Islamic Fiqh > Judgment and testimony > Testimony (chahada) > Sixthly: testimony in marriage and divorce
Contents
Updated on 26 September 2026 at 7:12 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The jurists differed over testimony in marriage and divorce: is the testimony of women with men accepted in it, or are only men accepted? The Hanafis hold that the testimony of women is not accepted in the punishments and retaliation, and that every other right accepts two men or one man and two women, whether the right is property or not, such as marriage, divorce, agency and bequest, according to the word of Allah the Most High:
"And bring two just witnesses from among your men; and if there are not two men, then one man and two women from those you approve as witnesses"
Surat Al-Baqara, 282
Allah made the testimony of one man and two women an unrestricted proof, for He counted them among the witnesses; the unrestricted witness is one whose testimony is valid in every matter, which requires that they have testimony in all rulings, except what was restricted by evidence. It is narrated from our master 'Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) that "he permitted the testimony of women with men in marriage and separation", and it is not reported that any Companion objected to him: there was therefore consensus among them on the permission; and because the testimony of one man and two women for revealing what is testified to is like the testimony of two men, through the preponderance of the side of truth over falsehood by justice; not that their testimony was not made a proof in what is waived by doubts because of the shortfall and doubt we have mentioned: these rights are established by a proof that carries a doubt ("Ahkam al-Qur'an", 2/231, 232; "Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 6/279, 280; "Al-Ikhtiyar", 2/168; "Al-Jawhara an-Nayyira", 6/143).
The majority of jurists (the Malikis and the Shafi'is according to the madhhab) hold that what is not property, is not aimed at property and is seen by men, such as marriage, the return (raj'a), divorce, manumission, agency, bequest, intentional killing and the punishments, except the punishment of zina, is established only by two male witnesses, and the testimony of women is not accepted in it, neither alone nor with men, according to His word in the return:
"And take as witnesses two just witnesses from among you"
Surat At-Talaq, 2
And according to what Ibn Mas'oud (may Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet:
There is no marriage without a guardian and two just witnessesReported by Ibn Mas'oud (may Allah be pleased with him)
He said concerning the bequest:
"when death approaches one of you at the time of bequest, two just witnesses from among you"
Surat Al-Ma'ida, 106
Thus stating the testimony of men: the testimony of women is therefore not permitted in it, as in zina. Malik narrated from 'Aqil, from Ibn Chihab:
The Sunna has passed from the Messenger of Allah: the testimony of women is not permitted in the punishments, nor in marriage, nor in divorceReported by Malik in "Al-Mouwatta'" from 'Aqil and Ibn Chihab
And we made the analogy with it for everything that is not aimed at property and is seen by men. And because rights are of two kinds: the rights of Allah the Most High and the rights of human beings; when a distinction was made in the rights of Allah between the highest and the lowest in number, the highest being zina and the lowest wine, a distinction had to be made in the rights of human beings between the highest and the lowest in kind: the highest being the rights of bodies, the lowest the rights of property. And the testimony of women is a proof by necessity, made a proof in religious matters in the absence of men; yet there is no necessity in rights that are not property, the need being pushed back by the testimony of men; this is therefore why it was not made a proof in the punishments and retaliation, nor in exclusivity in what men do not see ("Al-Moudawwana al-Koubra", 5/44, 45 and 12/139; "Charh Sahih al-Boukhari", 8/22; "Al-Kafi", 1/469; "Al-Ichraf 'ala nakti masa'il al-khilaf", 5/54, 55, no. 1817; "Al-Hawi al-Kabir", 17/9; "Al-Mouhaddab", 2/333; "Al-Bayan", 13/330, 331; "Al-Moughni", 10/156, 157; "Al-Insaf", 12/79, 80; "Manar as-Sabil", 3/512, 513).
There is a report from Ahmad that in marriage, the return and manumission, the testimony of one man and two women is accepted ("Al-Moughni", 10/156, 157; "Al-Insaf", 12/80).
The jurists differed over judgment by witness and oath, when the holder of the right swears together with his witness and thereby obtains his right: is it accepted or not? The majority of jurists (the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis) hold that every right established by a witness and two women is established by a witness and an oath: the holder of the right swears with his witness and obtains his right; if he declines and refuses to swear, the respondent swears; if he swears, that right falls from him, and if he refuses to swear, the right is established for its holder; and this takes place in property exclusively: it does not occur in any punishment, nor in marriage, divorce, theft or false claim (firiya).
