7°«> E V I Dr E N C E- B o o k X X E
“ hundred;” in that cafe each of the above- mentioned teftimonies
would be credited,, becaufe of theft-conformity with the claim.
Evidence to.a Ip two perfons give evidence to a debt of one thoufand dirms, and-'
annulled by a. one of them afterwards declare that the debtor had paid five hundred
declaration dSVfftr oFit, ftill the evidence o f one thoufand dirms being due muft be
o fp a r tr f th e credited, arid that of the five hundred having been paid muft be re-
been d i f -b jedted.— The reafon of this is, that both witnefles agree in the debt of
charged.. one thoufand dirms, whereas me witnefs only attefts the payment of
five, hundred' dirms\ and as two witnefles are,requifite to eftablifh
proof, the teftimony in the firft inftatice is therefore admitted as proof ;
and the additional declaration (of Olie'thoufand Sims having, been
paid) is rejedted.— It is related as an opinion of Aboo Toofqf that iii
this'cafe the claimant is entitled only to five hundred dirms, becaufe
the fum o f the teftimony of the witnefs who attefts the payment of
five hundred dirms is, that the debt in fadt amounts only to Jive
hundred. The above explanation, however, is a full refutation of this
opinion. It is to be obferved that when the witnefs is informed of
any partial difcharge of the debt, (as in the cafe; for inftance, o ffv e
hundred out of the thoufand,) ' he muft not bear . teftimony to the
debt of one thoufand'until the-creditor make an acknowledgment of
the receipt of five hundred’; for otherwife he would be confidei ed as
aiding theinjufticeof the creditor..— In the Jama Sagheer it is related',
that if two perfons atteft a- debt of one thoufand dirms due by Omar to
Zeyd, and one of them afterwards bear teftimony to Omar having paid
five hundred-oFit, and the claimant deny the fame,— in that cafe their
evidence of the debt, in which they both agree, muft be credited;
and the Angle, teftimony of one, with regard to the payment, muft be
rejected..— fahdvee-reports it as an opinion, of our doctors, that the
evidence to the debt is not to-be credited ; (and Ziffer has adopted’this
Opinion;) becaufe the claimant cöntradidïs thé teftimony of the pay,-
ment.— To this, however, it is anfwered, that although the claimant
do contradifE this latter teftimony, yet he dóes not contradict, the
firft
Chap. III. E V I D E N C E . 701
firft evidence, which is eftablifhed in its validity by the concurrence
of two.
I f two perfons bear teftimony that a certain perfón had killed TheCTidence
Zeyd, on the feftival of the facrifice, at Mecca-, and two others bear wh0 agree
teftimony that the faid perfon had killed Zeyd, On the fame day, at to faO and
Koof a-, in fuch cafe, if all thefe witnefles be aflembled at the fame IsSflEjsE'f
time, in the prefetiee of the Kdzee, the whole of their teftimonies- fpeft to place,
muft be rejedted ; becaufe, of the evidence of the two parties', it is j^ed.6
undoubtedly certain that that o î one of them muft be falfie, and there
is no criterion to afcertain to which the preference belongs.— If, on
the contrary,, the evidence of one of thefe parties precede that of thé
other, and the Kdzee in confequence, pafs fentence, and afterward
two others exhibit evidence of a different nature, in that cafe the Kdzee
muft not admit the evidence of the latter, becaufe the firft evidence,
in virtue of the ifliie of the- decree cónfequent upon it,
acquiresÿa fuperiority over thé latter, which prévents . its annulment.
I f two- perfons atteft the theft of a cow,, but differ in regard to the Evidence to
colour of it, their evidence is neverthelefs valid, and the hand of the
thief muft in confequence be cut off.— If, on the contrary, one of the annulled * J by a differwitnefles
declare the animal to be a cow, and the other allege that' it ence beeween
is a bull,' their evidence; in fuch cafe, is not admiffible, and the hand J^iTrefpeft
of the thief muft not be cut off.— This is the doftriueof H a n e c fa .— to the « W ,
Y T . . „ • . . but it is fo by
The two difciples maintain that the thief .is- not tafuffbr mutilation in ' a difference
either cafe. Some have faid that this- difagreement proceeds on the ^'the
fuppofition of the attefted colours being in fbme degree fimilar,- fuch as
red and black, and not where they differ completely, fuch as black and
whitev Others again have laid that it fubftfts in all cafés- where the
witnefles differ with refpeft to the colour.. 'I he reafoning o f the two
difciples is, that the theft of a black cow is different from that of a
•white, cow ;, in other words, they are two diftinft animals;, andhence