and he acted upon his gesture in prayer. If a speaking person were to testify through gestures and signs, it would not be valid by consensus. Thus, it is known that testimony differs from other legal rulings.

1896 - Issue: He said: "The testimony of parents, however high the line of ascent, for a child, however low the line of descent, is not permissible, nor is the testimony of a child, however low the line of descent, for them, however high the line of ascent."

The manifest view of the school (Madhhab) is that the testimony of a father for his child is not accepted, nor for his grandchild, however low the descent, and this applies equally to the children of sons and the children of daughters. The testimony of a child for his father, or his mother, or his grandfather, or his grandmother from the side of the father or the mother is not accepted, however high the ascent, and this applies equally to fathers, mothers, and their respective fathers and mothers. Shurayh, al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, al-Nakha'i (1), Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu 'Ubayd, and the scholars of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) held this view. A second narration is reported from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, that the testimony of a son for his father is accepted, but the testimony of a father for him is not accepted; because the wealth (2) of the son is legally in the status of the wealth of the father, for he has the right to take possession of it whenever he wishes, so his testimony for him is testimony for himself, or he brings benefit to himself through it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "You and your wealth belong to your father" (3). He also said: "The best of what a man eats is from his own earnings, and your children are among the best of your earnings, so eat from their wealth" (4). This is not present in the testimony of a son for his father. There is a third narration from him that the testimony of each one of them for the other is accepted in matters where there is no suspicion, such as marriage, divorce, retaliation (qisas), and wealth if it is a matter in which he is not dependent; because each of them does not benefit from what is established for the other in those matters, so there is no suspicion in his case. It was reported from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, that the testimony of each of them for the other is acceptable. This was also reported from Shurayh (5). 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, Abu Thawr, al-Muzani, Dawud, Ishaq, and Ibn al-Mundhir held this view, based on the generality of the verses, and because he is a person of probity ('adl) whose testimony is accepted in other than this instance, so his testimony is accepted here, like a stranger. Our evidence is what was narrated by