affirm the event, whereas the witness who denies it is not heeded at all.

If two upright witnesses testify that a man killed another on a specific, dated occasion, and two other upright witnesses testify that the accused was, on that very day, in a land far from the scene of the crime, the testimony of those who affirm the killing takes precedence. This is the position of Malik and his companions.

Ismaʿil ibn Ishaq, however, held that the second testimony blocks the acceptance of the first, and his view, in my opinion, is correct, for it creates a doubt that wards off the prescribed punishment. Blood must never be spilled except on the basis of certainty, not conjecture. Ismaʿil argued with ʿAbd al-Malik by citing the case of a man who said, “My blood is upon so-and-so,” while a group of reliable witnesses testified that the killing occurred that very day in a distant land. ʿAbd al-Malik ordered that qasama (the oath-procedure) be sought, whereas Ismaʿil said that this very statement requires us to suspend the first testimony.

Malik further said: If the witnesses to fornication disagree about the place or the time, they are punished with the hadd for slander, while the accused is not punished. Likewise, if they differ in their testimony about theft, the thief’s hand is not cut off and no financial liability is incurred.

Should the witnesses to fornication arrive at different times yet present identical testimony, judgment is rendered on the basis of their testimony—unless one of them is punished for slander before the testimony is completed. Some have said that judgment is rendered once their testimony is eventually completed; others have said that all the witnesses are punished if they come separately, and that the hadd is waived only when they appear together in a single session.

When the witnesses disagree about the timing of a slander, a divorce pronouncement, or an admission of guilt, their testimony is still accepted. Even if one witness testifies to the act itself while the other testifies to the accused’s admission of it, the combined testimony is valid.

For example: two men testify against someone—one says the man confessed to drinking wine, while the other says he actually saw him drink it; or one says he struck him with a muḍhiḥa (a head wound that exposes the bone), while the other testifies that the man acknowledged to him that he had inflicted that wound.