long-standing acquaintance. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, based on the report of Umar which we mentioned previously, and because the habit of people is to display acts of obedience and conceal acts of disobedience. If he does not have intimate knowledge, he might be deceived by his good appearance while he is corrupt in private. This may mean that they intend that if the judge knows that the attester has no knowledge, he does not accept his testimony of attestation, as Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, did. It also may mean that they intend that it is not permissible for the attester to testify to uprightness unless he has intimate knowledge. As for the judge, if an upright person testifies to him regarding attestation, and he does not know the true state of affairs, he may accept the testimony without investigation. If he chooses to investigate the situation, as Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, did, then there is no harm.

Section: Impugnment (jarh) is not heard unless it is explained, and the wording used therein is considered. He should say: "I testify that I saw him drinking wine, or dealing in usury, or oppressing people by taking their wealth or beating them, or I heard him slandering," or it is known by its common fame among the people. The reason must be mentioned and specified. This is the view of al-Shafi'i and Sawwar. Abu Hanifa said: Absolute impugnment is accepted, which is for him to testify that he is corrupt or that he is not upright. A similar view is reported from Ahmad, because attestation is heard absolutely, so likewise is impugnment. Furthermore, specifying the reason makes the impugner corrupt and obligates the legal penalty (hadd) upon him in some cases, such as if he testifies against him for adultery, so the impugnment leads to the impugnment of the impugner and the invalidation of his testimony, without the impugned person being impugned by it. Our evidence is that people differ regarding the reasons for impugnment, just as they differ regarding the one who drinks nabidh (fermented drink); therefore, it is necessary that mere impugnment not be accepted, so that he does not impugn him for something that the judge does not see as an impugnment. Furthermore, impugnment transfers [the status] from the original, for the default state of Muslims is uprightness, and impugnment moves away from that, so the mover must be known, so that it is not believed that his transfer is based on something that the judge does not see as a transfer. Regarding their statement that it leads to the impugnment of the impugner and the obligation of the penalty upon him: we say, it is not so, because he can use innuendo without being explicit. If it is said: in stating the reason there is a violation of the honor of the impugned person, we say: it is inevitable to violate it, for the testimony against him of corruption is