The proof of its permissibility is what Abu Hourayra reported:
The Prophet judged by the oath together with the witnessAuthentic narration reported by Abou Dawoud (3610), at-Tirmidhi (1343), Ibn Majah (2368) and Ibn Hibban in his "Sahih" (5073)
And Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet judged by the oath together with the witness (authentic narration: at-Tirmidhi, 1344; Ibn Majah, 2369). And Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
The Messenger of Allah judged by the witness and the oathAuthentic narration reported by Ibn Majah (2370)
Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr, after mentioning a number of hadiths in this matter, said: we have mentioned in this chapter only the traditions traced directly to the Prophet; had we mentioned the chains of those among the Companions, the Followers and the scholars of the Muslims who judged by it, that would be long. Among the Companions from whom judgment by the oath together with the witness is explicitly reported: Abu Bakr, 'Omar, 'Othman, 'Ali, Oubayy ibn Ka'b and Abdallah ibn 'Omar, although there is weakness in their chains; we did not cite them as proof, for the proof has become binding through the established Sunna, and the Sunna does not need anyone to support it: whoever opposes it is judged by it. And it did not come from any Companion that he objected to the oath together with the witness; rather the affirmative view came from them, and the majority of the Followers of Madina held it: Sa'id ibn al-Moussayyab, Abou Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman, al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, 'Ourwa, Salim, Abou Bakr ibn Abd ar-Rahman, Oubaydallah ibn Abdallah, Kharidja ibn Zayd, Soulayman ibn Yasar, 'Ali ibn Houssayn, Abou Ja'far Muhammad ibn 'Ali, Abou az-Zinad and 'Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz; no disagreement was reported from any one of them, except 'Ourwa, whose position is disputed; and it was disputed also concerning Ibn Chihab: Ma'mar said: I asked az-Zouhri about the oath together with the witness and he said: "This is something the people invented: there must be two witnesses"; although it is reported from him that when he first took up the judiciary, he judged by a witness and an oath. Such is the view of Malik and his companions, of ach-Chafi'i and his followers, of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, of Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, of Abou Oubayd, of Abou Thawr, of Dawoud ibn 'Ali and of a group of the people of tradition; and it is not permissible in my view to differ over it, given the wide diffusion of the traditions from the Prophet in this sense, and the people of Madina acted upon it generation after generation. Malik said: judgment is given by the oath together with the witness in all lands; he never based in his "Mouwatta'" anything other than it in this issue, and no disagreement was reported from him, nor from any of his companions in Madina, Egypt and elsewhere, over judgment by the oath together with the witness; the Malikis of every land know nothing else in their madhhab, except among us in al-Andalus: Yahya ibn Yahya abandoned it, claiming that he had not seen al-Layth ibn Sa'd issue fatwa by it; and Yahya contradicted Malik in that, in opposition to the Sunna and the practice in the House of Emigration. Malik also used to say: the trust concerning slaves is judged only in Madina exclusively, or against one upon whom it was stipulated, and he judged by the oath together with a single witness in every land. Ach-Chafi'i devoted a book to it in which he explained the proof against those who rejected it, and his companions did even more. Abou Hanifa and his companions, ath-Thawri and al-Awza'i said: judgment is not given by the oath together with a single witness; this is the view of 'Ata, al-Hakam ibn 'Outayba and a group; 'Ata claimed that the first to judge by it was Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, and this is an error: a conjecture that does not supply anything of the truth; and the one who denies and does not know is not like the one who establishes and knows: we have mentioned those of the Companions and the Followers whom we named, and none of them would abandon his knowledge for Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan ("At-Tamhid", 2/153, 154; "Al-Istidhkar", 7/111; see "Al-Mouwatta'", 2/721, 722; "Charh Sahih al-Boukhari", 8/59, 60; "Al-Ichraf 'ala nakti masa'il al-khilaf", 5/44, 45; "Al-Hawi al-Kabir", 17/68, 70; "Al-Bayan", 13/338, 339).
