Ibn ʿAbbās says that after a thirty days’ fast, a table was sent down with seven loaves and seven fishes, and the whole company of disciples ate and were filled ([St. Matt. xv. 34]). The commentators al-Jalālān also give these two explanations, and the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is never once suggested by any Muslim doctor in explanation of the above verses.
EUNUCH. Arabic k͟haṣī (خصى). Although in all parts of the East it is usual for wealthy Muḥammadans to keep an establishment of eunuchs to guard the female members of the household, it has been strictly forbidden by Muḥammad for any of his followers to make themselves such, or to make others. ʿUs̤mān ibn Maz̤ʿūn came to him and said, “O Prophet! permit me to become a eunuch.” But Muḥammad said, “He is not of my people who makes another a eunuch or becomes so himself. The manner in which my people become eunuchs is to exercise fasting.” (Mishkāt, book iv. c. viii.)
EVE. Arabic Ḥawwāʾ (حـــواء). [[ADAM].]
EVIDENCE. Arabic Shahādah (شهادة). The law of evidence is very clearly laid down in all Muḥammadan books of law, especially in the Hidāyah, and the Durru ʾl-Muk͟htār, and it is interesting to observe the difference between the law of evidence as provided for in the law of Moses, and that laid down in Muḥammadan books. In the Pentateuch two witnesses at least were required to establish any charge ([Num. xxxv. 30]), and the witness who withheld the truth was censured ([Lev. v. 1]), whilst slanderous reports and officious witnesses were discouraged ([Ex. xxiii. 1]; [Lev. xix. 16]), and false witnesses were punished with the punishment due to the offence they sought to establish ([Deut. xix. 16]). According to Josephus, women and slaves were not admitted to give evidence. (Ant. iv. c. 8, s. 15.)
The Sunnī law, as explained by the author of the Hidāyah (vol. iii. p. 664), is in many respects the same as the Jewish and is as follows:—
It is the duty of witnesses to bear testimony, and it is not lawful for them to conceal it, when the party concerned demands it from them. Because it is written in the Qurʾān, [Sūrah ii. 282], “Let not witnesses withhold their evidence when it is demanded of them.” And again, “Conceal not your testimony, for whoever conceals his testimony is an offender.”
The requisition of the party is a condition, because the delivery of evidence is the right of the party requiring it, and therefore rests upon his requisition of it, as is the case with respect to all other rights.
In cases inducing corporal punishment, witnesses are at liberty either to give or withhold their testimony as they please; because in such case they are distracted between two laudable actions; namely, the establishment of the punishment, and the preservation of the criminal’s character. The concealment of vice is, moreover, preferable; because the prophet said to a person that had borne testimony, “Verily, it would have been better for you, if you had concealed it”; and also because he elsewhere said, “Whoever conceals the vices of his brother Muslim, shall have a veil drawn over his own crimes in both worlds by God.” Besides, it has been inculcated both by the Prophet and his Companions as commendable to assist in the prevention of corporal punishment; and this is an evident argument for the concealment of such evidence as tends to establish it. It is incumbent, however, in the case of theft, to bear evidence to the property, by testifying that “a certain person took such property,” in order to preserve the right of the proprietor; but the word taken must be used instead of stolen, to the end that the crime may be kept concealed; besides, if the word stolen were used, the thief would be rendered liable to amputation; and as, where amputation is incurred, there is no responsibility for the property, the proprietor’s right would be destroyed.
The evidence required in a case of whoredom is that of four men, as has been ruled in the Qurʾān ([Sūrah xxiv. 3]); and the testimony of a woman in such a case is not admitted; because, az-Zuhrī says, “in the time of the Prophet and his two immediate successors, it was an invariable rule to exclude the evidence of women in all cases inducing punishment or retaliation,” and also because the testimony of women involves a degree of doubt, as it is merely a substitute for evidence, being accepted only where the testimony of men cannot be had; and therefore it is not admitted in any matter liable to drop from the existence of a doubt.
The evidence required in other criminal cases is that of two men, according to the text of the Qurʾān; and the testimony of women is not admitted, on the strength of the tradition of az-Zuhrī above quoted. In all other cases the evidence required is that of two men, or of one man and two women, whether the case relate to property or to other rights, such as marriage, divorce, agency, executorship, or the like. Ash-Shāfiʿī has said that the evidence of one man and two women cannot be admitted, excepting in cases that relate to property, or its dependencies, such as hire, bail, and so forth; because the evidence of women is originally inadmissible on account of their defect of understanding, their want of memory and incapacity of governing, whence it is that their evidence is not admitted in criminal cases.