The second is that four witnesses whose testimony is accepted in this matter testify against him in a single session regarding a single act of zina, whether they come to the judge all together or separately.

The Shaykh : The second one... which we are studying today, "the second" means the second way by which zina is established, "that they testify" the second is a subject and "that they testify" is its predicate, "that they testify against him in a single session" take this condition, "regarding a single act of zina" two, "they describe it" three, four, five "from those whose testimony is accepted in this matter" is that correct with you? From those whose testimony is accepted in this matter, whether they come to the judge all together or separately, how many conditions are there? Five, that they testify against him in a single session, four come after, so these witnesses must come to the judge who establishes zina, they must come to him in a single session, whether they come all together or separately, but the session is one. For example, the judge has a session from eight in the morning to twelve noon, how many hours is that? Four hours. One of them came in the first hour, testified, and established his testimony, then left. The second came at nine, established his testimony, and left. The third came at ten, established his testimony, and left. The fourth came at eleven, established his testimony, and left. Is the session one or not? One, but they are separate. Or they came together, meaning they all came, each holding the hand of the other, and testified before the judge at the same moment, and that is sufficient.
If they come in two sessions, such as two of them coming in the morning session and two in the evening session, then they are accusers and their testimony is not accepted, and each of them is flogged eighty lashes. They say, "We testify to a single act of zina." We say, "No, you did not come in a single session." This is the madhhab of Imam Ahmad, Abu Hanifa, and Malik. As for al-Shafi'i and a group of the people of hadith, they said that a single session is not a condition. What is the evidence of the first group? The first group says, if we accepted their testimony while they come in different sessions, there would be a suspicion. Perhaps the first two witnesses go to two other men and entice them with money or something similar, and describe to them what they saw, saying, "Testify in this manner." And they come to the judge in the other session. Is that right or not? Is that possible? It is possible, because if they entice these people with money, they are saved from being accusers who are flogged, and they also achieve what they want of defaming the honor of the one testified against. This is the perspective of those who say that it must be in a single session.
As for those who said that it is not a condition that they be in a single session, they said that the verse is general and these four witnesses came to the judge and established their testimony. So where in the Book of Allah or in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is the condition that they be in a single session? And your saying that there is a fear of collusion is refuted by your saying that they are accepted whether they come to the judge all together or separately. Is that not so? Meaning, perhaps those who testified in the first hour collude with those who testified in the third or fourth hour. Is that possible? And if you said, as Abu Hanifa and a group of scholars said, that they must come to the judge and give their testimony in a single session, meaning that if they come separately, they are accusers, because we now have three opinions: an opinion that conditions the session and their presence all together, an opinion that does not condition the session or presence, and a third opinion that conditions the session but not the presence. And this is the madhhab with us. But the other two opinions are closer to the rule: either we condition that they come all together and testify, or we do not condition that. And the closest to the texts is that it is not a condition, because they are general. And on this basis, his saying "in a single session" is not a condition according to the stronger opinion. Now, "regarding a single act of zina" means that they must testify to a single act of zina. So if two men testify that he committed zina in the morning and two testify that he committed zina in the evening, then these are two acts, so the testimony is not accepted, and each of the witnesses is flogged for accusation. Why? Because the zina is multiple. Now, if two testify that he committed zina in one corner and two testify that he committed zina in another corner, is it one act of zina or not? There is a detail: if the room is small, the testimony is complete, and if it is large, it is not complete. The reason? Yes, it is said that he and she might roll from one corner to another if it is small, may Allah preserve us. But if it is large, this is impossible in the usual case, so the zina is considered two acts if it is large. But if it is small, the testimony can be completed.
Now, is it a condition to mention the woman with whom he committed zina? No, it is not a condition, because the woman with whom he committed zina may not be known to the witnesses, or is that not so? For this reason, the author did not mention this condition, and that is the case. So mentioning the woman with whom he committed zina is not a condition. He says "regarding a single act of zina which they describe" meaning they describe the zina with explicit wording, by saying, "We saw his penis in her vagina." This is necessary. So if they said, "We saw them naked on her," that is not accepted. Even if they said, "We testify that it was from her as a man is with his wife," the testimony is not sufficient. They must say, "We testify that his penis was in her vagina." And is this difficult or not?

The questioner : It is difficult.

