What is the ruling when four witnesses are presented, but one or more of them are deemed unreliable (such as slaves, open sinners, or the blind)?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Ḥudūd (Prescribed Penalties)
Primary text
There are three established narrations regarding the ruling when four witnesses are presented, but some are unreliable (slaves, open sinners, or the blind), or when only one of them is unreliable. The first narration dictates that the prescribed punishment (Hadd) must be administered to the witnesses. This is the view of Malik. The justification is that since the testimony is incomplete (lacking full reliability), Hadd is obligatory upon the witnesses, similar to the case where three valid witnesses are insufficient. The second narration states that no Hadd is incumbent upon them. This view is held by Al-Hasan, Al-Sha'bi, Abu Hanifa, and Muhammad. Their evidence is that the count of four witnesses was met, thus falling under the general scope of the Quranic text, and the testimony was rejected due to a characteristic unrelated to the witnesses' negligence, akin to four witnesses whose character status (trustworthiness or deviance) remains unknown.
Supporting text
The third narration differentiates based on the defect: if the defect is blindness or partial blindness, the witnesses are flogged (Jald), but if they are slaves or open sinners, no Hadd is due. This is the position of Al-Thawri and Ishaq, based on the reasoning that blindness implies certain falsehood because they testify to what they did not see, whereas the status of slaves or sinners allows for potential truthfulness, and their number completes the requirement. Furthermore, the Shafi'i school holds that if the rejection stems from an apparent defect, such as blindness, servitude, or manifest sinfulness, there are two views; however, if the defect is hidden, no Hadd is due because the witnesses could not have been negligent regarding what was hidden from them.