Man Lā Yaḥḍuruh al-Faqīh

رُوِيَ عَنْ يَاسِينَ اَلضَّرِيرِ عَنْ عَبْدِ اَلرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِلشَّيْخِ يَعْنِي مُوسَى بْنَ جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِمَا اَلسَّلاَمُ أَخْبِرْنِي عَنِ اَلرَّجُلِ يَدَّعِي قِبَلَ اَلرَّجُلِ اَلْحَقَّ فَلاَ يَكُونُ لَهُ بَيِّنَةٌ بِمَا لَهُ قَالَ "فَيَمِينُ اَلْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ فَإِنْ حَلَفَ فَلاَ حَقَّ لَهُ، وَ إِنْ رَدَّ اَلْيَمِينَ عَلَى اَلْمُدَّعِي فَلَمْ يَحْلِفْ فَلاَ حَقَّ لَهُ فَإِنْ كَانَ اَلْمَطْلُوبُ بِالْحَقِّ قَدْ مَاتَ وَ أُقِيمَتْ عَلَيْهِ اَلْبَيِّنَةُ فَعَلَى اَلْمُدَّعِي اَلْيَمِينُ بِاللَّهِ اَلَّذِي لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ لَقَدْ مَاتَ فُلاَنٌ وَ إِنَّ حَقَّهُ لَعَلَيْهِ فَإِنْ حَلَفَ وَ إِلاَّ فَلاَ حَقَّ لَهُ لِأَنَّا لاَ نَدْرِي لَعَلَّهُ قَدْ أَوْفَاهُ بِبَيِّنَةٍ لاَ نَعْلَمُ مَوْضِعَهُمْ أَوْ بِغَيْرِ بَيِّنَةٍ قَبْلَ اَلْمَوْتِ فَمِنْ ثَمَّ صَارَتْ عَلَيْهِ اَلْيَمِينُ مَعَ اَلْبَيِّنَةِ وَ إِنِ اِدَّعَى بِلاَ بَيِّنَةٍ فَلاَ حَقَّ لَهُ لِأَنَّ اَلْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ لَيْسَ بِحَيٍّ وَ لَوْ كَانَ حَيّاً لَأُلْزِمَ اَلْيَمِينَ أَوِ اَلْحَقَّ أَوْ يَرُدُّ اَلْيَمِينَ فَمِنْ ثَمَّ لَمْ يَثْبُتْ لَهُ حَقٌّ".

It is narrated from Yasin Al-Dareer, from Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Abdullah, who said: I asked the Sheikh, meaning Imam Musa ibn Jafar Al-Kadhim (a.s), "Inform me about a man who claims a right against another man but has no evidence to prove his claim." Imam (a.s) said: "The defendant must take an oath. If he swears, then the claimant has no right. However, if the defendant refers the oath back to the claimant and the claimant refuses to swear, then he has no right either. If the person against whom the claim is made has died and evidence is presented against him, the claimant must take an oath by Allah (swt), there is no God but He (swt), that the deceased owed him the claimed right. If he swears, the claim is valid; otherwise, he has no right. This is because we do not know-perhaps the deceased settled the debt through evidence unknown to us or without evidence before his death. Therefore, an oath along with the evidence is required. If the claimant makes a claim without evidence, he has no right because the defendant is not alive. Had the defendant been alive, he would have been required to either take an oath, acknowledge the claim, or refer the oath back. Hence, no right is established for the claimant."

رَوَى شُعَيْبٌ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ أَنَّهُ ذَكَرَ: "أَنَّ عَلِيّاً عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ أَتَاهُ قَوْمٌ يَخْتَصِمُونَ فِي بَغْلَةٍ فَقَامَتِ اَلْبَيِّنَةُ لِهَؤُلاَءِ أَنَّهُمْ أَنْتَجُوهَا عَلَى مِذْوَدِهِمْ لَمْ يَبِيعُوا وَ لَمْ يَهَبُوا وَ قَامَتِ اَلْبَيِّنَةُ لِهَؤُلاَءِ أَنَّهُمْ أَنْتَجُوهَا عَلَى مِذْوَدِهِمْ لَمْ يَبِيعُوا وَ لَمْ يَهَبُوا فَقَضَى عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ بِهَا لِأَكْثَرِهِمْ بَيِّنَةً وَ اِسْتَحْلَفَهُمْ ".

It is narrated by Shu'ayb from Abu Basir, from Abu Abdullah (a.s), that he mentioned: A group of people came to Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s), disputing ownership of a mule. Both parties presented evidence. One group claimed that they had raised it at their feeding trough, had neither sold it nor gifted it, and provided witnesses to support their claim. The other group also claimed that they had raised it at their feeding trough, had neither sold it nor gifted it, and provided their own witnesses. Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s) ruled in favor of the group that had a greater number of witnesses and required them to take an oath to support their claim.

