Section: If one of the two witnesses retracts his testimony alone, the ruling regarding him is the same as the ruling for when both of them retract, in that the judge shall not pass a judgment based on their testimony if his retraction occurs [before the judgment, and in that he shall not execute the punishment if he retracts] (19) before its execution, because the condition is voided by his retraction, just as it is voided by their collective retraction. If his retraction occurs after the execution, his confession alone is binding upon him; if he confesses to something that necessitates retaliation (qisas), it is mandatory upon him, if he confesses to something that necessitates intensified blood money, his portion thereof is mandatory upon him, and if he confesses to an error, his share of the mitigated blood money is mandatory upon him. If there are more than two witnesses in financial cases, or cases of retaliation, and the like, [from that which is established] (20) by two witnesses, or more than four, and the excess among them retracts before the judgment and execution (21), this does not prevent the judgment or the execution, because what remains of the evidence (bayyinah) is sufficient to establish the judgment and its execution. If he retracts after the execution, he is subject to retaliation if he confesses to what necessitates it, or his share of the blood money, or of that which was caused by their testimony if it was something other than that. Regarding this, there is a difference of opinion which we will mention, if Allah Almighty wills.

1919 - Issue: He said: (And if their testimony was regarding wealth, they shall pay it as damages, and they shall not have recourse against the one in whose favor judgment was passed, regardless of whether the wealth is still existent or has been destroyed).

As for the fact that they have no recourse (1) against the one in whose favor judgment was passed (1), we know of no disagreement among the scholars regarding it, except for what we have narrated from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and al-Awza'i, and we have already mentioned the discussion regarding them in what has passed (2). As for demanding the damages from the witnesses, that is the opinion of the majority of the scholars; among them are Malik and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and it is the ancient opinion of al-Shafi'i. In his new opinion, he said: He does not have recourse against them for anything, unless they testify to the manumission of a slave, in which case they guarantee his value, because there was no destruction of wealth caused by them, nor was there a wrongful hand upon it, so they are not liable, just as if their testimony had been rejected. Our evidence is that they removed his wealth from his hand without right, and they stood in the way.