his testimony for his brother if he is exclusively devoted to him in maintaining family ties and righteousness, for he is accused of bias in his right. Ibn al-Mundhir said: Malik said: The testimony of a brother for his brother is not permissible in lineage, but it is permissible in property rights. As for our view, the generality of the verses applies, and because he is a person of integrity (adl) who is not accused of bias, so his testimony for him is accepted, just as with a stranger. It is not correct to make an analogy with the father and the son, because between them there is a relationship of part-and-whole and a strong kinship, unlike the brother.

Section: The testimony of the paternal uncle and his son, the maternal uncle and his son, and all other relatives is even more entitled to be permitted. If the testimony of the brother is permitted despite their closeness, then this is an alert that the testimony of those who are more distant is permitted a fortiori.

Section: The testimony of one of two friends for the other is accepted, according to the opinion of the generality of scholars, except for Malik, who said: The testimony of a close friend is not accepted, because he derives a benefit for himself through it, so he is accused of bias, and therefore his testimony is not accepted, like the testimony of an enemy against his enemy. As for our view, the general proofs of testimony apply, and what he claimed is invalidated by the testimony of a creditor for a debtor before the declaration of bankruptcy (hajr), even if he might perhaps settle his debt from it, thereby deriving a benefit for himself greater than what is hoped for here between the two friends. As for enmity, its cause is limited (3), and testifying against one's enemy provides relief for one's rage, so it differs from friendship.

1900 - Issue: He said: (The testimony of a slave is permissible in everything, except in prescribed punishments (hudud), and the testimony of a slave woman is permissible in matters where the testimony of women is permissible).

The discussion of this issue is in three sections:

First: Regarding the acceptance of the testimony of a slave in matters other than hudud and retaliation (qisas), the school's position is that it is accepted. This was reported from Ali and Anas, may Allah be pleased with them both. Anas said: I do not know of anyone who rejected the testimony of a slave. Urwah, Shurayh, Iyas, Ibn Sirin, al-Batti, Abu Thawr, Dawud (1), and Ibn al-Mundhir held this view. Ata, Mujahid, al-Hasan, Malik, al-Awza'i, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Ubayd said: His testimony is not accepted; because he lacks high moral standing (muru'ah), and because it is based on