وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ شِهَابٍ، يُسْأَلُ عَنْ ذَلِكَ، فَقَالَ مِثْلَ مَا قَالَ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ يَسَارٍ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَذَلِكَ الأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا وَذَلِكَ لِقَوْلِ اللَّهِ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى {وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاءَ فَاجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَانِينَ جَلْدَةً وَلاَ تَقْبَلُوا لَهُمْ شَهَادَةً أَبَدًا وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ * إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ تَابُوا مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ وَأَصْلَحُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ}. قَالَ مَالِكٌ فَالأَمْرُ الَّذِي لاَ اخْتِلاَفَ فِيهِ عِنْدَنَا أَنَّ الَّذِي يُجْلَدُ الْحَدَّ ثُمَّ تَابَ وَأَصْلَحَ تَجُوزُ شَهَادَتُهُ وَهُوَ أَحَبُّ مَا سَمِعْتُ إِلَىَّ فِي ذَلِكَ .
Translation Not Available
Book reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 1408
Web reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 1408
قَالَ يَحْيَى قَالَ مَالِكٌ عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَضَى بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ .
Yahya said, "Malik said from Jafar ibn Muhammad from his fatherthat the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,pronounced judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness." Translation Not Available
Book reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 1409
Web reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 5
وَعَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ، أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، كَتَبَ إِلَى عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ زَيْدِ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ وَهُوَ عَامِلٌ عَلَى الْكُوفَةِ أَنِ اقْضِ بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ .
From Malik from Abu'z-Zinad that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz wrote toAbd al-Hamid ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn al-Khattab who was thegovernor of Kufa, "Pronounce judgement on the basis of an oath withone witness." Translation Not Available
Book reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 1410
Web reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 6
وَحَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، أَنَّهُ بَلَغَهُ أَنَّ أَبَا سَلَمَةَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، وَسُلَيْمَانَ بْنَ يَسَارٍ، سُئِلاَ هَلْ يُقْضَى بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ فَقَالاَ نَعَمْ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ مَضَتِ السُّنَّةُ فِي الْقَضَاءِ بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ الْوَاحِدِ يَحْلِفُ صَاحِبُ الْحَقِّ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ وَيَسْتَحِقُّ حَقَّهُ فَإِنْ نَكَلَ وَأَبَى أَنْ يَحْلِفَ أُحْلِفَ الْمَطْلُوبُ فَإِنْ حَلَفَ سَقَطَ عَنْهُ ذَلِكَ الْحَقُّ وَإِنْ أَبَى أَنْ يَحْلِفَ ثَبَتَ عَلَيْهِ الْحَقُّ لِصَاحِبِهِ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَإِنَّمَا يَكُونُ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَمْوَالِ خَاصَّةً وَلاَ يَقَعُ ذَلِكَ فِي شَىْءٍ مِنَ الْحُدُودِ وَلاَ فِي نِكَاحٍ وَلاَ فِي طَلاَقٍ وَلاَ فِي عَتَاقَةٍ وَلاَ فِي سَرِقَةٍ وَلاَ فِي فِرْيَةٍ فَإِنْ قَالَ قَائِلٌ فَإِنَّ الْعَتَاقَةَ مِنَ الأَمْوَالِ . فَقَدْ أَخْطَأَ لَيْسَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى مَا قَالَ وَلَوْ كَانَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى مَا قَالَ لَحَلَفَ الْعَبْدُ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ إِذَا جَاءَ بِشَاهِدٍ أَنَّ سَيِّدَهُ أَعْتَقَهُ وَأَنَّ الْعَبْدَ إِذَا جَاءَ بِشَاهِدٍ عَلَى مَالٍ مِنَ الأَمْوَالِ ادَّعَاهُ حَلَفَ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ وَاسْتَحَقَّ حَقَّهُ كَمَا يَحْلِفُ الْحُرُّ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ فَالسُّنَّةُ عِنْدَنَا أَنَّ الْعَبْدَ إِذَا جَاءَ بِشَاهِدٍ عَلَى عَتَاقَتِهِ اسْتُحْلِفَ سَيِّدُهُ مَا أَعْتَقَهُ وَبَطَلَ ذَلِكَ عَنْهُ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَكَذَلِكَ السُّنَّةُ عِنْدَنَا أَيْضًا فِي الطَّلاَقِ إِذَا جَاءَتِ الْمَرْأَةُ بِشَاهِدٍ أَنَّ زَوْجَهَا طَلَّقَهَا أُحْلِفَ زَوْجُهَا مَا طَلَّقَهَا فَإِذَا حَلَفَ لَمْ يَقَعْ عَلَيْهِ الطَّلاَقُ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ فَسُنَّةُ الطَّلاَقِ وَالْعَتَاقَةِ فِي الشَّاهِدِ الْوَاحِدِ وَاحِدَةٌ إِنَّمَا يَكُونُ الْيَمِينُ عَلَى زَوْجِ الْمَرْأَةِ وَعَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ وَإِنَّمَا الْعَتَاقَةُ حَدٌّ مِنَ الْحُدُودِ لاَ تَجُوزُ فِيهَا شَهَادَةُ النِّسَاءِ لأَنَّهُ إِذَا عَتَقَ الْعَبْدُ ثَبَتَتْ حُرْمَتُهُ وَوَقَعَتْ لَهُ الْحُدُودُ وَوَقَعَتْ عَلَيْهِ وَإِنْ زَنَى وَقَدْ أُحْصِنَ رُجِمَ وَإِنْ قَتَلَ الْعَبْدَ قُتِلَ بِهِ وَثَبَتَ لَهُ الْمِيرَاثُ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ مَنْ يُوَارِثُهُ فَإِنِ احْتَجَّ مُحْتَجٌّ فَقَالَ لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلاً أَعْتَقَ عَبْدَهُ وَجَاءَ رَجُلٌ يَطْلُبُ سَيِّدَ الْعَبْدِ بِدَيْنٍ لَهُ عَلَيْهِ فَشَهِدَ لَهُ عَلَى حَقِّهِ ذَلِكَ رَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ يُثْبِتُ الْحَقَّ عَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ حَتَّى تُرَدَّ بِهِ عَتَاقَتُهُ إِذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ لِسَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ مَالٌ غَيْرُ الْعَبْدِ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يُجِيزَ بِذَلِكَ شَهَادَةَ النِّسَاءِ فِي الْعَتَاقَةِ فَإِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَيْسَ عَلَى مَا قَالَ وَإِنَّمَا مَثَلُ ذَلِكَ الرَّجُلُ يَعْتِقُ عَبْدَهُ ثُمَّ يَأْتِي طَالِبُ الْحَقِّ عَلَى سَيِّدِهِ بِشَاهِدٍ وَاحِدٍ فَيَحْلِفُ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ ثُمَّ يَسْتَحِقُّ حَقَّهُ وَتُرَدُّ بِذَلِكَ عَتَاقَةُ الْعَبْدِ أَوْ يَأْتِي الرَّجُلُ قَدْ كَانَتْ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ مُخَالَطَةٌ وَمُلاَبَسَةٌ فَيَزْعُمُ أَنَّ لَهُ عَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ مَالاً فَيُقَالُ لِسَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ احْلِفْ مَا عَلَيْكَ مَا ادَّعَى فَإِنْ نَكَلَ وَأَبَى أَنْ يَحْلِفَ حُلِّفَ صَاحِبُ الْحَقِّ وَثَبَتَ حَقُّهُ عَلَى سَيِّدِ الْعَبْدِ فَيَكُونُ ذَلِكَ يَرُدُّ عَتَاقَةَ الْعَبْدِ إِذَا ثَبَتَ الْمَالُ عَلَى سَيِّدِهِ . قَالَ وَكَذَلِكَ أَيْضًا الرَّجُلُ يَنْكِحُ الأَمَةَ فَتَكُونُ امْرَأَتَهُ فَيَأْتِي سَيِّدُ الأَمَةِ إِلَى الرَّجُلِ الَّذِي