Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Qadhf: false accusation of misconduct > Li'an, pardon and special cases
Contents
Updated on 24 September 2026 at 12:48 AM
This section is part of the full chapter: All sections of this chapter.
The jurists differed on one who slanders a group with a single wording: one hadd for them all, or for one of them who demands it, or a hadd for each? The majority of jurists, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is in one view and Hanbalis in the madhhab: a single hadd is due from him for them all, or for whichever of them demands it, whether the wording is single ("O you adulterers") or multiple and separate ("O Zayd, you are an adulterer; O 'Amr, you are an adulterer; O Khalid, you are an adulterer"), among the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis in one view. Proof: the word of Allah the Most High: "Those who accuse chaste women without producing four witnesses: flog them with 80 lashes" (Surah an-Nur 4): the intended meaning is the flogging of each slanderer with 80 lashes, that is: whoever accuses a chaste person, 80 lashes are due from him; this implies that the slanderer of a group of chaste persons is not flogged beyond 80, and whoever imposes on the slanderer of a group more than one hadd contradicts the ruling of the verse. And because the text did not distinguish between slandering one person or a group, nor between single and multiple wordings. And because the hadd is obligatory only for the disgrace brought upon the slandered person by the accusation: a single hadd suffices to expose this slanderer's lie and lift the disgrace, unlike the case where he slanders each one with a separate slander, for his lie in one slander does not entail his lie in another, and the disgrace is not lifted from one of the slandered persons by his being flogged for the other (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama' 3/321-322, Ahkam al-Qur'an 5/113-114, al-'Inaya Sharh al-Hidaya 7/301, al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 5/357, al-Ishraf 4/264, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 2/331, al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya p. 234, ash-Sharh al-Kabir with ad-Dasuqi 6/324-325, al-Ifsah 2/194, al-Mughni 9/88-89, al-Furu' 6/98).
The Hanbalis add: one who slanders a group from whom zina is inconceivable for the totality, such as the people of a large city, incurs no hadd, for no disgrace attaches to the slandered, the slanderer's lie being certain; if he slanders a group whose zina is possible with separate wordings, a hadd is due from him for each; with a single wording, three narrations: first: a single hadd is due from him, for the wording is one, and a single hadd suffices to expose his lie and lift the disgrace of the slander from them all; on this narration, if they all demand it, it is executed for them; if one demands it, it is executed for him, the others having no claim to press; if one of them drops his right, the right of the others does not fall, being established for them on a substitutive basis, like marriage guardianship. Second: a hadd for each, since he slandered him, as if he had slandered him with a separate wording. Third: if they demand it together, one hadd, for the execution counts for all; if they demand it separately, it is executed for each claimant once, the execution for the first claimant counting for him alone, without dropping the right of the rest. "So-and-so committed adultery with you" said to a woman: like the preceding case, for he slandered her and the man with a single wording; it may be that a single hadd suffices, the accusation of both bearing on one zina, removed by a single proof, and a single li'an sufficing if the woman is his wife (al-Ifsah 2/194, al-Mughni 9/88-89, al-Kafi 4/223-224, al-Furu' 6/98, Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/145).
The Shafi'is in the madhhab and the Hanbalis in a narration, as cited earlier: having slandered a group with several wordings, a hadd is due from him for each, likewise with a single wording, for these are rights plainly owed to human beings, which do not merge like debts, and disgrace befalls each of them; "daughter of two adulterers" is qadhf against her two parents, likewise "you are adulterers" (al-Umm 7/153, al-Hawi al-Kabir 11/119-120, Asna al-Matalib 3/379, al-Ifsah 2/194, al-Mughni 9/88-89, al-Kafi 4/223-224).
The jurists agree that the husband who slanders his wife and performs li'an incurs nothing, as cited earlier. They differed on the case where he slanders her without performing li'an: is he flogged with the hadd of qadhf, or imprisoned until he performs li'an?
