a violation of him. However, it is permissible due to the necessity calling for it, just as testimony against him for it is permissible to establish the legal penalty (hadd) upon him. Indeed, it is even more appropriate here, for it contains the repelling of oppression from the one testified against, which is a right of a human being, so it is more worthy of permissibility. Furthermore, violating his honor is caused by him, for he exposed himself to testimony while committing what necessitates his impugnment; thus, he is the one who violated his own honor, as his action was what necessitated that people impugn him. If the impugner explicitly charges him with adultery (qadhf), then the penalty (hadd) is upon him if he does not bring four complete witnesses. This is the view of Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafi'i said: There is no penalty upon him if it is in the wording of testimony, because he did not intend to bring disgrace upon him. Our evidence is the statement of Allah Almighty: {And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses, lash them with eighty lashes} and the verse. Furthermore, Abu Bakra and his two companions testified against al-Mughira regarding adultery, and Ziyad did not complete his testimony, so Umar flogged them with the penalty of qadhf in the presence of the Companions, and no one objected, so it was a consensus. What they mentioned is invalidated by [the case] where they testify against him to establish the penalty upon him.

Section: If the defendant produces evidence that these two witnesses testified to this right before a judge, and he rejected their testimony due to their corruption, their testimony is invalidated, for if testimony is rejected due to corruption, it is not accepted a second time.

Section: Impugnment and attestation are not accepted from women. Abu Hanifa said: They are accepted. [It is also reported from Ahmad]: because the wording of testimony is not considered therein, so it resembles narration and reports regarding blood money (diyat). Our evidence is that this is testimony in something that is not property, nor is property the intention of it, and men perceive it in most circumstances, so it resembles testimony in retaliation (qisas). What they mentioned is not conceded.

Section: Impugnment is not accepted from the adversary, without disagreement among the scholars. If the one testified against says: "These two are corrupt," or "They are my enemies," or "They are fathers of the one testified for," his statement is not accepted, because he is accused [of bias] in his statement,