al-Zuhri narrated from 'Urwah, from 'A'ishah, from the Prophet (peace be upon him), that he said: "The testimony of a treacherous man or a treacherous woman, or one harboring malice against his brother, or a suspicious person in matters of kinship or loyalty is not permissible" (6). A 'zanin' (suspicious person) is one who is accused (of bias), and a father is accused of bias toward his child because his wealth is as we have mentioned, and because there is a part-of-a-whole relationship between them, so it is as if he is testifying for himself. For this reason, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Fatimah is a part of me; what troubles her troubles me" (7). Furthermore, he is suspected of bias in testifying for his child, like the suspicion of an enemy in testifying against his enemy. The report is more specific than the verses, so it is restricted by it.

Section: As for the testimony of either of them against the other, it is accepted. Ahmad stated this explicitly. This is the opinion of the generality of scholars, and I have not found (8) any disagreement regarding it in "al-Jami'". This is due to the saying of Allah, the Exalted: "Be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives" (9). He commanded testimony against them, and if it were not accepted, He would not have commanded it. Also, it is only rejected (10) due to suspicion of the conveyance of benefit, and there is no suspicion in his testimony against him; therefore, it must be accepted, like the testimony of a stranger, or even more so. Since his testimony for himself was rejected due to the suspicion of conveying benefit to himself, his acknowledgment against himself (11) is accepted.

Al-Qadi related in "al-Mujarrad" another narration that the testimony of either of them is not accepted against the other because his testimony for him is not accepted, so it is not accepted against him, like the profligate. Some Shafi'is said: The testimony of a son against his father is not accepted in cases of retaliation (qisas) or the penalty for defamation (qadhf); because he is not killed for killing him, nor is he punished for defaming him, so that (penalty) is not incumbent upon him. The (view of the) Madhhab is the first one; due to what we have mentioned, and because he [is suspected for him but] (12) is not suspected against him; therefore, his testimony against him is more reflective of the truth, like his confession against himself.

Section: If two people testified to the divorce of their mother's co-wife, or the defamation (13) of her by her husband, their testimony is accepted.