whereupon he had the man’s hand cut off. The two then retracted their testimony and said, “We made a mistake.” He said:

“If I knew that you had done this deliberately, I would cut off your hands.”

This indicates that several hands may be cut off in retaliation for a single hand, and that a false witness must be subjected to retaliation. The Kufan scholars disagree on both points. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb, may Allah be pleased with him, held brigands jointly liable to execution. It is well known that the position which holds those who cooperate in sin and aggression jointly liable to punishment accords more closely with the wording and meaning of the Quran and Sunnah than the position which imposes punishment only on the direct perpetrator.

Another example is that the scholars of Medina follow what ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb proclaimed from the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he said:

“Stoning is a punishment established in the Book of Allah for any man or woman who commits unlawful sexual intercourse after having consummated a valid marriage, when there is testimony establishing the offence, pregnancy, or a confession.”

Likewise, they impose the prescribed punishment for drinking wine when someone is found intoxicated, vomits wine, or has its smell on his breath, provided there are no grounds for doubt. This is what has been transmitted from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his Rightly Guided Caliphs, such as ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān, and ‘Alī. Abū Hanīfa and al-Shāfi‘ī hold that the prescribed punishment may be imposed only on the basis of a confession or testimony establishing the act itself. They maintain that such indications leave grounds for doubt. Two positions are reported from Ahmad. It is well known that the first position accords more closely with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace