or one of them testifies that he heard the man pronounce a divorce, while the other states that the man acknowledged to him that he had done so.

Some of the scholars of Medina do not consider such evidence admissible; they invalidate it because of the discrepancy within the testimony itself. Ibn al-Qasim said: If two witnesses differ so that one declares, “He killed him by slitting his throat,” while the other says, “He burned him with fire,” or one says, “with a sword,” and the other, “by crushing him with a rock,” their testimony is not carried into effect.

Whenever the opposing witnesses are equal in number and in uprightness, the testimony is void. If, however, one side is manifestly stronger in reliability and probity, judgment is given on the basis of that side and no weight is accorded to the larger head-count; what matters is outward integrity and a well-known reputation for trustworthiness.

Ibn Wahb reports from Malik that such witnesses are moreover required to swear an oath along with their testimony—even though they be fewer in number—provided they possess the clearer standing for reliability. But if the two sides are evenly matched and effectively neutralise one another, no testimony stands and the matter reverts to its original presumption.