to supplement his companion’s testimony and thereby becomes entitled to his bequest, while the other beneficiaries receive their bequests on the strength of the two witnesses’ testimony without taking an oath. It may also be argued, on the basis of a weak interpretation, that his testimony is inadmissible both on his own behalf and on behalf of others. If the bequest to which he testifies in his own favour is large, his testimony on his own behalf is inadmissible by agreement. His testimony on behalf of others is admissible according to Mutarrif and Ibn al-Mājishūn, but inadmissible according to what is recorded in Ashhab’s transmitted opinions in the Book of Testimonies. According to Ibn al-Mājishūn and Mutarrif, if no other witness joins him, the beneficiaries take oaths and become entitled to their bequests through their oaths together with his testimony. If another witness joins him who likewise testifies to a large bequest in his own favour, each supplements his companion’s testimony with his own oath and thereby becomes entitled to his bequest, provided that they did not testify on each other’s behalf at the same sitting. This follows their position concerning witnesses who testify on each other’s behalf: their testimony is inadmissible if it is against the same person at the same sitting. The other beneficiaries receive their bequests on the strength of the two witnesses’ testimony without taking an oath.

Section

The well-known position in the school is that, when part of a testimony is rejected because of suspected bias, the whole testimony is rejected. It has also been held that the part unaffected by such suspicion remains admissible, by analogy with Asbagh’s opinion cited above.

Another well-known position in the school is that, when part of a testimony is rejected under the rules established by the Sunnah, whatever those rules permit remains admissible. It has also been held that the whole testimony is rejected. This can be inferred from the statement in al-Mudawwana concerning women who testify in favour of an executor that the deceased appointed him: their testimony is inadmissible if the will includes emancipation and the arrangement of women’s marriages.

Likewise, the well-known position in the school is that, when part of a testimony is rejected because only one witness attests to it, the testimony remains admissible concerning matters that can be established by a single witness, but is invalid concerning matters that require two witnesses. For example, two witnesses may testify on a man’s behalf concerning another man’s will, which includes emancipation and bequests to certain people. The beneficiaries of the monetary bequests then supplement the witness’s testimony with their oaths, and their bequests are paid from what remains after deducting the value of the emancipation. It has also been held that the whole testimony is rejected. Al-Muzanī related this from Ashhab