifying and the court. Does that. Is that a threat to the sustainability of Sharia it is, so he said, times are different and this has to be times have to be factored in. You're not even on the Xabi for instance, and they they talk about, if you if you do something that is wrong,
based on tech weed, that does not
hurt your data. If you follow, they mentioned this because this would be would have been a big thing for them. During those times, Middle Ages, particularly between the honeyberries and shaeffer is you know, just
The Japanese would allow you to play chess, unless you're accusing money and like you're bidding money in the
course of the game, or you are, it's keeping distracting you from your obligations or something like this, that combat is prohibited prohibited period. So what if you play chess?
They will tell you if you believe it's Haram, then it will compromise your other. If you follow the shaft is then it will not compromise your either although they will.
They will be upset, but they will not compromise your data even for a family judge. You know, the amendment shall be used to play chess and public just so that he can disqualify himself from being selected, solicited or adapt for judging. Because it was the family that had jobs and to work as a judge for a judge was, you know, a nightmare. So what he decided to do is he would sit in public and play chess so that he would be disqualified.
Anyway, the chairman says, woman say that she had a new term of a Barbie heard that.
If someone testifies, but is suspected of lying about part of it, then his or her entire testimony will be rejected. When I asked my friend Jackie, what do you want to hear in Lhasa tonight, to determine the trustworthiness of a person or have a hover over translation, the testimony of two people that is required or that are that are what are the Kadima? If there are conflicting testimonies, the one has certain untrustworthiness will be favored. Why? Because he you know, people usually you can see their problems, can see their issues, so that those who are testifying that he is untrustworthy, must have access or knowledge of something that would
make them testify.
Now, some people really like use this like haphazardly to say that we're all we will always favor
that is in the court and you have two witnesses and it was explained to them. What are the things that will
make it disqualify you from testifying? This is different from people trying to disqualify
you know, scholars and their eyes and so on, on the basis of favoring judge over tardy or favoring the disqualifying testimony.
When the SEC says we're inside the shiny, don't be unfinished, or be unfeigned. Inside this item, will be afraid to be unfinished Hello from us at
Inner Harbor in Colorado alfen, mentor, Denver, Canada affirming semimobile and lantech mode.
If one witness testifies that someone is entitled to 1000 units of currency and another testifies that it is 2000, then 1000 will be awarded. If he likes he may take an oath along with the testimony of the other witness concerning the other 1000. If one of them says the 1000 was alone, but the other says it was the price of assault commodity, then the testimony is not conclusive. He is pointing to a large area of the law, which is when can you combine the two testimonies if there are two variants, testimonies to variant testimonies? when can they corroborate each other? And when they may not corroborate each other? He's given you two example. One, they they would corroborate
each other, you say, you know, hi, you know, that hat, whose share new $2,000
had emotion $2,000 someone else comes and says I know how to pose sharing $1,000 they agreed on 1000 1000 would be a word that they disagreed over 1000 because there could be many reasons why someone may recollect that, you know, I could have it could have meant community we could have you know I borrowed 1000 and then another 1000 and then I had made 2000 front of someone 1000 in front of another one, etc. So can we bring these to testimony
Nice together and at least established 1000 years. What about the other 1000? I have only one witness for him. Can I take an oath? Yes, I wouldn't be able to take an oath and get the other 1000 if I take those. So what if someone comes and says, Yeah, hi testify that hadn't borrowed 1000 from Sharon. I testified that Sharon was sold his laptop to Hatton for 1000. Those two testimonies will not corroborate each other. We will not they will not corroborate each other because they mentioned in two different reasons of entitlement. You know, is it a sailor or alone, then, quaver. Xena, I will say that Nana ncwa, Tara fulfill McCann has a man, our suffered and tekmoto had four people
testify to fornication, or two witnesses testify to something else, yet they disagree over the location, time or description of the offense, their testimony is not conclusive. That is why they get interrogated a lot by the judge. They have to describe everything and inconsistency basically can be shown
between them, then their testimony will not be accepted. And this brings us to the end of this chapter. I'm sorry for going over time. I usually don't
have an answer for it when I can. We'll start the q&a session right away and go on for 25 to 30 minutes in Sharma.