who appears to have a disqualifying defect; then a witness against whom a past disqualifying defect has been established, or whom the judge knows to have such a defect; then a witness who persists in a disqualifying defect and is notorious for it; then a false witness.

Section

The testimony of a witness of outstanding uprightness who knows what makes testimony valid is admissible in all matters, as are his attestations of others’ uprightness and his challenges to their fitness as witnesses. If he leaves unspecified how he came to know what he testifies to in any of these matters, he is not questioned about it. No challenge to his own fitness is accepted except on grounds of enmity. It has also been said that no challenge to his fitness is accepted at all, whether on grounds of enmity or otherwise. The same applies to a witness of outstanding uprightness who does not know what makes testimony valid, except that he is questioned about how he came to know what he testifies to if he leaves this unspecified.

As for a witness known to be upright who knows what makes testimony valid, his testimony is admissible except in six cases, some of which are disputed: attesting to another witness’s uprightness; testifying for his brother; for his patron or client; for his close friend; for his business partner in matters unrelated to their trade; and when he adds to or subtracts from his testimony. Challenges to his fitness are accepted on grounds of enmity and on other grounds. He is not questioned about how he came to know what he testifies to if he leaves this unspecified.

The same applies to a witness known to be upright who does not know what makes testimony valid, except that he is questioned about how he came to know what he testifies to if he leaves this unspecified. As for a witness known to be upright who has accused someone of unchastity but has not yet received the prescribed punishment, there is disagreement over the admissibility of his testimony. Ibn al-Mājishūn and Asbagh did not admit it, which is also al-Shāfiʿī’s position. Ibn al-Qāsim admitted it, and this is the well-known position in the school.

As for a witness who appears to be upright, according to Ibn Habīb his testimony is admissible without attestation of his uprightness in transactions occurring among travellers during a journey. In other matters, it is inadmissible without such attestation.

As for a witness who appears neither upright nor to have a disqualifying defect, his testimony is inadmissible in any matter without attestation of his uprightness. Nevertheless, in certain cases and according to some scholars, it may constitute prima facie evidence requiring an oath, the administration of qasāma (oaths in homicide claims), the provision of a surety, or the holding of the disputed property pending judgment. As for a witness who appears to have a disqualifying defect, his testimony is inadmissible without attestation of his uprightness, nor does it constitute prima facie evidence warranting a legal ruling. As for a witness against whom a past disqualifying defect has been established, or