as being the one who makes a right obligatory for himself through it from the outset, unlike the witness for a sick or wounded person regarding wealth, for it is only obligatory for the one testified for, and then it is possible that it may transfer, and possible that it may not transfer; thus, it does not prevent the testimony for him, just like the testimony for his debtor. If it is said: You have permitted the testimony of a debtor for his debtor regarding a wound before it heals, just as you permitted his testimony for him regarding wealth (15)? We say: We only permitted it because the blood money is not obligatory for the witness from the outset; it is only obligatory for the slain person, or his heirs, and then the debtor settles his debt from it, so it resembles the testimony for him (16) regarding wealth. As for the one who defends himself, such as when the one testified against testifies regarding the wounding of the witnesses, or the 'aqilah (agnatic kin) of the one who killed by mistake testifies regarding the wounding of the witnesses who testified against him, due to the act of fending off the blood money from themselves. If the two witnesses regarding the wounding are poor, it is possible that their testimony is accepted because they do not bear any of the blood money, and it is possible that it is not accepted because it is feared they might become wealthy before the year passes, and thus bear it (17). Likewise is the disagreement regarding the distant relative who does not bear (18) due to his distance, for he is not safe from the possibility that whoever is closer than him might die before the year passes, and thus he would bear it. The testimony of a guarantor for the one guaranteed on behalf of regarding the fulfillment of a right or being absolved from it is not accepted. Nor is the testimony of one of the two pre-emptors against the other regarding the dropping of his pre-emption, because he secures the right for himself. Nor [is the testimony of] some of the creditors of the insolvent person against others regarding the dropping of his debt or its fulfillment. Nor [is the testimony of] some of those to whom wealth has been bequeathed against another regarding what invalidates his bequest, if his bequest would result in competing with him; either due to the scarcity of the one-third for both of them, or because the two bequests are for specific objects. This and its like are cases where the testimony is not accepted, because the witness in it is suspect due to what results from his testimony of benefiting himself and fending off harm from himself; thus, he is a witness for himself. Al-Zuhri said: The Sunnah has passed in Islam that the testimony of an adversary and a suspect is not permitted. The suspect (al-zanin) is the one accused. Talha bin Abdullah bin 'Awf reported that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) ruled that there is no testimony for an adversary or a suspect (20). Among those who rejected the testimony of a partner for his partner are Shurayh, al-Nakha'i,