Ibn Qoudama said: most of the people of knowledge hold that property is established for the claimant by a witness and an oath; this is reported from Abu Bakr, 'Omar, 'Othman and 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with them); it is the view of the Seven Jurists, of 'Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz, al-Hasan, Chourayh, Iyas, Abdallah ibn 'Outba, Abou Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman, Yahya ibn Ya'mour, Rabi'a, Malik, Ibn Abi Layla, Abou az-Zinad and ach-Chafi'i. Ach-Cha'bi, an-Nakha'i, the people of opinion and al-Awza'i said: judgment is not given by a witness and an oath. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: "Whoever judges by the witness and the oath, I annul his judgment", for Allah the Most High said: [the verse of the two witnesses quoted above]; whoever adds to it adds to the text, and addition to the text is abrogation; and because the Prophet said: "The proof is upon the claimant, and the oath upon the one who denies": he thus restricted the oath to the side of the respondent, just as he restricted the proof to the side of the claimant.
Our argument: what Souhayl reported from his father, from Abu Hourayra: "The Messenger of Allah judged by the oath together with a single witness": Sa'id ibn Mansour reported it in his "Sunan", as did the imams of the Sunan and the Masanid; at-Tirmidhi said: "a hasan gharib hadith"; in this chapter there are also traditions from 'Ali, Ibn 'Abbas, Jabir and Masrouq; an-Nassa'i said: "the chain of Ibn 'Abbas's hadith concerning the oath together with the witness is a good chain".
And the oath is legislated in favor of the one whose truthfulness appears and whose side is strong: this is why it was legislated in favor of the holder of the property because of the strength of his side, and in favor of the denier because of the strength of his side, the principle being the freedom of his liability; the claimant here has seen his truthfulness appear: the oath must therefore be legislated in his favor; and they have no proof in the verse, for it indicated the legislation of the two witnesses and of the witness with two women, which is not disputed; their saying that addition to the text is abrogation is incorrect: abrogation is removal and suppression, whereas addition to a thing is its confirmation, not its removal; judgment by witness and oath does not prevent judgment by two witnesses nor remove it; and if the addition were connected to what it is added to, it would not remove it and would not be abrogation, likewise when it is separate from it; and the verse concerns writing down and not performance, which is why He said: "so that if one of the two errs, the other can remind her", the dispute being in performance; and their hadith is weak, and it does not serve for restriction: the oath is indeed legislated in favor of the depositary who claims the return of the deposit and its loss, in favor of trustees when their wrongdoing appears, in favor of the mutual imprecator (moutal'an), in the qasama; and it is legislated in favor of the seller and the buyer when they differ over the price while the goods are still standing. Muhammad's statement (annulling the judgment of whoever judges by witness and oath) implies the annulment of the judgment of the Messenger of Allah and of the caliphs who judged by it; yet Allah the Most High said:
"No, by your Lord! They will not believe until they make you judge concerning what arises between them, then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have decided, and submit in full submission"
Surat An-Nisa, 65
And judgment by what Muhammad ibn Abdallah judged is more fitting than the judgment of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan who contradicts him ("Al-Moughni", 10/158, 159).
Section: the judge said: it is permitted to swear to what testimony is not permitted upon, like finding in his own handwriting a debt owed to him by a person, while knowing that he writes nothing but the truth and did not mention it; or finding in his father's writings, in his own handwriting, a debt owed by a person, knowing of his father his trustworthiness and that he writes nothing but the truth: he may then swear to it but not testify to it; and if a trustworthy person informed him of his father's right and it settled in his heart, he may swear to it but not testify to it; and ach-Chafi'i said the same. The difference between the oath and the testimony rests on two points: the first is that the testimony is for another: it is possible that the one who possesses the testimony forged it in his writing, which is not possible in what one swears to, for the right belongs only to the one who swears, and no one forges against himself; the second is that what a man writes of his rights is abundant and he forgets part of it, unlike the testimony.
Section: every place in which the witness and the oath are accepted makes no difference according to whether the claimant is a Muslim or a disbeliever, just or a sinner, a man or a woman; Ahmad stated this explicitly, for the one in whose favor the oath is legislated does not change in ruling with these attributes, like the denier in the absence of proof.