تَزَوَّجَهَا فَيَقُولُ ابْتَعْتَ مِنِّي جَارِيَتِي فُلاَنَةَ أَنْتَ وَفُلاَنٌ بِكَذَا وَكَذَا دِينَارًا . فَيُنْكِرُ ذَلِكَ زَوْجُ الأَمَةِ فَيَأْتِي سَيِّدُ الأَمَةِ بِرَجُلٍ وَامْرَأَتَيْنِ فَيَشْهَدُونَ عَلَى مَا قَالَ فَيَثْبُتُ بَيْعُهُ وَيَحِقُّ حَقُّهُ وَتَحْرُمُ الأَمَةُ عَلَى زَوْجِهَا وَيَكُونُ ذَلِكَ فِرَاقًا بَيْنَهُمَا وَشَهَادَةُ النِّسَاءِ لاَ تَجُوزُ فِي الطَّلاَقِ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَمِنْ ذَلِكَ أَيْضًا الرَّجُلُ يَفْتَرِي عَلَى الرَّجُلِ الْحُرِّ فَيَقَعُ عَلَيْهِ الْحَدُّ فَيَأْتِي رَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ فَيَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ الَّذِي افْتُرِيَ عَلَيْهِ عَبْدٌ مَمْلُوكٌ فَيَضَعُ ذَلِكَ الْحَدَّ عَنِ الْمُفْتَرِي بَعْدَ أَنْ وَقَعَ عَلَيْهِ وَشَهَادَةُ النِّسَاءِ لاَ تَجُوزُ فِي الْفِرْيَةِ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَمِمَّا يُشْبِهُ ذَلِكَ أَيْضًا مِمَّا يَفْتَرِقُ فِيهِ الْقَضَاءُ وَمَا مَضَى مِنَ السُّنَّةِ أَنَّ الْمَرْأَتَيْنِ يَشْهَدَانِ عَلَى اسْتِهْلاَلِ الصَّبِيِّ فَيَجِبُ بِذَلِكَ مِيرَاثُهُ حَتَّى يَرِثَ وَيَكُونُ مَالُهُ لِمَنْ يَرِثُهُ إِنْ مَاتَ الصَّبِيُّ وَلَيْسَ مَعَ الْمَرْأَتَيْنِ اللَّتَيْنِ شَهِدَتَا رَجُلٌ وَلاَ يَمِينٌ وَقَدْ يَكُونُ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَمْوَالِ الْعِظَامِ مِنَ الذَّهَبِ وَالْوَرِقِ وَالرِّبَاعِ وَالْحَوَائِطِ وَالرَّقِيقِ وَمَا سِوَى ذَلِكَ مِنَ الأَمْوَالِ وَلَوْ شَهِدَتِ امْرَأَتَانِ عَلَى دِرْهَمٍ وَاحِدٍ أَوْ أَقَلَّ مِنْ ذَلِكَ أَوْ أَكْثَرَ لَمْ تَقْطَعْ شَهَادَتُهُمَا شَيْئًا وَلَمْ تَجُزْ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَعَهُمَا شَاهِدٌ أَوْ يَمِينٌ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَقُولُ لاَ تَكُونُ الْيَمِينُ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ الْوَاحِدِ . وَيَحْتَجُّ بِقَوْلِ اللَّهِ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى وَقَوْلُهُ الْحَقُّ {وَاسْتَشْهِدُوا شَهِيدَيْنِ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ مِمَّنْ تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاءِ} يَقُولُ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَأْتِ بِرَجُلٍ وَامْرَأَتَيْنِ فَلاَ شَىْءَ لَهُ وَلاَ يُحَلَّفُ مَعَ شَاهِدِهِ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ فَمِنَ الْحُجَّةِ عَلَى مَنْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ الْقَوْلَ أَنْ يُقَالَ لَهُ أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ أَنَّ رَجُلاً ادَّعَى عَلَى رَجُلٍ مَالاً أَلَيْسَ يَحْلِفُ الْمَطْلُوبُ مَا ذَلِكَ الْحَقُّ عَلَيْهِ فَإِنْ حَلَفَ بَطَلَ ذَلِكَ عَنْهُ وَإِنْ نَكَلَ عَنِ الْيَمِينِ حُلِّفَ صَاحِبُ الْحَقِّ إِنَّ حَقَّهُ لَحَقٌّ . وَثَبَتَ حَقُّهُ عَلَى صَاحِبِهِ فَهَذَا مَا لاَ اخْتِلاَفَ فِيهِ عِنْدَ أَحَدٍ مِنَ النَّاسِ وَلاَ بِبَلَدٍ مِنَ الْبُلْدَانِ فَبِأَىِّ شَىْءٍ أَخَذَ هَذَا أَوْ فِي أَىِّ مَوْضِعٍ مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَجَدَهُ فَإِنْ أَقَرَّ بِهَذَا فَلْيُقْرِرْ بِالْيَمِينِ مَعَ الشَّاهِدِ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ ذَلِكَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَأَنَّهُ لَيَكْفِي مِنْ ذَلِكَ مَا مَضَى مِنَ السُّنَّةِ وَلَكِنِ الْمَرْءُ قَدْ يُحِبُّ أَنْ يَعْرِفَ وَجْهَ الصَّوَابِ وَمَوْقِعَ الْحُجَّةِ فَفِي هَذَا بَيَانُ مَا أَشْكَلَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى .
