the opponent other than him, because he is a stranger to them, so his testimony for them is accepted, just as it is after the guardianship has ended. Our position is that he has testified to something in which he is an opponent, for he is the one who demands their rights, disputes regarding them, and manages them, so his testimony is not accepted, just as if he were testifying regarding his own property, and because he takes from their property in times of need. Thus, he is suspected regarding the testimony concerning it. As for his statement: "if they are under his guardianship," he means that if he testified for them after his guardianship over them ended, his testimony would be accepted; because the cause that prevented its acceptance has ceased. The ruling in the case of a judge's trustee (amin) testifying for orphans who are under his authority is the same as the ruling in the case of the guardian, exactly.

1932 - Issue: He said: (And if a person who experiences periodic fits of madness testifies, his testimony is accepted during his period of clarity.)

Ibn al-Mundhir said: Every scholar from whom we preserve knowledge has reached a consensus on this, and among those from whom we have preserved this are Malik, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr. I do not consider it to be anything other than the school of thought of the people of Kufa. This is because the consideration in testimony is the state of the one delivering it, and at the time of delivery, he is of sound mind and stable intellect; therefore his testimony is accepted, like a child when he reaches adulthood. And because he is a person of integrity (adl) who is not suspected, his testimony is accepted, like a healthy person. The loss of his intellect at a time other than the moment of testimony does not prevent its acceptance, like a healthy person who sleeps, or a sick person who loses consciousness at certain times.

1933 - Issue: He said: (And the testimony of a physician is accepted regarding the 'mudihah' wound [a wound that exposes the bone], if two physicians are not available, and likewise the farrier regarding the disease of an animal.)

In summary, if there is a disagreement regarding a head wound, whether it is a 'mudihah' (exposing the bone) or not? Or regarding something more severe than it, such as the 'hashimah' (fracturing the bone), 'munaqqilah' (displacing the bone), 'ammah' (reaching the brain membrane), and 'damighah' (piercing the brain membrane), or smaller than it, such as the 'badi'ah' (incising the skin), 'mutalahimah' (deep in the flesh), and 'simhaq' (the membrane covering the bone), or regarding a 'ja'ifah' (abdominal wound), and other wounds that only physicians can identify, or if they disagreed regarding a disease whose knowledge is specific to physicians, or regarding the disease of an animal, then the apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi's statement is that if it is possible to obtain two physicians or two farriers, one is not sufficient; because it is a matter that men can observe, therefore [the testimony of] one is not accepted in it.