harm. If he confirms the latter two alone, the testimony of all is invalidated, because the first two had their testimony invalidated by his denial of them, and by his retraction of what they had testified for him. The latter two's testimony is not accepted because they are enemies of the first two, and because they are warding off harm from themselves. If he confirms everyone, their testimony is also invalidated, because by confirming the first two, he is denying the latter two, and his confirmation of the latter two is a denial of the first two; and they are both suspect for the reasons we mentioned. If it is said: How (31) is this issue conceived, when testimony only occurs after a claim? How can we conceive the premise of confirming and denying them? We say: It is conceivable that they bear witness before a claim, if the guardian does not know who killed him. That is why it was narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that he said: "The best of witnesses is he who brings his testimony before he is asked for it." (32) This is the meaning of that.