committed another time. What they mentioned is invalidated by the principle we have mentioned.
Section: Likewise, every testimony regarding two acts—such as if two witness that he committed adultery with a woman, and two others that he committed it with another, or if they testify that he committed adultery with her on one day, and two others that he committed it on another, or if they testify that he committed adultery with her at night, and two others that he committed it during the day, or if they testify that he committed adultery with her in the morning, and two others that he committed it in the evening, and similar to this—they are slanderers in these cases, and the hadd punishment is upon them for the reason we mentioned. If two testify that he committed adultery with her in the corner of a house, and two others testify that he committed it in another corner of it, and they were far apart, the ruling for it is as we have mentioned. Abu Hanifa said: "Their testimony is accepted, and the one testified against is punished," based on istihsan (juristic preference). This is also the view of Abu Bakr. Our position is that they are two locations where it is impossible for the single act to occur, nor can its attribution to both be correct, so they are like two houses. As for if they were close together, where it is possible to attribute it to each of them due to their proximity, the testimony is completed because of the possibility of their truthfulness in attributing it to both corners.
Section: Whenever the testimony is regarding one act, and the two witnesses differ regarding its time, place, or a quality of it that indicates the divergence of the two acts, their testimony is not completed. Such as if one of them testifies that he usurped a dinar from him on Saturday, and the other testifies that he usurped a dinar from him on Friday, or one testifies that he usurped it in Damascus and the other that he usurped it in Egypt, or one testifies that he usurped a dinar from him and the other testifies that he usurped a garment from him, the testimony is not completed; because each act was not testified to by two witnesses. Likewise, if they differ regarding the time of a murder, its place, or its quality, or in the drinking of wine or slander, the testimony is not completed; because what one of the two witnesses testified to is not what the other testified to, so each of the two acts was not testified to by anything but one witness, thus it is not accepted except according to the opinion of Abu Bakr, for this testimony would be completed. And the thing testified to is established if they differ in time and place. As for if they differ in the quality of the act, such as if one of them testifies that he stole a white bag at midday, and another testifies that he stole a black bag at midday, or one of them testifies that he stole this bag in the morning and the other testifies that he stole it in the evening,
(2) In A, B, and M: "they two testify". (3) In the original, A, and M, there is an addition: "did not".
زَنَى مرَّةً أُخْرَى. وما ذكرُوه يَبْطُلُ بالأصلِ الذى ذَكرْناه.
فصل: وكذلك كلُّ شَهادةٍ على فِعْليْنِ، مثل أن يَشْهدَ اثنان أنَّه زنَى بامرأةٍ، وآخَران أنَّه زنَى بأُخْرَى، أو يَشْهدَا (٢) أنَّه زَنَى بها فى يومٍ، وآخَرانِ أنَّه زَنَى بها فى آخَرَ، أو يَشْهدَا (٢) أنَّه زنَى بها ليلًا، وآخَرانِ أنَّه زنَى بها نهارًا، أو يَشْهدَا (٢) أنَّه زنَى بها غُدْوةً، ويَشْهدَ آخَرانِ أنَّه زنَى بها عَشِيًّا، وأشْباه هذا، فإنَّهم قَذَفَةٌ فى هذه المواضعِ، وعليهم الحدُّ؛ لما ذكرْناه. فإن شهِدَ اثنان أنَّه زنَى بها فى زَاويةِ بيتٍ، وشَهِدَ آخَران أنَّه زنَى بها فى زاويةٍ منه أُخْرَى، وكانتا مُتباعِدَتَيْن، فالحُكمُ فيه كما ذكرْنا. وقال أبو حنيفةَ: تُقْبَلُ شهادتُهم، ويُحَدُّ المشْهودُ عليه، اسْتِحْسانًا. وهو قولُ أبى بكرٍ. ولَنا، أنَّهما مَكانان لا يُمْكِنُ وُقوعُ الفعلِ الواحدِ فيهما، ولا يَصِحُّ نِسْبتُه إليهما، فأشْبَها البَيْتينِ. وأمَّا إن كانتا مُتقارِبَتيْنِ، تُمْكِنُ نِسْبتُه إلى كلِّ واحدةٍ منهما، لقُرْبِه منها، كَمَلَتِ الشَّهادةُ؛ لإِمْكانِ صِدْقِهم فى نِسْبتِه إلى الزَّاوِيَتيْنِ جميعًا.
فصل: ومتى كانتِ الشَّهادةُ على فعلٍ، فاخْتلَفَ الشاهدانِ فى زمنِه، أو مكانِه، أو صِفةٍ له تدُلُّ على تَغايُرِ الفِعْليْنِ، لم تَكْمُلْ شَهادتُهما، مثل أن يشْهدَ أحدُهما أنَّه غصَبَه دِينارًا يومَ السَّبتِ، ويشْهدَ الآخَرُ أنَّه غصَبَه دينارًا يومَ الجُمعةِ، أو يشْهدَ أحدُهما أنَّه غصَبَه بدمشقَ، ويشْهدَ الآخَرُ أنَّه غصبَه بمِصْرَ، أو يشْهدَ أحدُهما أنَّه غصَبَه دينارًا، ويشْهدَ الآخَرُ أنَّه غصَبه ثوبًا، فلا تَكْمُلُ الشَّهادةُ؛ لأنَّ كلَّ فعلٍ لم يَشْهَدْ به شاهدان. وهكذا إن اخْتلَفا فى زمنِ القَتلِ، أو مكانِه، أو صِفَتِه، أو فى شُرْبِ الخمرِ، أو القَذْفِ، لم تَكْمُلِ الشَّهادةُ؛ لأنَّ ما شهِدَ به أحدُ الشاهِدَيْنِ غيرُ الذى شهِدَ به الآخَرُ، فلم يَشْهَدْ بكلِّ واحدٍ من الفِعْليْنِ إِلَّا شاهِدٌ واحدٌ، فلم يُقْبَلْ إِلَّا على قولِ أبى بكرٍ، فإِنَّ هذه الشَّهادةَ (٣) تَكْمُلُ. ويَثْبُتُ المشْهودُ به إذا اخْتلَفا فى الزَّمانِ والمكانِ، فأمَّا إن اختلَفا فى صِفَةِ الفِعْلِ، فشهِدَ أحدُهما أنَّه سرَقَ مع الزَّوالِ كِيسًا أبْيَضَ، وشهِدَ آخَرُ أنَّه سَرقَ مع الزَّوال كِيسًا أسودَ، أو شهِدَ أحدُهما أنَّه سرَقَ هذا الكِيسَ غُدْوة، وشهِدَ الآخَرُ أنَّه سَرَقَه عَشِيًّا،
(٢) فى أ، ب، م: "يشهدان".(٣) فى الأصل، أ، م زيادة: "لم".