The Shaykh : It is very difficult, like the man who testified against him in the time of 'Umar said: "If I had been between our thighs, I would not have given this testimony" And I think it is not possible. I do not know with modern means if it is possible now or not? With photography, is it possible? It appears that it is not possible, because what the image captures, the eye captures. So if the eye does not capture it, the image does not capture it. For this reason, the Shaykh al-Islam said in his time that zina was not established through testimony from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to the time of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. And if it was not established from that time to that time, then we do not know that it was established through testimony to this day, because it is very difficult. So if the four testify that they saw him with this woman as a man is with his wife, he is not flogged for zina. Now, are they flogged for accusation? They are not flogged for accusation because they did not accuse, they did not say zina, but they said, "We saw him with this woman as a man is with his wife" only. So they are not flogged for accusation. But is he given a discretionary punishment?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The hadd is not applied, there is no doubt in that. But do we say that this is a strong suspicion by the testimony of these upright witnesses, so he is given a discretionary punishment? It appears that yes, if the zina that establishes the legal hadd is not established, he is given a discretionary punishment for the suspicion, because we are between two things: either we give him a discretionary punishment or we give the witnesses a discretionary punishment. One of them is certainly mistaken. And here it is close to being established that the witnesses are established by their testimony with the suspicion without doubt.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : In any case, he is given a discretionary punishment. Are there no questions, everyone? "Four" Four is the subject of "testify" and it is delayed from its verb, but because of the consecutive mention of the conditions.
The word "four" is a number for the masculine, and on this basis, they must be men. Because "four" means four men, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted so four men are necessary. Now, if eight women testify to zina? It is not accepted. Four male witnesses are necessary. Now, three men and two women? It is not accepted. It must be as Allah the Mighty and Majestic said and on this basis, they must be men.
The number four is used for the masculine, and *shuhada* is also the masculine plural of *shahid* or *shahid*. "From among those whose testimony is accepted in it" "In it" means in the case of unlawful sexual intercourse. These witnesses must be from among those whose testimony is accepted in the case of unlawful sexual intercourse itself. Are there people whose testimony is accepted in unlawful sexual intercourse but not in other matters? Or are there people whose testimony is accepted in other matters but not in unlawful sexual intercourse? Yes. For example, if a person is blind: if a blind person testifies to what he hears, his testimony is accepted, but if he testifies to what he sees, it is not accepted. So, if three people come to testify to unlawful sexual intercourse and they bring a fourth who is blind, is his testimony accepted or not? It is not accepted. He says, "I testify that he committed unlawful sexual intercourse." What do we say? We say, "You are lying." He says, "I testify based on the testimony of these three; they are upright. They are upright in my eyes, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) says and these are three. I testify to their testimony and I would eat carrion based on their testimony." What do we say to him? We say, "Yes, but a description of the unlawful sexual intercourse is required. Describe it for us?" He says, "What do you mean? I will describe it," and then he answers with everything the three said. We ask, "Did you see it?" He did not see it. This is an action, and actions are testified to by sight. For this reason, the testimony of the blind is not accepted in the chapter of unlawful sexual intercourse, nor in any action, may Allah have mercy on them. And they must not be from the enemies of the person being testified against. If they are his enemies, their testimony is not accepted, because an enemy rejoices when his enemy is struck by such a sin. Who is a person's enemy? The disbeliever? They say, "Whoever is pleased by the distress of a person and rejoices in his sorrow is his enemy." This is the criterion for enmity according to them, the people of jurisprudence. Whoever is pleased by the distress of a person and rejoices in his sorrow: if he is told, "So-and-so has succeeded," and he says, "To Allah we belong and to Him we return," is this person an enemy or not? He is an enemy. Is that correct or not? If he is told, "So-and-so was hit by an accident and his car was broken," and he says, "That is the favor of Allah, which He grants to whom He wills," what is this? This is also an enemy, because in the first case he was distressed by the person's happiness, and in the second he rejoiced in what causes him distress. He was pleased by what causes this person distress. This is the enemy according to the jurists, may Allah have mercy on them. And the discussion of this will come, if Allah wills. The author says, "Whether they come to the judge all together or separately" and this has been discussed previously. Some scholars say that they must come to the judge all together in one session, not separately. But the correct view is that neither is required; even the single session is not required. The correct view is that a single session is not a condition.