two witnesses; because the evidence testifies to his presence with the woman, and this is established by two witnesses, whereas the part that requires four is the adultery itself, and this does not require the proof of adultery. If it is said: The report of Umar regarding the one who found a man with his wife does not contain evidence; and likewise it is narrated that a man from the Muslims went out to fight, and he entrusted his family to a man. It reached the man that a Jew was visiting his wife, so he laid in wait for him until he came, and he began to chant:

And an ash'ath (disheveled) man whom Islam has deceived regarding me, I became alone with his wife for the full night.

I spent the night upon her breast-bone, while he goes out in the morning, upon a thin-backed horse, tight-girthed.

As if the places of the fleshy parts of her thighs were, groups rising up to other groups.

He stood up to him and killed him, and this matter was raised to Umar, so he declared his blood unavenged (waived) and did not demand retaliation. The answer is that this was established before him by the admission of the guardian. And if there is no evidence, but he claims the guardian's knowledge of that, then the statement is the statement of the guardian along with his oath.

Section: If a man kills a man and claims that he attacked my house, and I could not fend him off except by killing, his statement is not accepted except with evidence, and retaliation (qawad) is upon him, whether the slain was known for theft or brigandage, or was not known for that. If the evidence testifies that they saw him approaching this one [with a brandished weapon], and he struck him, his blood is unavenged. And if they testify that they saw him entering his house and they did not mention a weapon, or they mentioned a weapon that was not brandished, retaliation is not waived by that; because he might enter