Section: If two witnesses of secondary testimony (fard) testify against two witnesses of original testimony (asl), and the judge rules based on their testimony, and then the secondary witnesses retract, they bear the liability. I do not know of any disagreement among them regarding this. If the original witnesses retract alone, they also bear the liability. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. Abu al-Khattab reported from al-Qadi that there is no liability upon them, which is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, because the ruling was attached to the testimony of the secondary witnesses, evidenced by the fact that they made the testimony of the original witnesses valid testimony; the original witnesses are not liable [because the ruling did not depend on their testimony. Our evidence is that the right was established by the testimony of the original witnesses], evidenced by the consideration of their integrity (adala), so if they retract, they are liable, just like the secondary witnesses.

Section: If a judge rules based on one witness and an oath, and the witness retracts, he is liable for the entire amount. Ahmad explicitly stated this in a report from a group. Malik and al-Shafi'i said: He is liable only for half, because he is one of the two pieces of evidence in the claim, so he is liable for [the half, just as if they were two witnesses. Our evidence is that the witness is the proof for the claim, so the liability is upon him] just as it is for two witnesses. This is substantiated by the fact that the oath is the statement of the litigant, and the statement of the litigant is not proof against his opponent; it is merely a condition for the ruling, so it is treated like his demand that the judge issue a ruling, and thus it is distinguished from what they mentioned. Even if we concede that it is proof, it is only made proof by the witness's testimony, which is why it is not permissible for the oath to be presented before his testimony, unlike the testimony of the other witness. Abu al-Khattab said: It is deduced that he is not liable for anything except half [32] of what was adjudged, if we say: The oath is returned to the claimant.

Section: If they retract the testimony after the ruling and say: "We were intentional," and the penalty of retaliation (qisas) is due upon them, they are not to be punished with tazir, because the retaliation suffices instead of their tazir. If it pertains to property, they are to be punished with tazir and are liable, because they committed a major crime and perpetrated a grave offense, which is perjury (shahadat al-zur). It is possible