And they were struck. Umar's statement, "O waste of an eagle" (ya salh al-'uqab), means that he resembles the excrement of an eagle (salh al-'uqab), which burns everything it touches. Likewise, in this case, the punishment is inflicted upon one of the two parties without fail: if the testimony is complete, the person testified against is subjected to the hadd, and if it is not complete, his companions are subjected to the hadd. If it is said: "But Abu Bakra and his companions who testified disagreed with them," we respond: They did not disagree regarding the obligation of the hadd upon them; rather, they disagreed regarding the validity of that which they testified to. Furthermore, he is an accuser of adultery (qadhif) who did not bring four witnesses, so the hadd is mandatory upon him, just as if he had not brought anyone at all.

Section: If they are complete as four but are not acceptable witnesses, or if one of them is among those whose testimony is rejected—such as slaves, the corrupt (fussaq), or the blind—there are three narrations regarding them. One is that the hadd is upon them. This is the opinion of Malik. Al-Qadi said: This is the correct view, because it is testimony that was not completed, so the hadd is mandatory upon the witnesses, just as if they were three. The second is that there is no hadd upon them. This is the opinion of al-Hasan, al-Sha'bi, Abu Hanifa, and Muhammad, because these people have brought four witnesses and therefore fall under the generality of the verse, and because their number is complete, and the rejection of the testimony was due to a reason other than their negligence. This is similar to the case where four people of hidden character testify and neither their probity nor their corruption is established. The third is that if they are blind or some of them are, they are flogged, but if they are slaves or corrupt, there is no hadd upon them. This is the opinion of al-Thawri and Ishaq, because the falsehood of the blind is known, as they testified to what they did not see with certainty, whereas the others may be truthful and their number is complete, so they are like those of hidden character. The followers of al-Shafi'i said: If the rejection of the testimony is for an apparent reason, such as blindness, slave status, or apparent corruption, there are two opinions regarding them. If it is for a hidden reason, there is no hadd upon them, because that which is hidden is hidden from the witnesses, so it does not constitute negligence on their part, unlike that which is apparent. If three men and two women testify, all of them are subjected to the hadd, because the testimony of women in this matter is as though it did not exist. This is the opinion of al-Thawri and the scholars of reason (Ashab al-Ra'y). This reinforces the narration of making the hadd mandatory upon the former group and alerts one to the obligation of the hadd in the case where they are blind or one of them is, because it is possible that the two women are truthful, and they are generally from the people of testimony, whereas the blind man is a liar with certainty and is not from the people of testimony regarding acts, so the obligation of the hadd upon them and those with them is more appropriate.