Is one who heard a person utter a saying or perform an act considered a witness and thus requires another witness, or a claimant and thus requires two witnesses for the Hadd to be established? And is a person's imparting of information to another—such as the Sheikh in this case—without explicitly stating that he is the perpetrator, considered a defilement for which he is condemned and the Hadd is established upon him, especially if the bad neighbor claims the existence of another witness (the Sheikh)? And is the testimony of this Sheikh sufficient to condemn the person and establish the Hadd upon him, or is it incumbent upon the bad neighbor to produce two other witnesses?

The claimant cannot be a witness for himself; rather, he must present lawful evidence with two trustworthy, unimpeachable witnesses, for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Were people to be given according to their claims, some would claim the blood and wealth of others. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, and the oath is on the one who denies." Accusation prevents the acceptance of testimony. It is preferable for the claimant to conceal what he has seen or heard, for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Whoever conceals [the fault of] a Muslim, Allah will conceal his [faults] in this world and the Hereafter." The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, also commanded Hazzal to conceal the matter of Ma'iz, who committed adultery. Furthermore, scholars have mentioned that averting prescribed punishments from Muslims is more preferable, and that it is better for the Imam to err in forgiveness than to err in punishment. Therefore, the judge will not entertain such a claim.