Is a judge permitted to rule based on testimony if the witnesses subsequently commit an act that invalidates their testimony (such as transgression or apostasy) before the judgment is passed?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Testimonies
Primary text
If two witnesses, whose testimony is normally accepted, testify before the judge, and subsequently commit transgression or apostasy before the judge rules upon their testimony, the judge must not rule based on that testimony. This is the position of Abu Yusuf and Al-Shafi'i. The rationale is that the continued presence of the witness's qualification for testimony is a condition for the validity of the judgment, as conditions must exist in the conditioned subject; thus, transgression negates the condition and prohibits judgment. Furthermore, the appearance of transgression or disbelief suggests it was present at the time of the testimony, as people often conceal vice or disbelief, making the testimony suspect.
Supporting text
Abu Thawr and Al-Muzani hold that the judge may rule based on the testimony, arguing that the continued qualification of the witness is not a necessary condition for the judgment, evidenced by the fact that the testimony remains valid if the witnesses die. Moreover, the transgression occurred after the testimony was delivered, which is analogous to the situation after judgment has been passed.