What is the ruling on accepting the testimony of a previously disqualified witness who has since repented and rectified their conduct?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Testimonies
Primary text
If a judge rejects the testimony of a morally corrupt person (fasiq) due to their corruption, and that person subsequently repents, rectifies their actions, and offers the same testimony again, the judge must not accept it. This is the view of Al-Shafi'i and the Ashab al-Ra'y (Hanafi school). The reasoning is that the witness remains suspect in offering the testimony, as they are shamed by its previous rejection and seek to remove that stigma by demonstrating righteousness afterward. Moreover, since corruption is hidden and requires judicial inquiry (ijtihad) to ascertain, accepting the testimony upon subsequent repentance would mean overturning one ijtihad with another ijtihad.
Supporting text
Abu Thawr, Al-Muzani, and Dawud hold that the testimony should be accepted. They argue that the testimony is that of a just person and should be accepted, similar to the case of a disbeliever whose testimony is rejected but accepted after embracing Islam. Furthermore, the conditions that necessitated the initial rejection—slavery, minority, or disbelief—are not actions of the witness, unlike moral corruption, which is a chosen state.