unless it is established by their own admission without the consent of the one in whose favor judgment was passed, in which case this constitutes a retraction of their testimony, and we have already explained the ruling for that.

Section: When a false witness repents, and a period of time passes during which his repentance becomes apparent, and his truthfulness and uprightness (adala) are established, his testimony is accepted. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr. Malik said: His testimony is never to be accepted, because one cannot be secure against him. Our position is that he is a repentant person regarding his sin, so his repentance is accepted, like all other repentant people. As for his statement: "One cannot be secure against him," we say: Mere possibility does not prevent the acceptance of testimony, as evidenced by all other repentant people, for one is not secure against their returning to their sins or other acts, yet their testimony is accepted. And Allah knows best.

1924- Issue: He said: "And if an upright person changes his testimony in the presence of the judge, by increasing or decreasing it, it is accepted from him, provided the judge has not yet rendered judgment based on his testimony."

This is like one who testifies to one hundred, then says: "It is one hundred and fifty," or says: "Rather, it is ninety." His retraction is accepted from him, and judgment is rendered based on what he testified to finally. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, Sulayman ibn Habib al-Muharibi (1), and Ishaq. Al-Zuhri said: Neither his first nor his last testimony is accepted, because each one rejects and contradicts the other, and because the first has been retracted, and the second is not to be trusted, as it comes from someone admitting his error and mistake in his testimony, so it is not excluded that he is in error as he was in the first. Malik said: The first of his two statements is taken, because he performed the testimony while not being under suspicion, so his retraction from it is not accepted, just as if judgment had been connected to it. Our position is that his last testimony is the testimony of an upright person who is not under suspicion, and he has not retracted it, so judgment based on it is obligatory, just as if nothing contrary to it had preceded it. The first one does not contradict it because it has been invalidated by his retraction from it, and it is not permissible to judge by it, because it is a condition of the judgment, so its continuity is required until its completion (4). This differs from his retraction after the judgment, because the judgment has already been completed by the continuity of