by admission four times, and it lapses by retraction from the admission. Is the admission of adultery established by two witnesses? Abu Bakr said: There are two opinions regarding this. One is that it is established by two witnesses, like other admissions, and he chose this. The second is that it is not established by them, because that which is admitted cannot be established by them; therefore, the admission of it is not established by them, similar to [the testimony of] a man and two women. If he does not have evidence present and says, "I have absent evidence that I will establish regarding the adultery," he is granted a respite of two or three days, because that is a near [timeframe]. If he brings the evidence, [it is accepted]; otherwise, he is given the hadd punishment, unless he performs li'an, if he is the husband. If he says, "I accused her when she was a minor," and she says, "He accused me when I was an adult," and each of them establishes evidence for what they stated, then they are two [separate] accusations. The same applies if they differ regarding disbelief (kufr), slavery (riqq), or the time [of the incident], because there is no contradiction between them, unless they are both dated with the same date, in which case they both lapse according to one of the two perspectives. According to the other, lots are cast between them, and the one whose lot is drawn, his evidence is given precedence.

Section: If two witnesses testify that "he accused so-and-so and he accused us," their testimony is not accepted, because they have acknowledged his enmity toward them, and the testimony of an enemy is not accepted against his enemy. If he absolves him and the enmity ceases, then they testify against him regarding that accusation, it is not accepted, because it was rejected due to suspicion (tuhma), so it is not accepted thereafter, just like a corrupt person (fasiq) whose testimony was rejected due to his corruption, then he repented and repeated it. If they claimed against him that he accused them, then absolved him and the enmity ceased, then they testified against him regarding the accusation of his wife, their testimony is accepted, because they were not rejected in this testimony. If they testified that he accused his wife, then they claimed after that he accused them, if they trace their claim to a time before their testimony, their testimony is invalidated, because they admitted that he was an enemy to them when they testified against him. If they do not trace it to that time, and this occurred before judgment was passed based on their testimony, it is not judged by it, because one is not judged against by the testimony of two enemies. If it was after the judgment, it is not invalidated;