The Hanafis hold that when the husband slanders his wife, li'an is due from him; the wife may take him before the judge and demand it; if he refuses, he is compelled, and if he still refuses he is imprisoned like one who refuses to discharge a debt, until he performs li'an or retracts; likewise if the wife refuses li'an she is compelled, and if she refuses she is imprisoned until she performs it or confesses zina. Proof: the word of the Most High: "those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the testimony of one of them shall be four testimonies by Allah" (Surah an-Nur 6), that is: let one of them testify four times by Allah: the text made li'an the consequence of slandering wives, and whoever applies the hadd there contradicts the text. The hadd applies only when his lie in the slander is exposed, and refusing li'an does not expose it: he may abstain to preserve himself from the curse and the anger, and the hadd is not applied with doubt, still less with ambiguity. It is also said that permission does not run in the legal penalties: whoever permits the judge to apply the penalty upon himself, the judge may not apply it. As for the verse of qadhf, it is said that the consequence of slander was at first the hadd, for unrelated women and wives alike, then it was abrogated for wives, the consequence of slandering them becoming li'an by the verse of li'an. Proof: the report of Abdallah ibn Mas'ud: "we were sitting in the mosque on the night of Friday; a man of the Ansar came and said: Messenger of Allah, what do you say of a man who finds a man with his wife? If he kills him, you will kill him; if he speaks of it, you will flog him; if he holds his peace, he holds it in anger; then he kept saying: O Allah, disclose; and the verse of li'an came down": his words "if he speaks of it, you will flog him" show that the consequence of slandering the wife was the hadd before the coming down of the verse of li'an, then it was abrogated for wives by the verse of li'an, the later particular abrogating the earlier general to that extent. As for His word: "it shall avert from her the punishment" (Surah an-Nur 8), there is no proof in it: averting the punishment presupposes facing it, not its being due, otherwise it would be a raising, not an averting; besides, the punishment meant may be imprisonment, for imprisonment is called punishment: Allah said in the story of the hoopoe: "I will surely punish him with a severe punishment" (Surah an-Naml 21), interpreted: I will surely imprison him; and punishment (adhab) denotes in language the meaning of prevention. Such is their madhhab: if she refuses li'an she is imprisoned until she performs it or confesses, the punishment averted by li'an being imprisonment (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 3/238-239, al-Hidaya 2/23, al-'Inaya 6/59, al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 4/559).
The majority of jurists, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold that the husband who slanders his wife with zina incurs what the slanderer of an unrelated woman incurs: the hadd of qadhf is due from him if she is chaste, ta'zir if she is not, and he is ruled a defiant sinner if he does not perform li'an. When the hadd or ta'zir is demanded of him, he may remove it by establishing proof of the zina, by li'an, or by the wife's confirmation; if he performs li'an, no hadd upon him; if he brings no proof, she does not confirm him and he does not perform li'an, the hadd of qadhf is applied to him if she is chaste, ta'zir otherwise, by the word of the Most High: "Those who accuse chaste women without producing four witnesses: flog them with 80 lashes" (Surah an-Nur 4), a verse general as to husbands and others; and she is a free, chaste woman whom he slandered without verifying his slander: the hadd must apply for her, the origin being the unrelated woman. The case of husbands was particularized in that their li'an stands in place of the testimony of four others. From Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them): Hilal ibn Umayya slandered his wife before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), concerning her and Sharik ibn Sakhma'a, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to him:
Proof, or the hadd on your back.reported by al-Bukhari 4470
He said: Messenger of Allah, when one of us sees a man upon his wife, is he to go off seeking proof? The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) kept saying: proof, or else the hadd on your back. Hilal said: by Him who sent you with the truth, I am truthful; may Allah send down what clears my back of the hadd. Jibril came down and sent down upon him: "those who accuse their wives", which he read until: "if he is of the truthful" (Surah an-Nur 9). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) went out, sent for her, and Hilal came and testified while the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: Allah knows that one of you two is a liar; which of you two will repent? Then she rose and testified; when she reached the fifth [testimony] they stopped her and said: it binds yourself. Ibn Abbas said: she hesitated and drew back until we thought she would retract, then she said: I will not shame my people for the rest of the day, and she went through. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: look at her: if she bears a child with strongly kohled eyes, full buttocks, full calves, it belongs to Sharik ibn Sakhma'a. She bore such a one, and he said: had it not been for what has already passed of Allah's Book, I would have had a matter with her. The proof [from the report] is his words "proof, or the hadd on your back": he is a slanderer who incurs the hadd if he retracts, so he incurs it also for failure to bring the legal proof, like the stranger.