Section: Ahmad said: "the Sunna has passed of judging by the oath together with a single witness; if the claimant refuses to swear, the respondent is put under oath"; this is the view of Malik and ach-Chafi'i; and it is also reported from Ahmad: if the respondent refuses to swear, the right is established against him ("Al-Moughni", 10/158, 159). Ibn al-Qayyim said: judgment by witness and oath is the madhhab of all the jurists of hadith and of all the jurists of the great cities, except Abu Hanifa and his companions ("At-Tourouq al-Hikamiyya", p. 113).
The Hanafis hold that judgment is not given by witness and oath, and that two witnesses, or one witness and two women, are required, according to the word of Allah the Most High: "And bring two just witnesses from among your men; and if there are not two men, then one man and two women from those you approve as witnesses"; this requires the invalidity of judgment by witness and oath; for His word "bring" encompasses the testimony upon the contracts of lending with a term with which the discourse of the verse opens, and their presentation before the judge, and the judge is obliged to take them, the wording possibly bearing both situations; and the purpose of testimony upon the contract is its establishment in case of contestation: it therefore necessarily encompasses the testimony of the two witnesses, or of the man and the two women, upon the contract before the judge, and the obligation to judge by it; this being so, the apparent meaning of the wording requires obligation, for it is a command, and the commands of Allah are upon obligation: Allah thus obliged the judge to judge by the number mentioned, like His word: "lash them with eighty lashes" (Surat An-Nur, 4) and His word: "lash each one of them with a hundred lashes" (Surat An-Nur, 2); and it is not permitted to be content with less than the number mentioned; likewise the number mentioned for testimony: it is not permitted to be content with less, and permitting less than that contradicts the Book, just as if the one permitting allowed the punishment of slander to be seventy or the punishment of zina to be ninety: he would contradict the verse.
Moreover, the verse organized two things in the matter of the witnesses: the number, and the quality, namely that they be free and acceptable, according to His word: "from among your men" and His word: "from those you approve as witnesses"; since dropping the required quality and being content with less is not permitted, dropping the number is not permitted either: the verse requires the fulfillment of the two requirements in implementing its judgment: the number, the justice and the approval; dropping one of them is therefore not permitted; and the number is more deserving of consideration than justice and approval, for the number is known with certainty whereas justice is established only by way of appearance, not by way of reality: since dropping the required justice is not permitted by way of appearance, dropping the number known by way of reality and certainty is not permitted either.
And Allah, wanting precaution in permitting the testimony of women, required the testimony of two women and said: "so that if one of the two errs, the other can remind her", then said: "That is more just in the sight of Allah, more upright for testimony, and closer so that you do not doubt" (Surat Al-Baqara, 282), thereby negating the causes of accusation, doubt and forgetfulness; and this contains what negates accepting the oath of the claimant and judging in his favor by a single witness, given that there is judgment by other than what was commanded of precaution, manifestation and negation of suspicion and doubt; yet accepting his oath contains the greatest suspicion and doubt and the greatest accusation: this contradicts the purport of the verse.
Indicating also the invalidity of the witness with the oath is His word: "from those you approve as witnesses"; and we know that the single witness is not accepted nor intended by the verse; the oath of the claimant cannot bear the sin of the witness, nor be approval in what he claims for himself: judgment by a single witness and his oath therefore contradicts the verse from these angles, and removes what was intended in the matter of testimonies of precaution and guarantee upon what Allah clarified in this verse. Indicating it also is the word of the Prophet: "The proof is upon the claimant, and the oath upon the one who denies": a distinction was made between the oath and the proof; it is therefore not permitted that the oath be a proof; for if the oath could be named proof, it would be like the statement of one who says: "the proof upon the claimant, and the proof upon the respondent"; His word "proof" is a generic name encompassing what is under it: there is no proof except the one that is upon the claimant; the oath therefore cannot be upon him; and the proof is a comprehensive word that can bear different meanings, and they agreed that the two witnesses, or the witness and the two women, are intended by this report, and that the name designates them: it becomes like His saying: "two witnesses, or one witness and two women, upon the claimant"; it is therefore not permitted to be content with less than them ("Ahkam al-Qur'an", 2/247, 249; "Moukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Oulama'", 3/343; "Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 6/225).
