because the judgment was finalized before the existence of the impediment, like the emergence of corruption (fisq). If they testify that he accused his wife and our mother, their testimony is not accepted; because it was rejected regarding the part due to suspicion, so it must be rejected [in its entirety]. If they testify against their father that he accused the co-wife of their mother, their testimony is accepted. This is the position of Malik, Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi'i in his later (jadid) school of thought. In his earlier (qadim) school, he said: It is not accepted, because they are drawing a benefit to their mother, which is that he would perform li'an against her, causing her to be irrevocably divorced, and he would be available for their mother. This is unsubstantiated, because his li'an against her is based on his knowledge of her adultery, not on the testimony against him regarding that which he does not admit. If they testify to the divorce of the co-wife, there are two perspectives: one is that it is not accepted, because they are drawing a benefit to their mother, which is that he becomes available for her. The second is that it is accepted, because they are not drawing a benefit to themselves.

Section: If one witness testifies that he admitted in Arabic that he accused her, and another witness testifies that he admitted to that in a non-Arabic language, the testimony is complete; because the difference in Arabic and non-Arabic pertains to the admission and not the accusation itself, and it is possible that the accusation was one, but the admission of it occurred twice. Likewise, if one of them testifies that he admitted on Thursday to accusing her, and another testifies that he admitted to that on Friday, the testimony is complete, due to what we have mentioned. If one of them testifies that he accused her in Arabic, and the other testifies that he accused her in a non-Arabic language, or one of them testifies that he accused her on Thursday, and the other testifies that he accused her on Friday, or one of them testifies that he admitted he accused her in Arabic or on Thursday, and the other testifies that he admitted he accused her in a non-Arabic language or on Friday, there are two perspectives. One of them is that the testimony is completed. This is the statement of Abu Bakr and the school of Abu Hanifa, because mentioning the time is not a condition for testimony regarding accusation, and likewise