the hadd is upon him. He narrated this as a statement attributed to Ahmad. This is far-fetched, for the adultery of one [person] has not been proven by the testimony of four, so the hadd did not become mandatory. Furthermore, in all matters for which evidence (bayyina) is required, its completeness is considered in the case of one [act], so that which necessitates the hadd is more deserving [of this requirement], because it is a matter for which precaution is taken and which is warded off by doubts. Abu Bakr has said: If two people testify that he committed adultery with a white woman, and two [others] testify that he committed adultery with a black woman, then they are accusers (qadhafa). The Qadi mentioned this from him, and this contradicts his statement.

Section: If two people testify that he committed adultery with her in the corner of a house, and two [others] testify that he committed adultery with her in another corner of it, and the two corners were far apart, then the ruling regarding them is the same as the ruling regarding two houses. If they were close together, their testimony is complete, and the person testified against is flogged. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. Al-Shafi'i said: There is no hadd upon him, because their testimony did not complete, and because they differed regarding the location, so it is similar to if they differed regarding two houses. According to the opinion of Abu Bakr, the testimony is complete, regardless of whether the two corners were close or far apart. To us [the Hanbalis], if they were close together, the truthfulness of the witnesses is possible, such as [the possibility that] the start of the act was in one and its completion was in the other, or each pair attributes it to one of the two corners due to its proximity to it; therefore, their testimony must be accepted, just as if they had agreed, unlike when they are far apart, for it is impossible that the act testified to could be a single act. If it is said: It is possible that the act testified to is two acts, so why have you made the hadd mandatory despite the probability, when the hadd is warded off by doubts? We say: This is not a doubt, evidenced by the fact that if they had agreed upon a single location, this [possibility] would still exist and the hadd [would still] be mandatory. The discussion regarding time is like the discussion regarding this: whenever there is a long time between them, such that the existence of a single act in its entirety is impossible—such as at the two ends of the day—their testimony is not complete; and when they are close, their testimony is complete. And God knows best.

Section: If two people testify that he committed adultery with her in a white shirt, and two [others] testify that he committed adultery with her in a red shirt, or two [others] testify that he committed adultery with her in a linen garment, and two [others] testify that he committed adultery with her in