Is testimony complete when one witness testifies to the usurpation (ghasb) of a slave, and the other testifies that the possessor confessed to that usurpation?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judicial Rulings
Primary text
The testimony is deemed complete and the ruling is based upon it. This is because the usurpation confessed to might be the very act of usurpation testified to by the first witness, meaning the action has not differed, thus completing the testimony, analogous to cases where two witnesses testify to a confession of usurpation at different times. This is the ruling of some scholars.
Supporting text
The view of Al-Qadi and Al-Shafi'i holds that the testimony is not complete. They argue it is possible that what the possessor confessed to is different from what the first witness testified to. This objection is refuted by considering testimony regarding two separate confessions, where the two confessions can be different if made at different times, yet the testimony is still valid when the evidence can be unified onto one act, similar to two witnesses testifying to the usurpation and two witnesses testifying to the confession of it.