and insanity and loss of consciousness are in the same category, unlike immorality and disbelief.

1907 - Issue: He said: "Testimony of an upright person regarding the testimony of another upright person is permissible in all matters, except in prescribed punishments (hudud), when the first witness is dead or absent."

The discussion of this issue involves three sections: The first is regarding its permissibility. The second is regarding its placement (scope). And the third is regarding its conditions.

As for the first: Testimony upon testimony is permissible according to the consensus of the scholars. Malik, al-Shafi'i, and the People of Reason (Ashab al-Ra'y) hold this view. Abu 'Ubayd said: "The scholars of the Hijaz and Iraq have reached consensus on the implementation of testimony upon testimony in property matters." This is because the need for it is pressing; if it were not accepted, then testimony concerning trusts (waqf) would be nullified, as well as matters where proof before the judge is delayed and then the original witnesses die. There is harm and severe hardship for the people in that, so it is necessary that it be accepted, like the testimony of the original witness.

The second section: It is accepted in property matters and matters intended for property, by consensus, as Abu 'Ubayd mentioned, but it is not accepted in prescribed punishments (hadd). This is the opinion of al-Nakha'i, al-Sha'bi, Abu Hanifa, and his companions. Malik, al-Shafi'i (in one of his opinions), and Abu Thawr said: It is accepted in prescribed punishments and all rights, because these are established by the testimony of the original witness, so they are established by testimony upon testimony, like property. Our evidence is that prescribed punishments are built upon concealment, averting them through doubts, and dropping them upon the retraction of a confession, and testimony upon testimony in them contains doubt. For there exists in it the possibility of error, forgetfulness, and falsehood among the secondary witnesses, alongside the possibility of that in the original witnesses, and this is an additional possibility that does not exist in the testimony of the original witness. It is a valid consideration, evidenced by the fact that it is not accepted when there is the ability to produce the original witnesses. Thus, it is necessary that it not be accepted in matters that are averted by doubts. Moreover, it is only accepted out of necessity, and there is no necessity for it in a prescribed punishment, because concealing the person who committed it is better than testifying against him, and because there is no explicit text (nass) regarding it, and it is not valid to analogize it to property due to the difference between the two.