And his combining it with it (27) is due to the difference in the two expressions. The evidence for that is the statement of 'Umar to Abu Bakrah: "Repent, and I shall accept your testimony." He did not consider another matter. Furthermore, one who was an usurper and then returned what was in his possession, or one who withheld Zakat and then paid it and repented to Allah, the Exalted, has achieved rectification; his ceasing from his disobedience is known by his fulfilling what was upon him. Had he not intended repentance, he would not (28) have returned what was in his hands (29). Moreover, limiting it to a year is a form of arbitrariness for which no legislative basis has arrived (30), and estimation only becomes established through textual authority (tawqif). What was reported from 'Umar regarding Sabigh was only because he was repenting from an innovation (bid'ah), and his repentance was due to being struck and ostracized; it is possible that he manifested repentance out of concealment, unlike our issue. The Qadi mentioned that for the one who repents from innovation, the passing of a year is considered, based on the hadith of Sabigh. Ahmad recorded it in "al-Wara'", stating: "Among the signs of his repentance is that he avoids those he used to associate with among the people of innovation, and associates with those he used to oppose among the people of the Sunnah." The correct view is that repentance from innovation is like that of others, unless the repentance is through an act that resembles coercion, such as the repentance of Sabigh, in which case a period is considered to demonstrate that his repentance is out of sincerity, not coercion. The ruler may say to the one who publicly displays disobedience: "Repent, and I will accept your testimony." Malik said: "I do not recognize this." Al-Shafi'i replied: "How can he not recognize it when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded repentance, and 'Umar said it to Abu Bakrah!"

1904 - Issue: He said: (And whoever testifies to a testimony that he had previously testified to while he was not upright, and it was rejected, it shall not be accepted from him while he is in a state of uprightness (1)).

The summary of this is that when a judge hears the testimony of a sinful person and rejects his testimony due to his immorality, then that person repents, rectifies himself, and repeats that testimony, the judge has no right to accept it. This is the position of al-Shafi'i and the scholars of rational deduction (Ashab al-Ra'y). Abu Thawr, al-Muzani, and Dawud said: It is accepted. Ibn al-Mundhir said: Reasoning supports this; because it is the testimony of...