Is testimony of two men sufficient to establish that one of them killed one of two specific victims?
Chapter on Qasamah (Oaths regarding murder)
Al-Mughni
Book of Blood-Money (Diyyāt)
Primary text
The testimony of two men declaring that one of them killed one of two specific victims does not establish the killing, nor does it constitute *lawth* (a presumption or inclination towards truth in capital cases) according to our scholars. This ruling applies similarly if one testified that one of the two men killed the victim, and the other testified that the victim confessed to killing him, or if one testified the killing was done by a sword and the other by a knife. This is the position and selection of Al-Qadi.
Supporting text
Imam Ahmad's established position holds that the killing is established if one testifies to the actual killing and the other testifies to the victim's admission of the killing. Abu Bakr preferred that the killing be established in both cases (the killing by different weapons scenario as well) because there is agreement on the act of killing, even if there is a difference regarding the manner of the killing. Al-Shafi'i considers this scenario to constitute *lawth* based on one of his two opinions, and he considers the previous two scenarios (*lawth* when one testifies to the act and the other to confession, or when testimony differs on the weapon) as *lawth* because it is testimony that inclines strongly towards believing the claimant, resembling the testimony of women and slaves. The counter-argument is that since the testimony is rejected due to internal discrepancy, it cannot be *lawth*, similar to the first scenario mentioned.