Section: If they retract their testimony, or one of them does, then the hadd is upon all of them, according to the most correct of the two narrations. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. The second [narration] is that the three are flogged, but not the one who retracted. This is the choice of Abu Bakr and Ibn Hamid, because if he retracts before the hadd, he is like the one who repents before the implementation of the ruling by his statement, so the hadd is dropped from him. Furthermore, in warding off the hadd from him, there is an enabling of the retraction through which the interest of the person testified against is achieved, while in making the hadd mandatory upon him, there is a deterrence from retracting out of fear of the hadd, whereby that interest is lost and the harm is realized; therefore, it is more fitting to negate the hadd for him. Al-Shafi'i said: The one who retracted is flogged, but not the three, because he has confessed against himself to falsehood in his accusation (qadhf). As for the three, the hadd had become mandatory by their testimony, and it only fell after its obligation due to the retraction of the one who retracted; and whoever has the hadd become mandatory through his testimony is not an accuser (qadhif), so he is not flogged, just as if he had not retracted. To us [the Hanbalis], the number decreased due to the retraction before the establishment of the hadd, so the hadd became binding upon them, just as if three testified and the fourth refrained from testimony. Their statement that "the hadd became mandatory by their testimony" is invalidated by [the case where] all of them retract, or by the one who retracts alone, for the hadd was mandatory then fell, and the hadd became mandatory upon them due to its falling. Moreover, since the hadd is mandatory upon the one who retracts—despite the interest in his retraction and the dropping of the hadd from the person testified against after it had become mandatory, and the saving of the person testified against after he was on the brink of destruction—then it is even more appropriate [that it be mandatory] upon the others.

Section: If two people testify that he committed adultery with her in this house, and two others testify that he committed adultery with her in another house, or each pair testifies against him regarding adultery in a city other than the city testified to by their companions, or they differ regarding the day, then all of them are accusers (qadhafa) and the hadd is upon them. This is the opinion of Malik and al-Shafi'i. Abu Bakr chose that there is no hadd upon them. This is also the opinion of al-Nakha'i, Abu Thawr, and the scholars of reason (Ashab al-Ra'y), because they completed four [witnesses]. To us, four [witnesses] did not complete [their testimony] regarding a single act of adultery, so the hadd is mandatory upon them, just as if two people were alone [in their testimony]. As for the person testified against, there is no hadd upon him according to all of their opinions. Abu Bakr said: