| المستخلص: |
The author discusses the following topics: Definition of revocation of testimony is “the witness declining his previous testimony stating ‘I revoke my testimony or I have falsely testified and the like.’” Jurists agree that the testimony has authority as a means of substantiation before the court. The condition for the revocation of testimony is that it should be pronounced before the court session. Cases of revocation of testimony: Prior to Issue of Judgment: The judge may not consider the testimony as evidence of substantiation and may punish or defame witnesses who revoke their testimonies unless it is a revocation of a testimony against someone of adultery in which case jurists differ as to the revocation of testimony in two opinions as follows: 1st Opinion: The revoking witness should be punished with the hadd of defamation according to the majority of jurists. 2nd Opinion: the revoking witness is not punished according to some Hanbalites. This is the opinion held preponderant by the author. After issue of Judgment and prior to Execution: Revocation of testimony in hudood or qisaas (equal punishment) is a point of difference between jurists in two opinions as follows: 1st Opinion: The judgment should be revoked and not executed according to the majority of jurists. This opinion is considered the preponderant one by the author. 2nd Opinion: If the testimony relates to a life, compensation should be paid according to Khaleel. Revocation of testimony in a moneyrelated case: Jurists differ in two opinions as follows: 1st Opinion: The judgment is not revoked but the witness is held liable for the subject of judgment according to the majority of jurists. The author considers this opinion as the preponderant one. 2nd Opinion: The judgment should be revoked according to the Shaafi’ites and the Dhaahirites. After issue and Execution of Judgment: Jurists differ in two opinions as follows: 1st Opinion: The judgment is not revoked according to Maalik, Ash-Shaafi’ee and Ahmad. This is the opinion considered as the preponderant one by the author. 2nd Opinion: The witnesses are not killed if the testimony relates to a life but they are liable to pay the blood money and the stolen money according to Abu Haneefah and his two disciples. Cases of Partial Revocation Related to Financial Matters Revocation before the issue of the judgment: is taken into consideration and the judge may not use the testimony as a proof. The judge may punish or defame the revoking witness. Revocation after the issue of the judgment: If the minimum number of witnesses is not met in case of revocation, the author is of the opinion that the revoking persons should pay the amount from their money according to the number of witnesses and the number of revoking persons. If the minimum amount does not decrease, the author is of the opinion that the revoking witness is not liable for anything. However, if the witness revokes his testimony after judgment and execution, the judgment may not be revoked and the person in whose favour the testimony is provided must not repay what he has taken. Revocation of Testimony by Some Witnesses in Hudood and Qisaas: Revocation before Judgment on Adultery. Three opinions are expressed: 1st Opinion: The hadd is to be applied against the four witnesses according to Abu Haneefah and his two disciples, some of the Shaafi’ites and a narration from Ahmad. This is the opinion the author considers as the preponderant one. 2nd Opinion: The hadd is to be applied against the non-revoking witnesses according to the Hanbalites. 3rd Opinion: The hadd is to be applied against the revoking witness only according to Zufar from the Hanafites and some of the Shaafi’ites. Revocation of testimony by some witnesses which does not affect the minimum number of witnesses after issuing the judgment and before execution in cases of testimony related to hudood and qisaas is a point of difference among scholars. The author is of the opinion that the revoking witness is not to be held liable as long as the remaining number of witnesses is sufficient to substantiate the right. Revocation of testimony by some witnesses which affects the minimum number of witnesses after issuing the judgment and prior to execution in cases of hudood and qisaas is a subject of difference among scholars. The author is of the opinion that the hadd should be applied against the witnesses who did not revoke their testimony. Revocation of some witnesses after issuing the judgment and execution is a point of difference among jurists. The author is of the opinion that the revoking witness is the one who should be punished with the defamation hadd and penalized with quarter the amount of blood money. Jurists differ as to revocation by the witness in four opinions. The author is of the opinion that the statement of the witness should be accepted if he revokes his testimony provided that he continues to have legal capacity, no judgment is issued based on the testimony and not leaving the court session. Jurists differ as to the judge’s dictating witnesses to revoke their testimony in two opinions. The author is of the opinion that the judge may dictate him. Jurists differ as to the revocation of commendations of witnesses and whether they are held liable. The author is of the opinion is that the persons who commend the witnesses should be penalized if they revoke their commendations.
|