If he slanders other than a chaste wife of his, such as a scriptuary wife, a slavegirl, a deranged woman or a young girl, ta'zir is due from him, for he brought disgrace upon them by his slander, without the full hadd being owed to them because of their deficiency; no defiant sinfulness nor rejection of testimony attaches to him, for this slander does not carry the hadd. Ibn Qudama reports from the Qadi: he may not remove this ta'zir by li'an, for li'an is either for negating lineage or for averting the hadd, and neither is present here. Al-Shafi'i: he may remove it by li'an, for if he can remove the complete hadd by li'an, he can a fortiori remove what is below it. The Qadi may reply: its being lawful to repel greater harm does not entail its being lawful for lesser; as one who slanders a young girl with whom intercourse is inconceivable: he is disciplined with the ta'zir of abuse, which he may not remove by li'an. But if one of these women has a child he wishes to disavow, he may perform li'an to negate it: the view of the Qadi and al-Shafi'i, and it is the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words for the slavegirl and the scriptuary, whether there is a child or not (al-Mughni 8/48-49).
Refusal of li'an and retraction. Ibn Rushd says: if the husband refuses, the majority say: he is flogged; Abu Hanifa: he is not flogged, he is imprisoned. The majority's argument: the generality of the word of the Most High: "those who accuse chaste women" (Surah an-Nur 4), general as to the stranger and the husband; li'an having been set for the husband in place of witnesses, his refusal places him as one who slandered and had no witnesses: he is flogged; and what is reported from Ibn Umar and others in the story of al-'Ajlani, from his words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
If I kill, I shall be killed; if I speak, I shall be flogged; if I stay silent, I stay silent in anger.reported from Ibn Umar and others, cited in Bidayat al-Mujtahid
The second camp argues: the verse of li'an does not include the obligation of the hadd upon refusal; extending it to the hadd is an addition to the text; an addition is, in their view, abrogation, and abrogation is established neither by analogy nor by isolated reports; and were the hadd due, li'an would not avail him, for li'an is an oath, and the oath does not remove the hadd from the stranger, nor therefore from the husband. The truth is that li'an is a special oath, of special ruling; it is textually established concerning the woman that the oath averts the punishment from her. Because of the ambiguity of the word punishment, they also differed on what is due to her if she refuses: al-Shafi'i, Malik, Ahmad and the majority: she is flogged, stoning if the marriage was consummated and the conditions of marital chastity are met, otherwise flogging; Abu Hanifa: imprisonment is due from her until she performs li'an, his proof being his words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "the blood of a Muslim is lawful only in one of three cases: zina after marital chastity, disbelief after faith, killing a soul without a soul"; and shedding blood for refusal is a ruling the principles reject: if many jurists do not impose financial compensation for refusal, blood is all the more so. In sum, the rule is that blood, in the law, is shed only by equitable proof or confession, and this principle must not be particularized by an ambiguous name; Abu Hanifa is nearer to correctness in this question, if Allah wills. Abu al-Ma'ali [al-Juwayni] acknowledged in his book al-Burhan the strength of Abu Hanifa's position on this question, and he is a Shafi'i. The jurists agree that if he retracts, he is flogged and the child is attached to him if he had disavowed a child (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 2/89-90).
Ibn al-Qayyim says: if the husband refuses li'an after his slander, he is flogged with the hadd of qadhf according to the majority of the scholars of the early and later generations, and it is the view of al-Shafi'i, Malik, Ahmad and their companions; Abu Hanifa differed and said: he is imprisoned until he performs li'an or the wife confesses. This disagreement rests on whether the consequence of the husband's slandering of his wife is the hadd, as with the slander of a stranger, removable by li'an, or whether its consequence is li'an itself: the first is the majority's view, the second Abu Hanifa's. The majority's arguments: the generality of the word of the Most High: "Those who accuse chaste women without producing four witnesses: flog them with 80 lashes" (Surah an-Nur 4); the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to Hilal ibn Umayya: "proof, or the hadd on your back"; and his words: "the punishment of this world is lighter than the punishment of the hereafter", said to Hilal ibn Umayya before he undertook li'an: they would be meaningless if the hadd did not follow from his slander; and it is the slander of a free, chaste woman; and if he performs li'an then retracts after her li'an, the hadd is due from him: his slander is therefore a cause of the hadd, which he may remove by his li'an, for otherwise the hadd would not follow from his retraction. Abu Hanifa says: his slandering of her is a claim requiring one of two things: his li'an or her confession; if he does not perform li'an, he is imprisoned until he does, unless she confesses, which removes the object of the claim; unlike the slander of a stranger, where the slanderer has no right with the woman: he is a pure slanderer. The majority say: his slander is an aggression against her honor, whose consequence is the hadd as with the stranger; and since it contains an aspect of claim against her, for destroying his right and betraying him in it, he may remove what the slander entails as hadd by his li'an; if he does not do so while able and free to, the slander works its effect and entails the hadd alone, with no opponent (Zad al-Ma'ad 5/373-374).
