a silk garment, their testimony is complete. Al-Shafi'i said: It is not complete, due to the contradiction between the two testimonies. Our position is that there is no contradiction between them, as it is possible that he was wearing two shirts, and each pair mentioned one while omitting the other; or it is possible he was wearing a white shirt and she was wearing a red shirt. When confirmation is possible, refutation is not permissible.
Section: If two people testify that he committed adultery with her by force, and two [others] testify that he committed adultery with her consensually, there is no hadd upon her by consensus, because the testimony regarding an act necessitating the hadd is not complete. Regarding the man, there are two views: One of them is that there is no hadd upon him. This is the opinion of Abu Bakr, the Qadi, most of the companions [of the school], the opinion of Abu Hanifa, and one of the two views of the companions of Al-Shafi'i, because the evidence (bayyina) is not complete regarding a single act, for the act of a consenting party is not the act of a forced party, and the required number [of witnesses] was not met for either of the two acts. Furthermore, each pair of witnesses refutes the others, which prevents the acceptance of the testimony, or constitutes a doubt in warding off the hadd. It does not escape the fact that the statement of one pair refutes the other, unless one posits two acts, such that she was consensual in one and forced in the other, and this prevents the testimony from being complete regarding a single act. Also, the two witnesses to consent are accusing her of adultery, and the evidence against her is not complete, so their testimony is not accepted against anyone else. The second view is that the hadd is mandatory upon him. Abu al-Khattab chose this, and it is the opinion of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, and a second view of Al-Shafi'i, because the testimony is complete regarding the occurrence of adultery from him, and their disagreement is only regarding her action, not his, so it does not prevent the completeness of the testimony against him. Regarding the witnesses, there are three views: The first is that there is no hadd upon them. This is the opinion of those who made the hadd upon the man mandatory by their testimony. The second is that the hadd is upon them, because they testified to adultery and their testimony was not complete, so the hadd is incumbent upon them, as if their number had not been complete. The third is that the hadd is mandatory upon the two witnesses to consent, because they accused the woman of adultery and their testimony against her was not complete; yet it is not mandatory upon the two witnesses to force, because they did not accuse the woman, and their testimony against the man was complete, with the hadd being warded off from him only due to the doubt.
(35) The letter 'wa' (and) was omitted from: B, M.
ثوبِ خَزٍّ، كَمَلَتْ شهادتُهم. وقال الشَّافِعِىُّ: لا تَكْمُلُ؛ لتَنافِى الشَّهادَتَيْنِ. ولَنا، أنَّه لا تَنافِىَ بينَهما، فإنَّه يُمْكِنُ أن يكونَ عليه قميصانِ، فذكرَ كُلُّ اثْنَيْنِ واحدًا، وتركَا ذِكْرَ الآخَرِ، ويُمْكِنُ أن يكونَ عليه قميصٌ أبيضُ، وعليها قميصٌ أحمرُ، وإذا أمْكَنَ التَّصْدِيقُ، لم يَجُزِ التَّكْذيبُ.
فصل: وإن شَهِدَ اثْنانِ أنَّه زَنَى بها مُكْرَهَةً، وشَهِدَ اثنانِ أنَّه زَنَى بها مُطاوِعَةً، فلا حَدَّ عليها إجماعًا؛ فإنَّ الشَّهادةَ لم تَكْمُلْ على فِعْلٍ مُوجِبٍ للحَدِّ. وفى الرجلِ وَجْهانِ؛ أحدُهما، لا حَدَّ عليه. وهو قولُ أبى بكرٍ، والقاضى، وأكْثرِ الأصْحابِ، وقولُ أبى حنيفةَ، وأحدُ الوَجْهَيْن لأصحابِ الشَّافِعِىِّ؛ لأنَّ البَيِّنَةَ لم تَكْمُلْ على فِعْلٍ واحدٍ، فإنَّ فعلَ المُطاوِعَةِ غيرُ فعلِ المُكْرَهَةِ، ولم يَتِمَّ العددُ على كلِّ واحدٍ من الفِعْلَيْن، ولأنَّ كُلَّ شاهدَيْنِ منهما يُكَذِّبانِ الآخَرَيْن، وذلك يَمْنَعُ قَبولَ الشَّهادَةِ، أو يكونُ شُبْهَةً في دَرْءِ الحدِّ، ولا يخرجُ عن أن يكونَ قولُ واحدٍ منهما مُكَذِّبًا لِلآخَرِ، إلَّا بتَقْديرِ فِعْلَيْنِ تكونُ مُطَاوِعَةً في أحدِهما، ومُكْرَهَةً (٣٥) في الآخَرِ، وهذا يَمْنَعُ كَوْنَ الشهادةِ كاملةً على فِعْلٍ واحدٍ، ولأنَّ شاهِدَىِ المُطاوِعَةِ قاذِفانِ لها، ولم تَكْمُلِ الْبَيِّنَةُ عليها، فلا تُقْبَلُ شهادتُهما على غيرِها. والوَجْهُ الثاني، يجبُ الحَدُّ عليه. اخْتارَه أبو الخَطَّابِ، وهو قولُ أبى يوسفَ ومحمدٍ، ووَجْهٌ ثانٍ للشَّافِعِىِّ؛ لأنَّ الشَّهادةَ كَمَلَتْ على وُجُودِ الزِّنَى منه، واخْتلافُهما إنَّما هو في فِعْلِها، لا فِي فِعْلِه، فلا يَمْنَعُ كمالَ الشَّهادةِ عليه. وفى الشُّهودِ ثلاثةُ أوْجُهٍ؛ أحدُها: لا حَدَّ عليهم. وهو قولُ من أوجبَ الحَدَّ على الرجلِ بشَهادتِهم. والثانى، عليهم الحَدُّ؛ لأنَّهم شَهِدُوا بالزِّنَى ولم تَكْمُلْ شهادتُهم، فَلَزِمَهم الحَدُّ، كما لو لم يَكْمُلْ عددُهم. والثالث، يجبُ الحَدُّ على شاهِدَىِ المُطاوِعَةِ؛ لأنَّهما قَذَفَا المرأةَ بالزِّنَى، ولم تَكْمُلْ شَهادتُهم عليها، ولا يجبُ على شاهِدَىِ الإِكْراه؛ لأنَّهما لم يَقْذِفا المرأةَ، وقد كَمَلَتْ شَهادتُهم على الرَّجُلِ، وإنما انْتَفَى عنه الحَدُّ للشُّبْهَةِ.
(٣٥) سقطت الواو من: ب، م.
