even if two men give direct eyewitness testimony while another two testify to the statements of two other men—both attesters agreeing that each of those two had formally told them, “I saw so-and-so committing fornication”—the prescribed punishment (ḥadd) is carried out on the accused.

If, however, two men testify to the testimony of two men, and another two likewise to the testimony of two men, each pair attesting to the statement of only one man, then all four attesters are flogged with the ḥadd for slander. This applies when they have used explicit words of accusation. Should they merely say, “We heard so-and-so say that so-and-so committed fornication,” the jurists differ: one report from Mālik rules that they are slanderers and must be flogged, whereas most of the Medinans say no ḥadd is due because they came in the capacity of witnesses, not of calumniators. The first opinion is the settled position of Mālik.

If a slanderer brings two men who testify that the judge had already enforced the ḥadd of fornication on the defendant on the strength of four witnesses, that does not exempt the slanderer himself from the ḥadd for slander.

Likewise, if four men testify to the testimony of four other men, each one attesting only to the statement of a single man, they are flogged with the ḥadd for slander. According to many of Mālik’s companions, this is the definitive ruling of Mālik. Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam transmits the same from him, and a group of his students holds that it is indispensable for four upright witnesses to attest to each of the original four, or for four to testify collectively regarding all four.

Ibn al-Qāsim, by contrast, maintained that if two men attest to the testimony of two men and another two attest to the testimony of two men, the ḥadd is applied to the accused.

If four people accuse a woman of adultery and one of them is her husband, the other three are flogged while the husband must undergo the oath of mutual imprecation (liʿān); if he refuses to take the oath, he too is flogged.