Malik related to me that he heard that Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman and Sulayman ibn Yasar were both asked, "Does one pronouncejudgement on the basis of an oath with one witness?" They both said,"Yes." Malik said, "The precedent of the sunna in judging byan oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath withhis witness, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back andrefuses to take an oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If hetakes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to takean oath, the claim is confirmed against him." Malik said,"This procedure pertains to property cases in particular. It does notoccur in any of the hadd-punishments, nor in marriage, divorce,freeing slaves, theft or slander. If some one says, 'Freeing slavescomes under property,' he has erred. It is not as he said. Had it beenas he said, a slave could take an oath with one witness, if he couldfind one, that his master had freed him. "However, when aslave lays claim to a piece of property, he can take an oath with onewitness and demand his right as the freeman demands his right." Malik said, "The sunna with us is that when a slave bringssomebody who witnesses that he has been set free, his master is madeto take an oath that he has not freed him, and the slave's claim isdropped." Malik said, "The sunna about divorce is also likethat with us. When a woman brings somebody who witnesses that herhusband has divorced her, the husband is made to take an oath that hehas not divorced her. If he takes the oath, the divorce does notproceed . " Malik said, "There is only one sunna of bringinga witness in cases of divorce and freeing a slave. The right to makean oath only belongs to the husband of the woman, and the master ofthe slave. Freeing is a hadd matter, and the testimony of women is notpermitted in it because when a slave is freed, his inviolability isaffirmed and the hadd punishments are applied for and against him. Ifhe commits fornication and he is a muhsan, he is stoned. If he kills aslave, he is killed for it. Inheritance is established for him,between him and whoever inherits from him. If somebody disputes this,arguing that if a man frees his slave and then a man comes to demandfrom the master of the slave payment of a debt, and a man and twowomen testify to his right, that establishes the right against themaster of the slave so that his freeing him is cancelled if he onlyhas the slave as property, inferring by this case that the testimonyof women is permitted in cases of setting free. The case is not as hesuggests (i.e. it is a case of property not freeing). It is like a manwho frees his slave, and then the claimant of a debt comes to themaster and takes an oath with one witness, demanding his right. Bythat, the freeing of the slave would be cancelled. Or else a man comeswho has frequent dealings and transactions with the master of theslave. He claims that he is owed money by the master of the slave.Someone says to the master of the slave, 'Take an oath that you don'towe what he claims'. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, theone making the claim takes an oath and his right against the master ofthe slave is confirmed. That would cancel the freeing of the slave ifit is confirmed that property is owed by the master." Maliksaid, "It is the same case with a man who marries a slave-girl andthen the master of the slave-girl comes to the man who has married herand claims, 'You and so-and-so have bought my slave-girl from me forsuch an amount of dinars. The husband of the slave-girl denies that.The master of the slave-girl brings a man and two women and theytestify to what he has said. The sale is confirmed and his claim isconsidered true. So the slave-girl is haram for her husband and theyhave to separate, even though the testimony of women is not acceptedin divorce." Malik said, "It is also the same case with a manwho accuses a free man, so the hadd falls on him. A man and two womencome and testify that the one accused is a slave. That would removethe hadd from the accused after it had befallen him, even though thetestimony of women is not accepted in accusations involving haddpunishments." Malik said, "Another similar case in whichjudgement appears to go against the precedent of the sunna is that twowomen testify that a child is born alive and so it is necessary forhim to inherit if a situation arises where he is entitled to inherit,and the child's property goes to those who inherit from him, if hedies, and it is not necessary that the two women witnesses should beaccompanied by a man or an oath even though it may involve vastproperties of gold, silver, live-stock, gardens and slaves and otherproperties. However, had two women testified to one dirham or more orless than that in a property case, their testimony would not affectanything and would not be permitted unless there was a witness or anoath with them." Malik said, "There