and the one who was highway-robbed against the highway robber, the heir of the murdered person against the murderer, the wounded person against the one who wounded him, and the husband who testifies against his wife for adultery; his testimony is not accepted because he confesses to having enmity towards her (4) due to her ruining his bed. As for enmity in religion, such as a Muslim testifying against a disbeliever, or a righteous person from among the People of Sunnah testifying against an innovator (5), his testimony is not rejected because integrity (adalah) is defined by religion, and religion prevents him from committing what is forbidden by his religion. Abu Hanifah said: Enmity does not prevent testimony because it does not invalidate integrity, so it does not prevent testimony, just like friendship. Our argument is what was narrated by 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, who said: The Messenger of God (peace and blessings of God be upon him) said: "The testimony of a male or female traitor, nor a male or female adulterer, nor one who bears malice against his brother is not permissible." Narrated by Abu Dawud (6). Al-Ghimr is: resentment. This is because enmity breeds suspicion, so it prevents testimony, like close kinship, and it differs from friendship. For in a friend's testimony for his friend by perjury, there is benefit to someone else through harm to himself and the selling of his afterlife for the sake of someone else's worldly life. But the testimony of an enemy against his enemy is intended for his own benefit by taking revenge on his enemy, so they are distinct. If it is said: Why then did you accept the testimony of Muslims against disbelievers despite the enmity? We say: The enmity here is religious, and religion does not require perjury, nor does it require one to abandon his religion in accordance with the demands of his religion.

Section: If one testifies against a man regarding a right, and the one testified against accuses him of false accusation (qadhf), his testimony is not rejected because of that. Because if we invalidated his testimony due to this, every person testified against would be able to invalidate the witness's testimony by accusing him of false accusation. This is different from the case where immorality (fisq) occurs after the testimony is rendered but before the verdict, for rejecting the testimony in that case does not lead to that, but rather to the opposite. And because the emergence of immorality creates suspicion regarding the time of rendering the testimony, as it is customary for one to conceal it, so its appearance after rendering the testimony indicates that he was concealing it at the time of rendering it. Here, however, the enmity occurred due to an issue for which there is no suspicion upon the witness (7). As for litigation in financial matters, it is not an enmity that prevents testimony in matters other than what is being litigated. As for his statement: "nor one who draws benefit to himself," [the one who draws benefit to himself] (8) is