The second is that the holder of the right—not the witness—asks him to bear witness. According to the school, this is not permissible; but according to the view preferred by the author of al-Mughnī and al-Sharḥ, it is permissible—that is, al-Muwaffaq and his nephew, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Abū ʿUmar, held it to be permissible.

The third is that no one asks him to bear witness, but he hears that so-and-so is giving testimony. This case is subject to disagreement, though the disagreement here is weaker than that concerning the second case. What appears correct in this final case is that he may testify, but he should not say, “So-and-so made me a witness.” Rather, he should say, “I testify to so-and-so’s testimony concerning such-and-such,” because the basic presumption is that what previously existed remains as it was. Nor is he testifying falsely; moreover, at times we may find no proof of a right except this testimony.

Thus, he says, “Bear witness to my testimony concerning such-and-such.” Or he hears him acknowledge it before the judge, or attribute it to a cause, such as a loan, a sale, or the like. If witnesses concerning property retract their testimony after judgment has been given, the judgment is not overturned, and they are liable for compensation, not those who declared them upright. If the judge rules on the basis of one witness and an oath, and then the witness retracts his testimony, he must compensate for the entire property.

His statement, “Thus, he says: ‘Bear witness to my testimony concerning such-and-such,’” means that the original witness says, “Bear witness to my testimony,” or says, “Bear witness that I testify that so-and-so is owed such-and-such by so-and-so,” or uses similar expressions. What matters is that he uses wording indicating that the original witness has delegated the testimony to the secondary witness.

Must there be two or more secondary witnesses for each original witness, or is one secondary witness for each original witness sufficient? We say: one secondary witness for each original witness is sufficient. Thus, Zayd and ʿAmr are two original witnesses: Bakr testifies concerning Zayd, and Khālid concerning ʿAmr; this is permissible. It is even more clearly permissible for each original witness to have two secondary witnesses. It is also permissible for the two secondary witnesses to testify concerning each original witness; that is, Ḥajjāj and Yāsir testify concerning ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and testify concerning Khalīl. These are two scenarios.

May a single secondary witness testify concerning two original witnesses? The answer is no: a single testimony is not sufficient.