between him and the owner, so the liability (daman) becomes incumbent upon them, just as if they had testified to his manumission. This is because they removed the master's possession from his slave through their retracted testimony, which is similar to if they had testified to his freedom. Furthermore, they caused the destruction of his right through their false testimony against him, so the liability is incumbent upon them, just as it is for the two witnesses in a case of retaliation (qisas). This is confirmed by the fact that if one holds them liable for retaliation, which is averted by doubts, then the obligation of financial compensation is even more appropriate. Their statement that "they did not destroy the wealth" is invalidated by the case where they testify to his manumission, for in reality, bondage does not cease due to false testimony; they merely stood between the master and his slave. Regarding the place of destruction of wealth, they were the cause of its loss, so the liability for what was destroyed by their action is incumbent upon them, like the two witnesses in a case of retaliation, witnesses in a case of adultery, the digger of a well, or the person who plants a knife.

1920 - Issue: He said: (And if the subject of the judgment was a male slave or a female slave, they shall pay their value as damages).

As for when they testify regarding a male or female slave for someone other than their owner (1), the ruling regarding that is the same as the ruling regarding testimony concerning wealth, according to the disagreement we mentioned, because they (2) are among the components of wealth. If they testify to their freedom and then retract the testimony, they are liable for the value of them to their master, without any disagreement between them regarding it, for the one who disagrees in the previous case is al-Shafi'i, and he has agreed here. This is an argument against him regarding what he disagreed upon, for removing the slave from the master's hand by testifying to his freedom is like removing him from it by testifying to his ownership by someone other than his owner. If liability is incumbent upon him there, it is incumbent upon him here. They shall pay the value, because a slave (3) is among the valued goods (4), not among those of equal kinds (dhawat al-amthal).

Section: If they testify to the divorce of a woman, which results in an irrevocable divorce (baynunah), and the judge passes judgment for the separation, and then they retract the testimony—and this was before consummation—then what is incumbent upon them is half of the specified dowry. Abu Hanifah held this view. Al-Shafi'i said, in one of his two opinions, that the full dowry of similar status (mahr al-mithl) is due, because they caused the loss of the marital intimacy (bud') for him.