قَالَ أَبُو بَصِيرٍ: وَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ عَنِ اَلرَّجُلِ يَأْتِي اَلْقَوْمَ فَيَدَّعِي دَاراً فِي أَيْدِيهِمْ وَ يُقِيمُ اَلْبَيِّنَةَ وَ يُقِيمُ اَلَّذِي فِي يَدِهِ اَلدَّارُ اَلْبَيِّنَةَ أَنَّهَا وَرِثَهَا عَنْ أَبِيهِ وَ لاَ يَدْرِي كَيْفَ أَمْرُهَا فَقَالَ "أَكْثَرُهُمْ بَيِّنَةً يُسْتَحْلَفُ وَ تُدْفَعُ إِلَيْهِ".

Abu Basir narrated that he asked Abu Abdullah (a.s), about a man who comes to a group of people and claims ownership of a house in their possession. He provides evidence, and the one in possession of the house also provides evidence that he inherited it from his father but does not know its exact history. Abu Abdullah (a.s), replied: "The one with more evidence is required to take an oath, and the house is given to him."

قَالَ مُصَنِّفُ هَذَا الْكِتَابِ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ لَوْ قَالَ الَّذِي فِي يَدِهِ الدَّارُ أَنَّهَا لِي وَ هِيَ مِلْكِي وَ أَقَامَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ بَيِّنَةً وَ أَقَامَ الْمُدَّعِي عَلَى دَعْوَاهُ بَيِّنَةً كَانَ الْحَقُّ أَنْ يُحْكَمَ بِهَا لِلْمُدَّعِي لِأَنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ إِنَّمَا أَوْجَبَ الْبَيِّنَةَ عَلَى الْمُدَّعِي وَ لَمْ يُوجِبْهَا عَلَى الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ وَ لَكِنَّ هَذَا الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ ذَكَرَ أَنَّهُ وَرِثَهَا عَنْ أَبِيهِ وَ لَا يَدْرِي كَيْفَ أَمْرُهَا فَلِهَذَا أَوْجَبَ الْحُكْمَ بِاسْتِحْلَافِ أَكْثَرِهِمْ بَيِّنَةً وَ دَفْعِ الدَّارِ إِلَيْهِ وَ لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلًا ادَّعَى عَلَى رَجُلٍ عَقَاراً أَوْ حَيَوَاناً أَوْ غَيْرَهُ وَ أَقَامَ شَاهِدَيْنِ وَ أَقَامَ الَّذِي فِي يَدِهِ شَاهِدَيْنِ وَ اسْتَوَى الشُّهُودُ فِي الْعَدَالَةِ لَكَانَ الْحُكْمُ أَنْ يُخْرَجَ الشَّيْءُ مِنْ يَدَيْ مَالِكِهِ إِلَى الْمُدَّعِي لِأَنَّ الْبَيِّنَةَ عَلَيْهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنِ الشَّيْءُ فِي يَدَيْ أَحَدٍ وَ ادَّعَى فِيهِ الْخَصْمَانِ جَمِيعاً فَكُلُّ مَنْ أَقَامَ الْبَيِّنَةَ فَهُوَ أَحَقُّ بِهِ فَإِنْ أَقَامَ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا الْبَيِّنَةَ فَإِنَّ أَحَقَّ الْمُدَّعِيَيْنِ مَنْ عُدِّلَ شَاهِدَاهُ فَإِنِ اسْتَوَى الشُّهُودُ فِي الْعَدَالَةِ فَأَكْثَرُهُمَا شُهُوداً يَحْلِفُ بِاللَّهِ وَ يُدْفَعُ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْءُ هَكَذَا ذَكَرَهُ أَبِي رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فِي رِسَالَتِهِ إِلَيَّ.

The compiler of this book, may Allah (swt) have mercy on him, commented: If the one in possession of the house claims it as his property and provides evidence, and the claimant also provides evidence for his claim, the correct ruling is that the house should be awarded to the claimant. This is because Allah (swt), the Exalted, has made it obligatory for the claimant to produce evidence, not for the one in possession. However, in this case, the possessor stated that he inherited the house from his father and is unaware of its exact legal status. Therefore, the ruling requires the one with stronger evidence to take an oath and have the property awarded to him. If a person claims real estate, an animal, or other property, and provides two witnesses, and the possessor also provides two witnesses of equal credibility, the ruling is that the property should be transferred from the possessor to the claimant because the evidence rests upon the claimant. If the property is not in the possession of either party and both claim it, then the one who presents evidence is entitled to it. If both present evidence, the one whose witnesses are deemed more credible is entitled to it. If the witnesses are equally credible, then the one with more witnesses must take an oath, and the property is awarded to him. This explanation was mentioned by my father, may Allah (swt) be pleased with him, in his letter to me.