returned, and there is no liability upon the judge; because it was possible to shift the liability onto the witnesses, so it is similar to when they retract their testimony. His statement that their testimony is a condition is invalid, because it is among our principles that the witnesses of unchastity (ihsan) are liable for damages even if they did not testify regarding the cause. Ahmad has explicitly stated this. Abu al-Khattab's statement is invalid, because the witnesses to the adultery did not retract, nor was their lying known, unlike the two character vouches (muzakkis); for their lying was made manifest, and it was shown that they testified falsely. As for if the corruption of the two character vouches becomes clear, the liability is upon the judge, because the negligence originated from him, as he accepted the testimony of a corrupt person without character verification (tazkiya) or investigation, so the liability is incumbent upon him, just as if he had accepted the testimony of adultery witnesses without character verification, and then their corruption became clear.

Section: If the Imam flogs a person based on the testimony of witnesses, and it later becomes clear that they were corrupt, or disbelievers, or slaves, the Imam is liable for what resulted from the effects (7) of the lashing. Al-Shafi'i held this view. Abu Hanifa said: He bears no liability. Our evidence is that this is a crime resulting from the Imam's mistake, so it is a liability upon him, just as if he had amputated his limb or killed him.

Section: If a judge rules on property based on the testimony of two witnesses, and it then becomes clear that they are corrupt or disbelievers, the Imam shall overturn his ruling and return the property if it still exists, or provide its equivalent if it has been destroyed. If that is impossible due to the witness's insolvency or otherwise, the judge is liable for it, and then he may seek recourse from the one in whose favor the testimony was given. From Ahmad, there is another report: he does not overturn his ruling if they were corrupt, and the witnesses pay for the property. The same applies if two upright witnesses testified before him that the previous judge ruled based on the testimony of two corrupt witnesses; there are two reports regarding this (8). The colleagues of al-Shafi'i also differed on this. There is no disagreement among all of them that he must overturn his ruling if they were disbelievers, and he overturns the ruling of another judge if it is proven to him that he ruled based on the testimony of two disbelievers. We analogize to this the case where he ruled based on the testimony of two corrupt witnesses, for the testimony of two corrupt witnesses is unanimously rejected, and God Almighty has explicitly ordered verification regarding them, saying: "O you who have believed, if a corrupt person comes to you with information, verify it" (9). And He commanded...