without an oath. The claim is not heard in this matter, nor in any hadd punishment of Allah the Exalted; because the claimant has no right therein, nor does he possess any authority over it. Therefore, his claim for a right belonging to someone else is not heard from him without that person's permission, nor does he have any authority over it. However, if his claim entails a right of his own, such as if he claims the theft of his property in order to hold the thief liable or to recover what was stolen from him, or if he claims against him that he committed adultery with his slave girl in order to extract her mahr (dower) from him, his claim shall be heard, and the defendant shall be asked to swear for the human right, not for the right of Allah the Exalted.
1916 - Issue: He said: "And if two of the four witnesses testify that he committed adultery with her in this house, and the other two testify that he committed it in another house, then all four are slanderers (qadhfah), and the hadd punishment is upon them."
In summary, it is a condition for the validity of testimony regarding adultery that the four witnesses must agree upon a single act. If they do not agree, the testimony is not completed, and all of them are slanderers and the hadd punishment is upon them. Thus, if two testify that he committed adultery with her in this house, and two testify that he committed it in another house, they have not agreed upon a single act of adultery; because adultery in this house is not the same as adultery in the other. Therefore, their testimony is not completed, and they are punished with the hadd of slander. This is the view of Malik and one of the two views of Al-Shafi'i. Abu Bakr said: "Their testimony is completed, and the one against whom the testimony is given is punished." Abu al-Khattab considered this far-fetched and said: "This is an oversight by the narrator, because it contradicts the fundamentals and the consensus (ijma'). Furthermore, the hadd punishment is averted by doubts; how then can it be made mandatory by them!" Al-Nakha'i, the companions of the school of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), Abu Thawr, and Al-Shafi'i in one version said: "There is no hadd punishment upon the witnesses, because they are complete as four, and there is no hadd punishment upon the one testified against, because they did not testify to a single act of adultery for which the hadd is mandatory." Our position is that they did not testify to a single act of adultery, so the hadd is mandatory upon them, just as if two witnesses testified that he committed adultery with one woman, and two others testified that he committed it with a different woman. Moreover, the situation must either be that they testified to a single act of adultery or to two. If it was for a single act—such as if they all specified a single time when it is impossible for him to have committed adultery in both locations—then two of them are certainly liars, and the other two, had they been free from the contradiction of their testimony, would have been slanderers; thus, with the contradiction, they are even more so. If their testimony was regarding two acts, they are slanderers, just as if they had specified in their testimony that he...
(1) In A, B, and M: "for their testimony".
يَمِينٍ، ولا تُسْمَعُ الدَّعْوَى فى هذا، ولا فى حدٍّ للَّهِ تعالى؛ لأنَّه لا حقَّ للمُدَّعِى فيه، ولا وِلايةَ له عليه، فلا تُسْمَعُ منه دَعْواهُ حقًّا لغيرِه من غيرِ إذْنِه، ولا وِلايةَ له عليه. فإن تضَمَّنتْ دَعْواه حقًّا له، مثل أن يَدَّعِىَ سَرقةَ مالِه، ليُضَمِّنَ السارِقَ، أو يأخُذَ منه ما سرَقَه، أو يَدَّعِىَ عليه الزِّنَى بجارَيَتِه؛ ليأْخُذَ مَهْرَها منه، سُمِعَتْ دَعْواهُ، ويُسْتَحْلَفُ المُدَّعَى عليه لِحَقِّ الآدَمِىِّ، دونَ حقِّ اللَّهِ تعالى.
١٩١٦ - مسألة؛ قال: (وَإِذَا شَهِدَ مِنَ الْأَرْبَعَةِ اثْنَانِ، أَنَّ هَذَا زَنَى بِهَا فِى هَذَا الْبَيْتِ، وَشَهِد الآخرَانِ أنَّه زَنَى بِهَا فِى الْبَيْتِ الآخرِ، فَالْأَرْبَعَةُ قَذَفَةٌ، وَعَلَيْهِمُ الْحَدُّ)
وجملتُه، أَنَّ مِن شَرْطِ صحَّةِ الشَّهادةِ على الزِّنَى، اجْتماعُ الشُّهودِ الأرْبعةِ على فعلٍ واحدٍ، فإنْ لم يَجْتمِعُوا، لم تَكْمُلِ الشَّهادةُ، وكان الجميعُ قَذَفَةً، وعليهم الحدُّ، فإذا شهِدَ اثنان أنَّه زنَى بها فى هذا البيتِ، واثنان أنَّه زَنَى بها فى بيتٍ آخَرَ، فما اجْتمَعُوا على الشَّهادةَ بزنًى واحدٍ؛ لأنَّ الزِّنَى فى هذا البيتِ غيرُ الزِّنَى فى الآخَرِ، فلم تَكْمُلْ شهادتُهم، ويُحَدُّون حدَّ القَذْفِ. وبهذا قال مالكٌ، والشَّافعىُّ فى أحدِ قَوْلَيْهِ. وقال أبو بكرٍ: تَكْمُلُ شهادتُهم، ويُحَدُّ المشهودُ عليه. واسْتَبْعدَه أبو الخَطَّابِ، وقال: هذا سَهْوٌ من النَّاقلِ؛ لأنَّه يخالِفُ الأُصولَ والإِجْماعَ، والحدُّ يُدْرَأُ بالشُّبُهاتِ، فكيف يجبُ بها! وقال النَّخَعىُّ، وأصْحابُ الرَّأْىِ، وأبو ثَوْرٍ، والشَّافعىُّ فى قَولٍ: لا حَدَّ على الشُّهودِ؛ لأنَّهم كَمَلُوا أربعةً، ولاعلى المشْهودِ عليه؛ لأنَّهم لم يَشْهَدوا بزنًى واحدٍ يَجبُ الحدُّ به. ولَنا، أنَّهم لم يَشْهَدوا بزنًى واحدٍ، فلَزِمَهُمُ الحدُّ، كما لو شهِدَ اثنان أنَّه زنَى بامْرأةٍ، واثنانِ أنَّه زنَى بغَيْرِها، ولأنَّه لا يَخْلُو مِن أن تكونَ شَهادتُهم بزنًى واحدٍ أو باثْنَينِ، فإن كانَتْ بفِعلٍ واحدٍ، مثل أن يُعَيِّنَ الجميعُ وقتًا واحدًا، لا يُمْكِنُ زِنَاهُ فيه فى المَوْضِعيْنِ، فاثنانِ منهم كاذِبان يَقينًا، واثنان منهم لو خلَوا عن المُعارَضةِ لِشَهادتِهما (١)، لَكانا قَذَفَةً، فمع التَّعارُض أوْلَى. وإن كانتْ شهادتُهم بفِعْلَيْنِ، كانوا قَذَفَةً، كما لو عَيَّنُوا فى شهادَتِهم أنَّه
(١) فى أ، ب، م: "لشهادتهم".