Imam Ibn Rouchd said: as for judgment by the oath together with the witness, they differed. Malik, ach-Chafi'i, Ahmad, Dawoud, Abou Thawr, the Seven Madina Jurists and a group said: judgment is given by the oath together with the witness in property. Abou Hanifa, ath-Thawri, al-Awza'i and the majority of the Iraqis said: judgment is not given by the oath together with the witness in anything, and al-Layth, one of Malik's companions, said so too ("Bidayat al-Moujtahid", 2/350).
The cause of the disagreement in this chapter is the conflict of hearings. Those who affirm it relied on numerous traditions: the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, that of Abu Hourayra, that of Zayd ibn Thabit and that of Jabir; only the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas was included by Mouslim: "The Messenger of Allah judged by the oath together with the witness": Mouslim included it and al-Boukhari did not. Malik relied on his mursal report from Ja'far ibn Muhammad from his father: that the Messenger of Allah judged by the oath together with the witness, for acting upon mursal reports is obligatory in his view. As for the contrary hearing: the word of Allah: "and if there are not two men, then one man and two women from those you approve as witnesses"; they say: this requires restriction, and addition to it is abrogation, and the Quran is not abrogated by Sunna that is not widely transmitted; and according to the opponent, it is not abrogation but an addition that does not change the ruling of what it is added to. As for the Sunna, what al-Boukhari and Mouslim included from al-Asch'ath ibn Qays:
There was between me and a man a dispute over a matter; we referred the matter to the Prophet and he said: "Your witness or his oath." I said: "Then he will swear and not care." The Prophet said: "Whoever swears an oath to unjustly take the wealth of a Muslim will meet Allah while He is angry with him."Reported by al-Boukhari and Mouslim
They said: therein lies restriction of the judgment and invalidation of the proof of each of the two disputants, and it cannot be permitted to the Prophet not to fulfill all the degrees of proof for the claimant.
Those who hold the oath together with the witness rely on their principle that the oath is the proof of the stronger of the two litigants by doubt; and here the claimant's proof was strengthened by the witness, just as it was strengthened in the qasama ("Bidayat al-Moujtahid", 2/350). Imam Ibn Hubayra said: they agreed that judgment by witness and oath is valid only concerning property and its rights; they then differed over property and its rights: Malik, Ahmad and ach-Chafi'i said it is permitted, and Abu Hanifa said it is not permitted ("Al-Ifsah", 2/418, 419).
The jurists who hold witness and oath differed: is judgment given by the oath together with the two women, or is it given by the oath only together with the male witness? The Malikis hold that it is permitted to judge by the two women together with the oath, for the two women were established in the man's place in property, according to the word of Allah: "and if there are not two men, then one man and two women"; if judgment by the testimony of the man together with the oath is permitted, judgment by the testimony of the two women together with the oath is permitted too; and because they were placed on the same footing as testimony concerning property, like the single witness; and because it is a cause that affects the judgment and strengthens the claimant's proof: he may therefore swear together with it; and its origin is the single witness ("Al-Ichraf 'ala nakti masa'il al-khilaf", 5/46, no. 1809; "Bidayat al-Moujtahid", 2/350; "Jami' al-oummahat", p. 477).
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis hold that the testimony of two women together with the claimant's oath is not accepted, for the proof concerning property devoid of a man is not accepted, just as if four women testified: they are not accepted, for the testimony of women is not accepted in it in isolation; and what they mentioned falls by this form: if they were established in the man's place from every angle, four women would suffice in the place of two men, and the testimony of one man and two women would be accepted in what is not property; and the testimony of the two women is weak strengthened by the man, and the oath is weak: a weak is thus joined to a weak and it is not accepted ("Rawdat at-Talibin", 7/433; "Al-Moughni", 10/159; "Al-Insaf", 12/115; "Matalib ouli an-Nouha", 6/632; "Manar as-Sabil", 3/514).
