The second section: That his testimony is not accepted in the hadd (prescribed) punishment, and regarding qisas (retribution), there are two possibilities. The first is that his testimony is accepted in it, because it is the right of a human being, and it is not valid to retract an admission regarding it, so it is similar to property. The second is that it is not accepted, because it is a bodily punishment that is warded off by ambiguities, so it is similar to hadd punishments (9). Al-Sharif and Abu al-Khattab mentioned two narrations regarding all penalties, both hadd and qisas: the first is that it is accepted for the reasons we mentioned, and because he is a person of integrity, so his testimony in it is accepted just like that of a free person. The second is that it is not accepted, which is the apparent position of the school (madhhab), because the disagreement regarding the acceptance of his testimony in property matters constitutes a shortcoming and an ambiguity, so his testimony is not accepted [in that which is warded off by ambiguities; and because he is of deficient status, his testimony is not accepted] (11) in hadd and qisas, similar to a woman.

The third section: That (12) the testimony of a slave woman is permissible in matters where the testimony of women is permissible; because the testimony of women is not accepted in hadd and qisas, but is accepted in property or its equivalent (13), and the slave woman is like the free woman in other than these two, so she is equal to them in testimony, and this is indicated by the hadith of Uqbah ibn al-Harith (14).

Section: The ruling for the mukatab (slave with a contract of manumission), the mudabbar (slave promised freedom upon the master's death), the umm al-walad (slave woman who has borne a child for her master), and the partially emancipated slave is the same as the ruling for the absolute slave in what we have mentioned, because servitude is present in them. It has been narrated from Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "The testimony of the mukatab is not valid." This is also the position of Ata, al-Sha'bi, and al-Nakha'i. Our argument is what we have mentioned regarding the slave, and if the ruling is established for the absolute slave, then it is more appropriate for these individuals because they are more complete than him, due to the presence of the causes of freedom in them.

1901 - Issue; he said: (The testimony of the child of zina (illicit intercourse) is valid, in cases of zina and other matters.)

This is the view of most scholars, including Ata, al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, al-Zuhri, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd, Abu Hanifah, and his companions. Malik and al-Layth said: His testimony is not valid in cases of zina alone, because he is accused of bias; for it is customary for one who has committed a shameful act to desire that he have counterparts.