Qadhf combines two aspects: an aspect of Allah's right and an aspect of the person's right; it was instituted to repel disgrace from the slandered person: in that respect it is the person's right; and it was instituted as a deterrent, whence its name of hadd: that is the mark of Allah's right.
The jurists differed over which of the two prevails. The Hanafis and the Hanbalis in one narration: Allah's right prevails in it; if the person claims it then pardons, his pardon is void: though the right is mixed with the person's right, the two aspects conflicting, Allah's right prevails, for it is a penalty of fixed count, with no increase and no decrease, hence a right of Allah like the penalties of zina and theft; and because it is halved with slavery, like zina. It follows: no pardon, and no inheritance of the right (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/57, at-Tajrid of al-Quduri 10/5182, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 5/327, al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 5/355-356, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/52, al-Mubdi' 9/84, al-Insaf 10/200).
The Malikis in the well-known view, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in the madhhab: the person's right prevails in it, for the penalty awaits his claim, and he may go back on it; its origin is retaliation; and by the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Your blood, your property and your honor are sacred among you.authentic hadith, cited earlier
He attached honor to us as he attached blood and property: what stands in return for it belongs to the slandered person as blood and property do. And it is a right attached to the body: established by confession, it does not fall by retraction; it therefore belongs to a human being as retaliation does; none disputes that it is executed only upon the person's claim: it is therefore his right like retaliation. It follows: the person may pardon it after referral to the judge, the right is inherited from the slandered person and belongs to all the heirs (al-Bayan wa-t-Tahsil 16/290, Ahkam al-Qur'an 3/344, al-Bayan 12/417-418, Asna al-Matalib 4/136, al-Mughni 9/79, al-Furu' 4/206, al-Mubdi' 9/84, al-Insaf 10/200, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 6/207).
Imam Ibn Rushd the grandfather says: there is no disagreement that qadhf is the right of the slandered person; the disagreement concerns only whether Allah's right attaches to it, on the three views mentioned. Abd al-Wahhab said in al-Ma'una: it is reported from Malik differing statements on the hadd of qadhf: is it of Allah's rights or of human beings' rights? The benefit of the question: if it is of Allah's rights, no pardon after the matter reaches the imam; if it is of human beings' rights, pardon is permitted. The correct view is that it is of human beings' rights, proof that it is inherited from the slandered person whereas Allah's rights are not inherited, and that it is due only upon the person's claim (al-Bayan wa-t-Tahsil 16/290-291).
Ibn Taymiyya says: this hadd belongs to the slandered person, it is executed only upon his claim, by agreement of the jurists (Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/382). Al-Damiri: it is executed only upon his claim, by agreement (an-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/142).
The jurists differed on the case where the slandered person claims execution of the penalty then pardons the slanderer: does the penalty fall? The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, the view reported from Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis, and reported by Ibn Taymiyya from the majority of the jurists: the penalty falls by the pardon of the slandered person. Proof: what is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Which of you can be like Abu Damdam: he would say, every morning: I have given my honor in charity.weak hadith, reported by Ibn as-Sunni in 'Amal al-Yawm wa-l-Layla 62
Charity with honor is nothing but pardoning what was due; and it is a right executed only after a claim for its execution: it falls by his pardon like retaliation, unlike the other legal penalties, where the claim is not required for execution. And because the person's right prevails in it: it falls by his pardon (an-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/142, Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/455, al-Mughni 9/77, Manar as-Sabil 3/316).
