that he committed zina, and they bring a fourth witness who is blind, his testimony is not accepted. If he says, “I testify that he committed zina,” we say: “You are lying.” If he says, “I testify on the testimony of these three, because they are upright in my view, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, ‘When two witnesses testify, then begin and end the fast’ (1). These are three witnesses, and I testify to their testimony; indeed, I would even eat carrion on the strength of their testimony!” We say: “Yes, but zina must be described; so describe it to us.” He then says what the three said, and we ask him, “Did you see it?” He replies that he did not see it. This is an act, and acts can only be testified to on the basis of sight. Hence, the testimony of a blind person is not accepted in cases of zina, nor in regard to any act.

They must also not be enemies of the person against whom they testify. If they are his enemies, their testimony is not accepted, because an enemy delights when his adversary is afflicted by this indecency. A person’s enemy is one whom his misfortune pleases and whose happiness grieves him. This is the criterion of enmity according to the jurists. Thus, if he is told, “So-and-so has succeeded,” he says, “Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return.” But if he is told, “So-and-so was involved in an accident and his car was wrecked,” he says, “That is Allah’s bounty; He grants it to whomever He wills.” Such a person is an enemy, because in the first case that person’s happiness grieved him, and in the second he rejoiced at what distressed him.

His statement, “whether they come to the judge all together or separately”: this has already been discussed, and some scholars say that they must come to the judge in