What is the ruling when one party in a dispute attests to a witness's trustworthiness ('addala) and another party discredits the witness ('ajarra)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judiciary
Primary text
Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafi'i state that the judge should proceed based on this conflict. Imam Malik holds that the judge must examine which group is more trustworthy: those who discredited the witness or those who affirmed their trustworthiness, and the statement of the more trustworthy group should be accepted.
Supporting text
The proof favors accepting the testimony of the one who discredited the witness (the detractor, al-jarıh). The detractor possesses specific, hidden knowledge concerning the witness's conduct that was not apparent to the attester (al-mu'addil). Since attestation implies clearing the witness of suspicion and wrongdoing, and the detractor affirms the existence of such issues, the affirmation of existence (detraction) takes precedence over negation (attestation). Furthermore, the detractor claims to have witnessed a specific act, while the attester's basis is merely not having seen the witness commit wrongdoing; both could potentially be truthful. The reconciliation is that the detractor witnessed a sin which the attester did not see, thus validating the detractor's claim.