the zina occurred in a single sitting, whether they come all together or separately. For example, a judge may hold a session from eight in the morning until twelve noon—a period of four hours. The first witness comes in the first hour, gives his testimony, and leaves; the second comes at nine, gives his testimony, and leaves; the third comes at ten, gives his testimony, and leaves; and the fourth comes at eleven, gives his testimony, and leaves. Here, the sitting is one, although they came separately.

Or they may come together—that is, all of them come at once, each holding the hand of the other—and testify before the judge at the very same moment. That is sufficient.

But if they come in two sittings—for example, two of them come during the morning session and two during the afternoon session—then they are slanderers: their testimony is not accepted, and each of them is flogged eighty lashes. If they say, “But we are testifying to one act of zina,” we say: No; you did not come in a single sitting. This is the position of Imam Ahmad, Abu Hanifah, and Malik.

As for al-Shafi‘i and a group of hadith scholars, they held that a single sitting is not a condition.

The proof cited by the first group is this: if we were to accept their testimony when they come in separate sittings, that would give rise to suspicion. Perhaps the first two witnesses might go to two other men, entice them with money or something similar, describe to them what they had testified to, and say, “Testify in this manner,” and then they would come before the judge in the other session. For if they entice these men with money and they testify in the same way as they did, they escape being deemed slanderers and thus being flogged. Moreover,