The Hanafis: the hadd of qadhf does not fall from the slanderer by the pardon of the slandered person who claimed it then pardoned him, whether the pardon is for money or not; Allah's right prevails in it: the legal penalties are deterrents, and deterrents are instituted as Allah's right; what is a person's right is, in origin, permitted; whatever punishments are made obligatory as a person's right are so under the name of retaliation, which denotes equivalence, pointing to the meaning of compensation; whatever is made obligatory under the name of hadd is Allah's right, that name pointing to the meaning of deterrence. Proof: in the rights of servants equivalence is required, and the text set it down: "retaliate against them with the like of what they aggressed against you" (Surah al-Baqara 194); yet there is no fitness, in form or meaning, between the attribution of zina and 80 lashes. Another proof: the hadd is instituted to erase the trace of zina, and forbidding the spread of lewdness is Allah's right: this penalty is therefore the counterpart of what is made obligatory for zina itself, each of the two being instituted to maintain covering and erase the trace of zina, marital chastity being considered there for the meaning of favor (Fatawa as-Sughdi 2/640, al-Mabsut 9/109, Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/57, al-Hidaya 2/113, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 5/327, al-Jawhara an-Nayyira 5/356).
From Imam Malik, differing reports. Ibn Abd al-Barr says: Malik's statements differed on the permissibility of the slandered person's pardoning his slanderer before the ruler: once he said: it is not permitted unless he intends covering for himself; another time: it is permitted in every state; and his statements did not differ on the permissibility of pardon before referral to the ruler, in every state; likewise they did not differ that the father's pardon for his son, and the son's for his father, is permitted before and after referral (al-Kafi 557, al-Bayan wa-t-Tahsil 16/290).
Ibn Rushd sums up: as for its falling, they differed on its falling by the pardon of the slandered person: Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri and al-Awza'i: the pardon is not valid, that is, the hadd does not fall. Al-Shafi'i: the pardon is valid, whether the matter reaches the imam or not. Others: if it reaches the imam, pardon is not permitted; if it does not, it is. Malik's statement differed: at times he followed al-Shafi'i's view, at times he said: it is permitted if it has not reached the imam; if it has, it is not, unless the slandered person thereby intends covering for himself, and that is his well-known view. The reason for their disagreement: is it Allah's right, human beings' right, or the right of both? Whoever says Allah's right forbids pardon, as with zina; whoever says human beings' right permits it; whoever says both, and the imam's right prevails once it reaches him, distinguishes between its reaching him or not, by analogy to the transmitted report in theft. The argument of those who see a human beings' right, and it is the apparent: when the slandered person confirms the slanderer in what he slandered him with, the hadd falls from him (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 2/331).
The jurists differed: may compensation be taken in return for dropping and pardoning the hadd of qadhf? The Hanafis, the Malikis in the sound view among them, the Shafi'is in the sounder of two views and the Hanbalis in the madhhab: taking compensation for dropping the hadd of qadhf and pardoning it is not permitted, and the money settled for must be returned. Sahnun and Ashhab among the Malikis, the Shafi'is in one view and the Hanbalis in one possible view: settlement over the hadd of qadhf for property is permitted and the property is established. Detail of the positions:
Among the Hanafis, Imam 'Ala' al-Din al-Samarqandi says: if the slanderer settles with the slandered person for something on condition that he pardon him and not sue him, it is void. Likewise the witness who settles for property on condition of not testifying against him, or the one who intends to testify against the adulterer, the thief or the slanderer and they settle with him for property: the settlement is void, his testimony is rejected in that case and in others until he repents, and the property is recovered from him in all of that (Tuhfat al-Fuqaha 3/256). Ibn Abidin reports from al-Birri, from al-Idah: once the hadd is established, neither dropping nor pardon; hence if he pardons before litigation, or releases, or settles for property, that is void: the settlement money is returned, and he may still demand the hadd after that (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 8/221). Al-Kasani says: the hadd of qadhf, once established by proof, cannot, in our view, be pardoned, released or settled; likewise if the slandered person pardons before litigation or settles for property, that is void: the consideration is returned, and he may demand it after that; according to al-Shafi'i all of that is valid, and it is one of the two narrations from Abu Yusuf (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 7/56). In the book of li'an he says: li'an admits no pardon, release or settlement, for it stands, on the husband's side, in place of the hadd of qadhf, and, on hers, in place of the hadd of zina, and neither admits pardon, release or settlement; likewise if she pardons him before litigation or settles for property, it is not valid: she must return the consideration, and she may demand li'an after that, as in the slander of a stranger (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 3/239; see also al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 4/122 and al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/514). It comes in the Fatawa of Qadikhan: a man slanders a chaste person, man or woman; the slandered person wants the hadd of qadhf, and the slanderer settles with him for named dirhams or something else on condition that he pardon him, and he does: the settlement is not permitted, so that the property is not due, and it drops the hadd; if that was before the matter was raised to the qadi, the hadd is annulled; if after it was raised to him, it is not. Likewise a man committed zina with another man's wife; the husband knew, and one or both of them settled with him for known dirhams or something else on condition of pardon for them: it is void, the property is not due, the pardon is void, whether before or after referral (Fatawa Qadikhan 3/50).
