He judges based on it with his attestation, or while it is negated. It is not permissible to say that he judges while it is attested; for attestation is not established by the word of a single person, nor is it permissible while its attestation is negated, because judging based on the testimony of a non-upright person is not permissible, as evidenced by the testimony of one whose corruption has become apparent. The school of al-Shafi'i is like this. If we say the first [view], his attestation is not established in relation to anyone other than the person against whom the testimony is given, because the evidence for attestation has not been found; rather, he was judged against because of his acknowledgement of the existence of the condition for the ruling. His acknowledgement is established in relation to himself and not to others, just as if he acknowledged a right upon himself and another person, it is established in relation to him and not the other.

1870- Issue: He said: (And if two testify to his uprightness and two testify to his corruption, then the testimony of corruption is given priority).

Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i held this view. Malik said: It is looked into: which of them is more upright, the two who testified to his corruption or the two who testified to his uprightness? Then the word of the more upright of the two is taken. Our evidence is that the one testifying to corruption possesses extra knowledge that remained hidden from the one testifying to uprightness, so it is obligatory to give him priority, because attestation implies the abandonment of doubts and prohibited matters, and the one testifying to corruption affirms the existence of such things, and affirmation takes precedence over negation. Furthermore, the one testifying to corruption says: "I saw him do such and such," while the one testifying to uprightness bases his position on the fact that he did not see him do it; it is possible for both of them to be truthful, and the reconciliation between their two statements is that the one testifying to corruption sees him committing the sin, while the one testifying to uprightness does not see it, so he is considered corrupt.

Section: The testimony of corruption and uprightness is not accepted unless it comes from two people. Malik, al-Shafi'i, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and Ibn al-Mundhir held this view. It is narrated from Ahmad that it is accepted from one person. This is the choice of Abu Bakr and the view of Abu Hanifa, because it is a report in which the wording of testimony is not strictly required, so it is accepted from one person, like the narration of Hadith. Our evidence is that it is the establishing of a quality upon which the judge bases his ruling, so the number [of witnesses] is considered in it, like custody; it differs from the narration of Hadith, for that is based on leniency. We do not concede that it does not require the wording of testimony. In attestation and the testimony of corruption, the wording of testimony is considered, so he says in attestation: "I testify that he is upright." This is sufficient even if he does not say: "Upon me and for me." This is the view of the majority of scholars, and it is what Shurayh, the people of Iraq, Malik, and some of the Shafi'is say.