based on his legal reasoning. The first view is more likely to be correct, for the fundamental principle is the acceptance of the testimony of an upright person, as long as there is no impediment preventing it. It is not correct to draw an analogy with testimony rejected [due to immorality; because of the difference we have mentioned between them. It is inferred from this that every testimony that is rejected], whether due to suspicion or lack of legal capacity, if it is repeated after the removal of the suspicion and the existence of legal capacity, then is it accepted? There are two views.

1905 - Issue; He said: "And if he had not testified with it before the ruler until he became upright, it is accepted from him."

This is because justice (uprightness), puberty, and Islam are not prerequisites for the acquisition (tahammul) of testimony, for there is no suspicion in that; rather, these are considered [in the delivery (ada')]. Thus, if an immoral person sees or hears something, and then he is declared upright and testifies regarding it, his testimony is accepted, without any disagreement that we know of. Likewise is the child and the unbeliever; if they testify after Islam and puberty, it is accepted. [And such is the report] (2). For this reason, the children in the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, would narrate from him after they had grown up; such as al-Hasan, al-Husayn, Ibn Abbas, al-Nu'man ibn Bashir, Ibn al-Zubayr, and Ibn Ja'far. Testimony is in the same sense as narration, and therefore justice and other conditions considered for testimony were required for it.

1906 - Issue; He said: "And if he testified while he was upright, but no judgment was passed based on his testimony until something occurred from him that would render his testimony impermissible, then no judgment shall be passed based on it."

In summary, if two witnesses testify before the ruler while they are among those whose testimony is accepted, and then he does not judge by it until they become immoral or become unbelievers, he shall not judge based on their testimony. This is the opinion of Abu Yusuf and al-Shafi'i. Abu Thawr and al-Muzani said: He shall judge by it, because the persistence of the capacity for testimony is not a condition for the judgment, as evidenced by the case if they were to die; and because their immorality occurred after the delivery of the testimony, so it is similar to what happens if it occurred after the judgment was passed based on it.