or deflects from himself some harm by means of it.
Nor is the testimony of an enemy against the one he hates admissible.
The eminent scholar Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “The Sacred Law forbade accepting an enemy’s testimony against his foe so that it would not become a means for him to achieve his objective through false testimony….” End quote.
The measure of the enmity that invalidates testimony is this: if a man rejoices at another’s misfortune and is grieved by his happiness, he is deemed his enemy.
What is meant here is worldly enmity. Religious enmity does not bar testimony, so a Muslim’s testimony against a non-Muslim is accepted, as is the testimony of a Sunni against an innovator, because religious commitment deters a person from committing what is unlawful.
Likewise, the testimony of someone known for tribal chauvinism and excessive zeal for his clan is rejected, for suspicion necessarily arises in such a case.
As for the required number of witnesses, it differs according to the matter in question:
• Adultery and sodomy can only be proven by the testimony of four men, in accordance with Allah’s words, “Why did they not bring four witnesses to it?” (Q 24:13). Because the Law commands that such affairs be concealed, the evidentiary threshold is made especially stringent.
• To establish the insolvency of a person formerly known to be wealthy when he claims poverty, the testimony of three men is sufficient, based on the hadith: “Until three men of sound judgment from among his people bear witness that so-and-so has been struck by penury,” narrated by Muslim.