87 – I said, “Suppose two witnesses testify that he killed a man and took his property—namely, the very goods now in his hands?”
88 – He replied, “I would execute him in retaliation (qiṣāṣ) and hand over the property in his possession to the heirs of the man for whom the testimony was given.”
89 – I asked, “Is it possible that the two witnesses could testify falsely or be mistaken?”
90 – He said, “Yes.”
91 – I said, “Then how have you made lawful the life and property that are inviolable on the basis of what you call ‘comprehensive knowledge’ supplied by two witnesses, when their knowledge is anything but comprehensive?”
92 – He answered, “I have been commanded to accept testimony.”
93 – I asked, “Do you find in the Book of Allah an explicit text instructing you to accept testimony in cases of homicide?”
94 – He said, “No; rather, I infer it, for I have only been commanded to do so because of an implied rationale.”
95 – I said, “Could that same rationale apply to some ruling other than homicide, just as homicide may entail either retaliation or blood-money?”
96 – He replied, “The conclusive proof is that when the Muslims unanimously agree that homicide is established by two witnesses, we say that the Qur’an is broad enough to bear the meaning on which they have agreed, and the Muslim majority cannot all misunderstand the meaning of the Book of Allah, even if some individuals err.”
97 – I said to him, “I see you have now returned to accepting the reports of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and to the consensus that follows from them.”
98 – He said, “That is what is obligatory for me.”
99 – I said to him, “I beseech you: have you thus deemed the sacred blood and property lawful on the strength of testimony that you claim to be all-encompassing, while in fact it is not all-encompassing?”