are people who say thatan oath is not acceptable with only one witness and they argue by theword of Allah the Blessed, the Exalted, and His word is the Truth,'And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men,then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of.' (Sura 2ayat 282). Such people argue that if he does not bring one man and twowomen, he has no claim and he is not allowed to take an oath with onewitness." Malik said, "Part of the proof against those whoargue this, is to reply to them, 'Do you think that if a man claimedproperty from a man, the one claimed from would not swear that theclaim was false?' If he swears, the claim against him is dropped. Ifhe refuses to take an oath, the claimant is made to take an oath thathis claim is true, and his right against his companion is established.There is no dispute about this with any of the people nor in anycountry. By what does he take this? In what place in the Book of Allahdoes he find it? So if he confirms this, let him confirm the oath withone witness, even if it is not in the Book of Allah, the Mighty, theMajestic! It is enough that this is the precedent of the sunna.However, man wants to recognise the proper course of action and thelocation of the proof. In this there is a clarification for what isobscure about that, if Allah ta'ala wills." Translation Not Available
Book reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 1411
Web reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 7
قَالَ يَحْيَى قَالَ مَالِكٌ عَنْ جَمِيلِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الْمُؤَذِّنِ، أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَحْضُرُ عُمَرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ وَهُوَ يَقْضِي بَيْنَ النَّاسِ فَإِذَا جَاءَهُ الرَّجُلُ يَدَّعِي عَلَى الرَّجُلِ حَقًّا نَظَرَ فَإِنْ كَانَتْ بَيْنَهُمَا مُخَالَطَةٌ أَوْ مُلاَبَسَةٌ أَحْلَفَ الَّذِي ادُّعِيَ عَلَيْهِ وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ شَىْءٌ مِنْ ذَلِكَ لَمْ يُحَلِّفْهُ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَعَلَى ذَلِكَ الأَمْرُ عِنْدَنَا أَنَّهُ مَنِ ادَّعَى عَلَى رَجُلٍ بِدَعْوَى نُظِرَ فَإِنْ كَانَتْ بَيْنَهُمَا مُخَالَطَةٌ أَوْ مُلاَبَسَةٌ أُحْلِفَ الْمُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ فَإِنْ حَلَفَ بَطَلَ ذَلِكَ الْحَقُّ عَنْهُ وَإِنْ أَبَى أَنْ يَحْلِفَ وَرَدَّ الْيَمِينَ عَلَى الْمُدَّعِي فَحَلَفَ طَالِبُ الْحَقِّ أَخَذَ حَقَّهُ .
Yahya said, "Malik said about Jamil ibn Abd ar-Rahman al-Muadhdinthat he was present with Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz when he was judgingbetween people. If a man came to him with a claim against a man, heexamined whether or not there were frequent transactions and dealingsbetween them. If there were, the defendant could make an oath. Ifthere was nothing of that nature he did not accept an oath from him." Malik summed up, "What is done in our community is that ifsome one makes a claim against a man, it is examined. If there arefrequent transactions and dealings between them, the defendant is madeto take an oath. If he takes an oath, the claim against him isdropped. If the defendant refuses to take an oath, and returns theoath to the claimant, the one claiming his right takes an oath andtakes his due." Translation Not Available
Book reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 1412
Web reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 8
قَالَ يَحْيَى قَالَ مَالِكٌ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ، كَانَ يَقْضِي بِشَهَادَةِ الصِّبْيَانِ فِيمَا بَيْنَهُمْ مِنَ الْجِرَاحِ . قَالَ مَالِكٌ الأَمْرُ الْمُجْتَمَعُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنَا أَنَّ شَهَادَةَ الصِّبْيَانِ تَجُوزُ فِيمَا بَيْنَهُمْ مِنَ الْجِرَاحِ وَلاَ تَجُوزُ عَلَى غَيْرِهِمْ وَإِنَّمَا تَجُوزُ شَهَادَتُهُمْ فِيمَا بَيْنَهُمْ مِنَ الْجِرَاحِ وَحْدَهَا لاَ تَجُوزُ فِي غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ إِذَا كَانَ ذَلِكَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَتَفَرَّقُوا أَوْ يُخَبَّبُوا أَوْ يُعَلَّمُوا فَإِنِ افْتَرَقُوا فَلاَ شَهَادَةَ لَهُمْ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكُونُوا قَدْ أَشْهَدُوا الْعُدُولَ عَلَى شَهَادَتِهِمْ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَفْتَرِقُوا .
Yahya said, "Malik said from Hisham ibn Urwa that Abdullah ibnaz-Zubayr gave judgment based on the testimony of children concerningthe injuries between them." Malik said, "The generally agreedon way of doing things in our community is that the testimony ofchildren is permitted concerning injuries between them. It is notaccepted about anything else. It is only permitted between them ifthey testify before they leave the scene of the incident and have beendeceived or instructed. If they leave the scene, they have notestimony unless they call just witnesses to witness their testimonybefore they leave." Translation Not Available
Book reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 1413
Web reference: Muwatta Imam Malik Book 36 Hadith no 9
