Is a person's testimony accepted if they previously denied having any witnesses?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judicial Rulings
Primary text
If a person denies having any witnesses and subsequently presents witnesses, their testimony is not accepted because it constitutes a contradiction of their prior denial. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan supports this view. The reasoning is that by admitting he has no witnesses, he has established a claim against his opponent regarding the absence of evidence. Returning from this is not permissible, unlike a witness who denies having knowledge and then claims to have forgotten it, as the latter is admitting a right to another after initial denial, whereas here the person has admitted the non-existence of evidence to his adversary.
Supporting text
Abu Yusuf and Ibn al-Mundhir accept the testimony, a view also apparent in Al-Shafi'i's school. They argue that the person might have forgotten, or the witnesses may have heard the declaration while the claimant was unaware, meaning the denial was not a deliberate lie. Some Shafi'i scholars further distinguish: if the person personally arranged for the witnessing, the testimony is rejected as self-contradictory; however, if an agent arranged the witnessing, or if the witness testified without the claimant's knowledge or request, the testimony is accepted due to the claimant being excused for the denial. The ruling is the same for a person who states that all his evidence is false as for one who states he has no evidence, based on the preceding dispute.