by committing an act of impiety (fisq) before the ruling was made by means of his writing, the ruling may not be executed; because his ruling after committing an act of impiety is invalid, and likewise, it is not permissible to rule by his letter. Furthermore, the continuation of the integrity (adalah) of the two original witnesses is a condition for the validity of the ruling via the two branch witnesses; the same applies to the continuation of the judge's integrity, because he is in the position of the original witnesses. If he commits an act of impiety after ruling by his letter, the status does not change, just as if he had ruled on something and his impiety was later revealed; for what has passed of his rulings is not overturned, similar to this case here. As for the change in the status of the addressee in any way—whether by death, dismissal, or impiety—the one who succeeds him has the right to accept the letter and act upon it. Al-Hasan held this view. It was narrated from him that the judge of Kufa wrote a letter to Iyas ibn Mu'awiyah, the judge of Basra, and it arrived when he had been dismissed and Al-Hasan had been appointed, so he acted upon it. Al-Shafi'i also held this view. Abu Hanifa said: It is not to be acted upon; because the judge's letter is in the position of testimony upon testimony in the presence of the addressee, and when two witnesses testify before a judge, no one other than him may rule based on their testimony. Our view is that the reliance is upon the testimony of the two witnesses, by the ruling of the first [judge], or the proof of the testimony before him; since they have testified before the second, it is incumbent that he accepts it, just as the first did. Their argument that "it is testimony before the one who died" is not correct, for the writing judge is not a branch (far'). If he were a branch, he would not be accepted alone. The branch consists of the two witnesses who testified regarding him, and they have performed the testimony before the new judge. If the letter were lost and they testified to that before the judge to whom the letter was addressed, he would accept it, which proves that the consideration is given to their testimony rather than the letter. By analogy to what we have mentioned, if the two witnesses carried the letter to someone other than the addressee during his lifetime and testified before him, he would act upon it for the reason we have explained. If the addressee is a deputy (khalifah) of the writer, and the writer dies or is dismissed, the addressee is also dismissed; because he is a deputy on his behalf, so he is dismissed by the latter's dismissal or death, just like his agents. Some Shafi'i scholars said: His deputy is not dismissed, just as the original judge is not dismissed by the death or dismissal of the Imam. Our view is what we have stated, and he differs from the Imam; because the Imam contracts the judiciary and the governate for the Muslims,