the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ruled on the basis of one witness together with the claimant’s oath.” (1)

Thus, for this evidence—whether it consists of two men, or one man and two women—probity must be established both outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly means what is apparent to people: nothing about the person gives rise to suspicion or accusation. For example, he prays, is discreet in his conduct, and is not known to lie. Inwardly means his true condition and hidden affairs. This can only be known through dealings that enable the person dealing with him to ascertain the man’s inner character. Many people appear upright, yet when one deals with them, one finds them to be unjust, deceitful, and dishonest, swearing false oaths for worldly gain. This is common. Therefore, probity must be established both outwardly and inwardly; outward appearance alone is not sufficient. This is the rational evidence.

As for the textual evidence, they said: the basic presumption concerning a Muslim is that probity is not established, because Allah says:

“And call to witness two just men from among you.” [al-Talaq 65:2]

He did not say, “Call to witness two men from among you.” Thus, specifying that the two witnesses must be just indicates that this is an attribute additional to mere Islam. Probity must therefore be established, for we distinguish between Islam and probity: probity is an attribute additional to Islam, and the basic presumption regarding an attribute is its absence, not its existence. Hence, most scholars said that the basic presumption concerning a Muslim is that probity is not established. It may be said that there is no doubt about this with respect to the rights of human beings: we do not lawfully take people’s property except on the testimony of one known to possess outward and inward probity. As for matters relating to the right of Allah, however, outward probity should suffice.