it is upright, so it is accepted, just as if he had testified while he was an unbeliever and his testimony was rejected, then he testified to it after his conversion to Islam. Our position is that he is suspected in the delivery of it, because he is disgraced by its rejection, and he suffered ignominy due to it being rejected on account of a deficiency for which he is shamed. The rectification of his state after that—which is from his own actions—removes the shame, so the suspicion attaches to him that he intended to manifest uprightness and repeat the testimony so that it might be accepted, thus removing what resulted from its rejection. Furthermore, immorality (fisq) is hidden, so one requires investigation and legal reasoning (ijtihad) to know it. Therefore, we say: it is a testimony rejected through legal reasoning, so it shall not be accepted through legal reasoning, for that would lead to overturning legal reasoning with legal reasoning. This differs from the case where the testimony of an unbeliever was rejected due to his disbelief, or a child’s due to his minority, or a slave’s due to his servile status, then the unbeliever converted, the child attained puberty, and the slave was emancipated, and they repeated that testimony; it is not rejected, because it was not rejected in the first instance due to legal reasoning, but rather it was rejected due to certainty. Moreover, puberty and freedom are not of the witness's own doing, so he is not suspected of having performed them so that his testimony would be accepted, and the unbeliever does not view his disbelief as a shame, nor does he abandon his religion for the sake of a testimony that was rejected from him. It has been narrated from al-Nakha'i, al-Zuhri, Qatadah, Abu al-Zinad, and Malik that it is also rejected in the case of one who converts or attains puberty. There is also a narration (2) from Ahmad to this effect, because it is a rejected testimony and thus not accepted, like the testimony of one who was a sinner. We have already mentioned what warrants a distinction between them, so they differ (3). It is narrated from Ahmad, regarding a slave whose testimony was rejected due to his servile status and then he was emancipated and repeated (4) that (5) testimony, that there are two narrations. We have mentioned that the preferred view is that his testimony is accepted, because emancipation is not of his own doing, and it is a matter that is manifest, unlike immorality.

Section: If a master testifies for his mukatab (contractual slave) and his testimony is rejected, or an heir testifies for his testator regarding a wound before it has healed and his testimony is rejected, then the mukatab is emancipated and the wound heals, and they repeat (6) that testimony, there are two views regarding its acceptance. The first is that it is accepted, because the removal of the impediment is not of their own doing, so it resembles the removal of the child's minority by puberty, and because its rejection was due to a cause that entails no shame, so he is not suspected of intending to negate shame by repeating it, unlike immorality. The second is that it is not accepted, because he rejected it based on his legal reasoning, so he does not overturn it.