Is the testimony of one who commits a jurisprudentially disputed act while believing it permissible to be rejected?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Testimonies
Primary text
The testimony of one who performs an act under jurisprudential dispute while believing it lawful is not rejected. This applies to actions such as marriage without a guardian, marriage without witnesses, eating meat where the name of God was omitted (by the eater), and drinking a small amount of Nabidh (fermented drink). Ahmad narrated this ruling concerning one who drinks Nabidh, stating that he is lashed but his testimony is not rejected. Al-Shafi'i holds this view. The evidence is that the Companions (may God be pleased with them) held differing opinions on jurisprudential matters, yet none criticized or declared the other a transgressor for dissenting. Furthermore, as it is a matter of dispute, the testimony of the one acting upon a view disagreed upon should not be rejected, similar to acts where the ruler agrees with the actor's view.
Supporting text
Malik rejects the testimony because the individual acted upon something the judge considers forbidden, resembling acts universally agreed upon as forbidden. The view of Al-Shafi'i's companions states that the testimony should not be rejected because an act that does not disqualify one person's testimony should not disqualify another's, similar to acts agreed upon as permissible. If the act is done while believing it forbidden, the testimony is rejected if repeated. Ahmad also stated that the testimony of one obligated to perform Hajj who neglects it is rejected, which is interpreted to apply only to one who believes Hajj is immediately obligatory; if the obligation is believed to be postponed, the testimony is not rejected.