Ibn al-Qayyim said: judgment by the testimony of two women and the claimant's oath concerning property and its rights: this is the madhhab of Malik, and one of the two positions in the madhhab of Imam Ahmad, related by our shaykh who chose it; and the apparent meaning of the Quran and the apparent meaning of the Sunna indicate the validity of this view; for Allah established the two women in the man's place, and the Prophet said in the authentic hadith:
Is not the testimony of a woman like half the testimony of a man? They said: YesAuthentic hadith
This indicates, by its explicit wording, that her testimony alone concerns half, and, by its implication, that her testimony together with her counterpart is like the testimony of a man; and nothing in the Quran, nor in the Sunna, nor in consensus, prevents it; on the contrary, the correct analogy requires it: the two women, when they stand in the man's place when they are with him, stand in his place even if they are not with him; for the acceptance of their testimony is not because of the meaning of man, but because of a meaning in them: justice, which is present even when they are alone; what is feared is the poor recollection of a woman alone and her poor retention: she was therefore strengthened by another woman ("At-Tourouq al-Hikamiyya", p. 135; "I'lam al-Mouwaqqi'in", 1/195).
The jurists differed over requiring the formula of testimony: must the witness say "I testify", or is nothing of the sort required and it is based on what indicates that the witness acquired knowledge of what he testifies to, such as "I saw this and I heard that"? The Hanafis, the Malikis in one view, and the Shafi'is and Hanbalis according to the madhhab, hold that testimony is only accepted with the formula of testimony and is not accepted with other words, such as words of informing and announcing, even if they convey the meaning of testimony devotionally.
He says "I testify" or "I have testified", and it does not suffice to say "I am a witness of this", for that is information about what he is characterized by, like his saying: "I bear a testimony upon such a one concerning this"; nor "I know", "I ascertain", "I recognize" or "I am certain", for he did not come with the verb derived from the word of testimony; nor "I testify by what I set my hand to", because of its generality and vagueness; in "an-Noukat": the view of validity is preferable. But if he was preceded by another in the testimony and says: "thereby I testify" or "likewise I testify", it is valid, due to the clarity of the meaning ("Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 6/273; "Al-Jawhara an-Nayyira", 6/138; "Ach-Charh al-Kabir with the Hachiyat ad-Dassouqi", 6/60; "An-Najm al-Wahhaj", 10/339; "Moughni al-Mouhtaj", 6/413; "Zad al-Ma'ad", 3/492, 493; "Al-Insaf", 12/108, 109; "Charh Mountaha al-Iradat", 6/707; "Matalib ouli an-Nouha", 6/649; "Manar as-Sabil", 3/521).
Imam ar-Ramli said: the formula "I testify" was only fixed in the delivering of testimony to the exclusion of the other words indicating verification of the thing, in conformity with the Book and the Sunna, which amounts to consensus on its fixation; testimony is a name derived from seeing, which is visual access to the thing; the present tense was fixed because it is used for immediate information, and because it is used in the oath, as in: "I testify by Allah that it was so", meaning I swear: the formula "I testify" thus contains the meaning of seeing, of swearing and of immediate information, as if the witness said: "I swear by Allah and I hereby inform of it at once"; and these meanings are absent from the other words ("Hachiyat ar-Ramli 'ala Asna al-Matalib", 4/378).
The Malikis in the most apparent view and the Hanbalis in one report, which is the choice of the shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim, hold that the formula "I testify" is not required, and that it is based on what indicates the witness's acquisition of knowledge of what he testifies to, such as "I saw this, I heard that, or I ascertain that this one has such a right with that one"; no fixed formula is therefore required for its delivery, for it is not known of any Companion or Follower that he required the formula of testimony; and the Book and the Sunna use the word of testimony without restriction for mere information. Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said: pronouncing "I testify" is not required in testimony, and this is the soundest report from Ahmad by evidence, although the most famous among his companions is the requirement, which is the madhhab of Malik. Our shaykh said: the requirement of the formula is not known from any of the Companions or Followers. Ibn 'Abbas said: "just men testified in my presence, the most acceptable to me being 'Omar, that the Messenger of Allah forbade the prayer after the asr and after the sobh", and it is known that they did not pronounce the formula: it was mere information. In the hadith of Ma'iz: when he testified against himself in four testimonies, he stoned him, and his words were mere information about himself: it is an admission. And the word of Allah the Most High:
"Will you then testify that with Allah there are other deities? Say: I do not testify"
Surat Al-An'am, 19
His word:
"They will say: We testify against ourselves; the life of this world deluded them, and they will testify that they were disbelievers"
Surat Al-An'am, 130
His word:
"But Allah bears witness to what He has revealed to you; He revealed it with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness, and Allah is sufficient as witness"
Surat An-Nisa, 166
His word:
"Do you affirm it and accept My binding pledge? They said: We affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses"
Surat Al Imran, 81
And His word:
"Allah witnesses that there is no deity except Him, and so do the angels and those of knowledge, maintaining justice"
Surat Al Imran, 18
And many more, of what has come in the Quran and the Sunna of the unrestricted use of the word of testimony for mere information, without the formula "I testify".
