Tazkiya (attestation of witnesses' uprightness)

In judging, tazkiya is attesting that witnesses are just. It is done secretly and openly. The Hanafis judge by apparent uprightness unless the opponent impugns it; others require it in every matter. ^{1 3}

Tazkiya in the language is ascribing goodness; jurists use it for ascribing uprightness, as they use tatdil. In judging it is attesting witnesses' uprightness; impugning (jarh) is its opposite. A man's tazkiya of his property is paying the zakat due on it. ^{1 2}

Abu Hanifa and one narration of Ahmad judge by apparent uprightness unless the opponent impugns a witness; Abu Hanifa requires attestation in fixed penalties and retaliation even without challenge. Malik, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, the Shafi'is and the other narration of Ahmad require attestation in every matter unless the judge already knows the witnesses. ^{3 7} The first group cite the saying of Umar that Muslims are just, one toward another, and the case of the bedouin who witnessed the crescent; the second cite that uprightness is a condition and must be known, as Islam is. The Hanafis say the difference with their two companions is one of age, since the people of the early generations were good. ³

There are two kinds: secret attestation, for which the judge chooses the most trusted man and asks neighbours and market people; and open attestation, given before the judge after the secret one. The Hanafis say secret attestation alone suffices today; the Malikis recommend both, and the secret alone suffices; the Hanbalis seem to accept the secret alone. ^{7 4}

In secret attestation Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf and one Maliki view accept one; the Shafi'is and Hanbalis require two. In open attestation the three imams require two, and Ibn Kinana required three. The attestor must be distinguished, sharp and of sound mind in the jurists other than the Hanafis; the Hanafis allow a father to attest for his son in secret, and a woman who mixes with people in the open. The Malikis refuse attestation by women. ^{8 9}

For the Hanafis, when one man attests and another impugns, Muhammad would repeat the matter, while Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf give the impugning precedence. The Malikis hold two views if two attest and two impugn; the Shafi'is prefer the impugning; the Hanbalis weigh the number of those who report. ^{4 8}

The Hanafis hold that once a witness's uprightness is established, a later testimony needs no new attestation if the time is recent, a period some put at six months. Ahmad says the judge should ask about his witnesses often, and Ibn Qudama held this recommended or obligatory as circumstances change. ^{10 11}

Abu Hanifa and the Malikis accept a bare impugning; the Shafi'is require the cause to be stated. ¹⁰

Abu Hanifa holds that if attestors retract, the blood-money is on them; the two companions say retaliation is due from them; the Malikis require no payment; the sounder Shafi'i view attaches retaliation and liability; the Hanbalis hold them liable. ^{5 12}

Whoever is relied on for a report must be just and retentive of what he reports; uprightness is shown by two who attest it or by general repute. Attesting uprightness need not state its cause; impugning must state it. ⁶

The Qur'an forbids a person to attest his own goodness, citing the verse of surah al-Najm (53:32). It is not blameworthy to describe one's own qualities when one needs them for an office. ¹³