What is the ruling regarding nullifying a judgment based on the testimony of individuals whose admissibility is disputed, such as father and sons, or two enemies?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judicial Rulings
Primary text
If it is established that a judge ruled based on the testimony of two fathers, two sons, or two enemies, the ruling depends on the judge's own legal school of thought (madhhab). If the judge holds the opinion that such testimony is valid for ruling, the judgment is not nullified because the judge acted based on their sound *ijtihad* (independent reasoning) in a matter where *ijtihad* is permissible, without violating an explicit text or consensus. If the judge adheres to the opinion that such testimony is invalid, the ruling must be nullified because the judging official believes in its nullity.
Supporting text
There is a distinction between property issues and destruction/damage (*itlaf*). If the property remains, it must be returned to its owner because every individual has a superior right to their property. If the property is destroyed, the receiver must provide compensation because they took it without the owner's permission and without a rightful claim. However, in cases of destruction (*itlaf*), the destroyer does not possess anything to return; nor can they be made liable if the destruction occurred pursuant to the judge's ruling and authorization, as the destroyer claims to have satisfied a right. Since the claimant's assertion is not disproven, liability for compensation must fall upon the judge because they authorized the destruction without verifying the required condition of judicial evidence (the witnesses' justice) and failed to investigate the witnesses' integrity, thus demonstrating negligence.