Imam Ahmad and 'Ali ibn al-Madini disputed over the testimony of the Ten for Paradise: 'Ali said: "I say they are in Paradise, but I do not say: I testify that they are in Paradise"; Imam Ahmad said: "when you said: they are in Paradise, you testified"; this is an explicit statement from him that the formula is not required in testimony; and the hadith of Abu Qatada is one of the two proofs in this ("Zad al-Ma'ad", 3/492, 493; "Al-Insaf", 12/108, 109; "Manar as-Sabil", 3/521).
Imam ad-Dassouqi said: must the formula "I testify" be required in the delivering of testimony specifically, or is it not required? Two positions, the more apparent of which is the absence of requirement: it is based on what indicates the witness's acquisition of knowledge of what he testifies to, such as "I saw this and I heard that, or I ascertain that this one has such a right with that one", and no fixed formula is required for its delivery ("Hachiyat ad-Dassouqi on Ach-Charh al-Kabir", 6/60; "Tabsirat al-Houkkam", 1/223; "Mouh al-Jalil", 8/406; "Hachiyat as-Saoui on Ach-Charh as-Saghir", 9/390).
Testimony upon testimony is permitted; Ibn Qoudama said: by the consensus of the scholars, and such is the view of Malik, ach-Chafi'i and the people of opinion. Abou Oubayd said: the scholars of Hijaz and Iraq agreed on endorsing testimony upon testimony in property; and because need calls for it: if this testimony were not accepted, the testimony upon the endowment and upon what is established later before the judge would be void, then the witnesses die, which entails harm and great hardship upon the people: it must therefore be accepted like the testimony of the original ("Al-Moughni", 10/196). The people of knowledge agreed that it is accepted in property and in what property is aimed at ("Al-Moughni", 10/196).
They differed over whether it is accepted in the punishments or not; Imam Ibn Hubayra explained it, saying: Malik said in one of the two reports: it is accepted in everything of the rulings, of the rights of Allah and the rights of human beings. There is another report from Ahmad: it is accepted in the rights of human beings and is not accepted in the rights of Allah. Abu Hanifa said: it is not permitted in the penalties, whether they are Allah's or human beings', and it is accepted in what is other than that. Ach-Chafi'i said: it is accepted in the rights of human beings, in a single position. And is it accepted in the rights of Allah, like the punishment of zina, theft and drinking wine? Two positions, the more apparent of which: that it is not accepted.
They differed over the witnesses of the subsidiary testimony: may a witness be among them? Abu Hanifa said: it is permitted. Ahmad, Malik and ach-Chafi'i said: it is not permitted. They also differed over the number of the witnesses of the subsidiary testimony: Abu Hanifa, Malik and Ahmad said: the testimony of two persons is permitted in it, each of them upon the two witnesses of the original. Ach-Chafi'i has two positions: one like this, and the second: they must be four, so that there is one witness upon each witness of the original witnesses. They agreed that the testimony of the witnesses of the subsidiary testimony is not permitted while the witnesses of the original exist, except for an excuse preventing the witnesses of the original, such as illness or an absence that shortens the prayer; and there is another report from Ahmad: the testimony of the witnesses of the subsidiary testimony is only accepted after the death of the witnesses of the original ("Al-Ifsah", 2/422, 423; see "Bada'i' as-Sana'i'", 6/281; "Fatwa as-Saghdi", 2/802, 803; "Al-Kafi", p. 466; "Al-Hawi al-Kabir", 17/220, 223; "Al-Mouhaddab", 2/337, 338).