The second is when the party against whom the testimony was given has been released from the claim: he may not seek compensation from the two witnesses. For we say: You have not borne liability for anything, such that you could hold them liable; and so long as you have not borne any liability to another, you have no claim against them.

His statement: “If judgment is issued on the basis of one witness and an oath, then the witness retracts, he must compensate for the entire amount.” If the judge rules on the basis of one witness and an oath, and the witness retracts before judgment, then, as mentioned previously, no judgment is issued on that basis at all. If he retracts after judgment, the judgment is not overturned, and the entire liability rests upon the witness.

No one should imagine that the liability is divided equally between them on the grounds that the judgment was established by the witness and the oath. There is a difference between the two cases: where there are multiple witnesses, they are liable, each bearing his respective share. Here, however, the entire liability rests upon the witness, because the claimant’s oath establishes nothing by itself. Even if the claimant were to swear one thousand oaths without a witness, nothing would be established thereby. Thus, the claim was established only through the witness; the oath merely strengthens his side and is not what establishes the right. This is why they said that he must compensate for the entire amount.

Some scholars hold that he is liable for only half, on the basis that the oath is regarded as equivalent to a second witness. However, the position of the madhhab is more consistent with legal analogy: the witness is liable for the entire amount.