General Rules of Jurisprudence Lesson 33 قاعدة الأقرار The rule of IQRAAR Part one Confession or acknowledgment Two rules The content of the first rule The content of the second rule Source of the 1 st rule: Qur’an, Hadeeth, the logic and the OQALAA

Two rules: Confession or acknowledgment إقرار العقلاء على انفسهم جائز 1 st: “The confession of the intellectuals on themselves is accepted” من ملك شيئا ملك الإقرار به 2 nd :“Who ever owns a thing owns the right to inform about it” The issue was are they both one rule, or the second one is derived from the first one, or they both are different? The third option is correct in our (ERAWANI) opinion, as it will appear inshAllah.

The content of the first rule: إقرار العقلاء على انفسهم جائز 1 st: “The confession of the intellectuals on themselves is accepted” Means that every intellectual if he confesses on a thing which was against his interest and benefit (that is indicated by the word ALA or on or upon), the he will be held committed to his words. The word JAAEZ or accepted does not mean permitted (MOBAAH) but if people they hold it against him, it is accepted in the court and taken seriously. So if he said that the house in which I am living is not mine, and it is for ZAID, he will be held committed to his words, that means legally his words will be used as a testimony against him if he denies it, or there was a case against him. Another example would be if he said I did not give the dowry to my wife, so if she claims the same later, his confess will be held against him. But if he claims that the house in which ZAID lives is not his it his mine, then he will require evidence to prove his claim.

The content of the second rule: من ملك شيئا ملك الإقرار به 2 nd :“Who ever owns a thing owns the right to inform about it” This rule indicates the acceptance of confession of a a specific behavior towards something he owns or he has the right to do so, is taken seriously without any requirement for evidence, for example if a person claims that he has divorced his wife, then that will be taken seriously and his wife will be considered divorced without any requirement for evidence, because he has the right to do so, and he owns such right. If a representative to buy a house (has the right to buy a house on behalf of the owner, claims that he has bought the house, then the word of the representative will be taken seriously without any requirement for evidence. The word who ever owns means owns the control over a thing or a right (SALTANAH), and in this rule it may not be against him, and it focuses on informing about a behavior, in the first it is the confession against him self.

Conclusion: one or two different rules? There are cases where these two rule may overlap and be implemented together on one situation, such as if a person informs about a behavior over something he has control over it and that behavior was against his interest and benefit. Such as if he says: I have given my house to the poor people, so he is informing about his behavior towards his property, and he is also informing about something against his interest (both rules can be implemented) But if he says I have stolen something, here it is only the first rule (confession), because the stolen is not owned by him. But if the owners agent informs him that he has sold his house (with excellent profits) then it should be accepted based on the second rule only, because it is not a confession against him, and it is an information of a bavior.

Source of the 1 st rule: Qur’an وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللّهُ مِيثَاقَ النَّبِيِّيْنَ لَمَا آتَيْتُكُم مِّن كِتَابٍ وَحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَاءكُمْ رَسُولٌ مُّصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِ وَلَتَنصُرُنَّهُ قَالَ أَأَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَخَذْتُمْ عَلَى ذَلِكُمْ إِصْرِي قَالُواْ أَقْرَرْنَا قَالَ فَاشْهَدُواْ وَأَنَاْ مَعَكُم مِّنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ {81} [Shakir 3:81] And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom-- then an messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you. وَآخَرُونَ اعْتَرَفُواْ بِذُنُوبِهِمْ خَلَطُواْ عَمَلاً صَالِحًا وَآخَرَ سَيِّئًا عَسَى اللّهُ أَن يَتُوبَ عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ {102} [Shakir 9:102] And others have confessed their faults, they have mingled a good deed and an evil one; may be Allah will turn to them (mercifully); surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

More verses: وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِن بَنِي آدَمَ مِن ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَى أَنفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتَ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُواْ بَلَى شَهِدْنَا أَن تَقُولُواْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَذَا غَافِلِينَ {172} [Shakir 7:172] And when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their backs, their descendants, and made them bear witness against their own souls: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes! we bear witness. Lest you should say on the day of resurrection: Surely we were heedless of this. أَوْ تَقُولُواْ إِنَّمَا أَشْرَكَ آبَاؤُنَا مِن قَبْلُ وَكُنَّا ذُرِّيَّةً مِّن بَعْدِهِمْ أَفَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ {173} [Shakir 7:173] Or you should say: Only our fathers associated others (with Allah) before, and we were an offspring after them: Wilt Thou then destroy us for what the vain doers did?

More verses: The explicit indication يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاء لِلّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنفُسِكُمْ أَوِ الْوَالِدَيْنِ وَالأَقْرَبِينَ إِن يَكُنْ غَنِيًّا أَوْ فَقَيرًا فَاللّهُ أَوْلَى بِهِمَا فَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ الْهَوَى أَن تَعْدِلُواْ وَإِن تَلْوُواْ أَوْ تُعْرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا {135} [Shakir 4:135] O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do. The three previous verses does not have any clear indication to what we are trying to prove, and this fourth verse indicates directly, that a person should also testify for truth even if that was against his own interests, so if it was obligated on him to testify against himself, then it becomes and obligation to accept his testimony on himself or his confess. But this verse does not prove that what if it was not HAQ or truth what if there was a doubt in his confess, then should it be taken also, this concept is not indicted by this verse.

The famous narration of the Prophet : The Prophet (S): ” إقرار العقلاء على انفسهم جائز “ “The confession of the intellectuals on themselves is accepted” There is no link to this HADEETH, so it is not reliable.

The logical evidence: The intellectual for sure will not lie on himself, especially if there was a loss or harm to him or it was against his interest, so if he confesses then there is no doubt that it gives that assurance to his confession. Problem: It is not necessarily true, because there a possibility that the confessing person might be in error or confusion in his confession, and if he backs of his confession and accepts his mistake in his confession, then the confession is no good.

SEERAH of the OQALA: The only clear evidence is the lifestyle of the intellectuals, which indicates that the intellectuals hold the confessing person to his words, even though if he retreats or backs of his confession. (Law an d enforcement, they use the words of a person against him, that is why they read the rights to a convicted person that any word said by him will be used against him, and he has the right to remain silent).