after judgment was passed based on it. The rationale for this follows two paths: The first is that the uprightness of the witness is a condition for the judgment, so its continuity must be considered until the time of judgment, because conditions must exist in the conditioned matter. When he commits an act of immorality, the condition ceases to exist, and judgment is not permitted. The second is that the appearance of his immorality and disbelief indicates that it was already present; for it is habitual for a person to conceal immorality and manifest uprightness, and the heretic (zindiq) conceals his disbelief and manifests his Islam. Thus, we are not secure in the knowledge that he was not a disbeliever or an immoral person at the time of the delivery of the testimony, so it is not permitted to judge based on it amidst such doubt. As for what occurred from him after the judgment was passed based on his testimony, it shall not be invalidated; because the judgment occurred correctly, due to the continuity of its condition until its completion. And because it was found to be accompanied by its condition in outward appearance, it is not invalidated by doubt, just as if he retracted his testimony, or as if he prayed with tayammum and then found water. However, if that occurred before the enforcement (of the penalty) and it was a prescribed punishment (hadd) for Allah the Exalted, it is not permitted to enforce it; [because it is averted by doubts], and this constitutes a doubt regarding it, so it is similar to if he had retracted his confession to it before its enforcement. If it were a matter of property, it is enforced, because the judgment has already been finalized, and the entitlement was established based on an affair of apparent correctness; therefore, it is not invalidated by a speculative matter, and for this reason, his retraction of his confession did not invalidate it. If it were a penalty for slander (qadhf) or retaliation (qisas), there are two views: One of them is that it is enforced. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, because it is a right of a human being that is claimed, so it is similar to property. The second is that it is not enforced, which is the opinion of Muhammad, because it is a corporal punishment that is averted by doubts, so it is similar to the prescribed punishment (hadd). Al-Shafi'i also has two views, like these two. As for what occurred after the enforcement, it has no effect on a prescribed punishment or a right; because the right was enforced based on what was outwardly correct, and the Law (Shari'a) permitted its enforcement, so what occurred after it has no effect on it, just as if nothing had appeared.

Section: As for if both of them delivered the testimony while they were among those eligible for it, and then they died before judgment was passed based on it, the ruler shall judge based on their testimony, whether their uprightness was established during their lifetime or after their death, and whether the matter testified to was a prescribed punishment or otherwise. The same applies if they became insane or lost consciousness. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i; because death has no effect on his testimony and does not indicate it was false. It is not possible for it to have been present at the time of the delivery of the testimony,