What is the ruling when a just witness changes their testimony before the judge has ruled?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judicial Rulings
Primary text
If a just witness alters their testimony before the judge issues a ruling, whether by adding to or subtracting from the original statement, the subsequent testimony is accepted, and the judge must rule based on the last testimony provided. This view is held by Abu Hanifa, Al-Thawri, Sulayman bin Habib Al-Muharibi, and Ishaq. The basis is that the subsequent testimony is that of a just, untainted witness who has not retracted it, and therefore it must be acted upon as if no contradictory statement preceded it. The first statement is nullified by the retraction and cannot serve as the condition for the ruling, as the condition must persist until the ruling is complete. This differs from retraction after a ruling, which does not nullify the previous judgment because the condition for the ruling was already fulfilled and established.
Supporting text
Al-Zuhri states that neither the first nor the second testimony is accepted because each invalidates and contradicts the other; the first is retracted, and the second is untrustworthy as it originates from one who has admitted error in their testimony. Imam Malik mandates ruling based on the lesser of the two statements because the witness made the initial testimony while considered just and untainted, and retraction is not accepted as if the judgment had already been issued upon the first testimony.