Ibrahim Saleh al-Husseini: It’s an ‘Ijthihad’ for sure, because usually witness are not been taken an oath, because the witnesses are just and the just one does not swear, and their swearing denotes a negative in them. But, the Scholars have said: Nowadays as for the immorality has spread among people and the hostility too increased. So, in my view the swearing of witness is needed in this era, did you get me? For an example, nowadays, if you do a loan deal with a Muslim, you give him money to speculate with you. You know the loaner, this loan is according to the condition, that the capital is yours, you are the owner of the money and the rest is between you and the worker, and if he perishes money, he has nothing on it, at this time we require the guarantee, like a tailor in the early days of Islam, if you give a tailor or a castor ... or you give any maker, and something is lost, it is not guaranteed because there had honesty in past, but it is guaranteed by Sayyid Ali, because the time changed and they may hide it and say lost, do you understand this? Therefore, witnesses at this time may be sworn because the presence of just and trustworthy witness has become difficult, so authenticity of witness got lost.

Thus the witness's oath will be permissible based on issues similar to that also, which is the theory we quote “The fatwa changes with changing conditions and times,” so it is permissible to change the fatwa on a specific topic like this.

For example, there have two Arabic idioms (حبلك على غاربك and (أنت بريئة وأنت خلية) which means ‘that I dissolve you from all rights over you and cursed you and I have divorced you’ did you get me? At that time, the woman will subject to only first divorce, and if he said that he did not meant anything, he will be charged for having intended and denied, and if he said that I meant first divorce only, then it’s it, and if he said I intended to complete the remaining divorce to the already one with whom he had done sexually intercourse, it’s agreed, and if it was with whom he didn’t done sexual intercourse, it is considered only as first divorce, did you get? But in the old time, these things differ in their custom, we have a custom such like they had. Witnesses in the old time were just and authentic people, and such just people weren’t sworn because it will be raising a doubt in their justice.

But in this time, either you don’t request testimony from anyone, then you will loss the rights; or you request it from anyone while you are suspicious of him, then the only solution is to make him as witness and swear them, did you get?