Among the Malikis, they differed. It comes in the Tahdhib al-Mudawwana of Khalaf ibn Abi al-Qasim al-Qayrawani: whoever settles with the one who slandered him for a share or property, it is not permitted and is returned, with no right of preemption (Tahdhib al-Mudawwana 2/305). Al-'Adawi: pardoning the slanderer for property taken by the slandered person as settlement is not permitted, for it is taking property for honor; it is returned, with no preemption if it was over a share (Hashiyat al-'Adawi 'ala Sharh Mukhtasar al-Kharshi 8/90). Ibn Farhun says: case: they differed over settlement concerning qadhf: al-Mudawwana forbade it and Sahnun permitted it; Ashhab: the penalties in which settlement is not permitted are those in which pardon is not, like theft and zina; where pardon is permitted, settlement is; and the hadd of qadhf admits pardon among them (Tabsirat al-Hukkam 2/55).
Among the Shafi'is, Imam Ibn al-Rif'a: if he pardons the hadd of qadhf for property, is the property established? Two views, establishment being attributed to Abu Ishaq (Kifayat an-Nabih Sharh at-Tanbih 17/274). It comes in Nihayat al-Muhtaj of al-Ramli: its falling, that is of the hadd of qadhf, by his pardon even for property, except that the property is not established, that is upon the slanderer (Nihayat al-Muhtaj 7/504). Ibn al-Mulaqqin says: benefit: the heir of the slandered person who pardons the hadd for property: the hadd falls in the more apparent of the two views, and the property is not due in the more apparent of the two views; the saying of al-Hannati in his fatwas, from which I transcribed it (Ajalat al-Muhtaj ila Tawjih al-Minhaj 4/1632).
Among the Hanbalis, Imam Ibn Qudama says: if one settles with the thief, the adulterer and the drinker for property on condition of not referring them to the authority, the settlement is not valid for that, and taking compensation is not permitted; if he settles with him over the hadd of qadhf, the settlement is not valid: if it is Allah's Most High right, it is not for him to take its compensation, it not being a right of his: it resembles the hadd of zina and theft; if it is a right of his, compensation is not permitted, for it is a non-financial right: it does not therefore fall to a substitute, unlike retaliation; and the penalty was instituted to keep honor pure, so it is not permitted to take compensation for one's honor with property (al-Mughni 4/321). Imam Ibn Muflih however mentioned the possibility of taking compensation over the hadd of qadhf, reporting a story: in the council of the vizier Ibn Hubayra the like of it was mentioned; the vizier and the scholars agreed on something, and a Maliki jurist disagreed. The vizier said: are you a donkey? Everyone contradicts you and you persist! Then he said: let him say to me as I said to him: I am but as one of you. The assembly broke into tears, and the Maliki kept saying: I am the one most owed to apologize; the vizier said: retaliation; Yusuf al-Dimashqi the Shafi'i, holder of the teaching post of the Nizamiyya, said: if he refuses retaliation, then ransom; the vizier said: he has the right to it; the man said: your favors upon me are many; the vizier said: there is no escape; the man said: I owe a debt of 100 dinars; the vizier said: let him be given 100 to free his own liability and 100 to free mine. Ibn al-Jawzi reports it in his history, indicating his agreement. Ibn Muflih says: settlement for property can be taken for a human right, like the hadd of qadhf and insult (al-Furu' 6/119).
The people of knowledge agree that whoever slanders Aisha, Mother of the Believers (may Allah be pleased with her), with that from which Allah declared her innocent is a disbeliever, an apostate. Imam al-Buhuti says: whoever slanders Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) with that from which Allah declared her innocent is a disbeliever without disagreement, for he gives the lie to the text of the Book. And whoever insults a wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) other than her, two views: the first: it is like insulting one of the Companions, for lack of a specific text; the second, and it is the correct one: it is like slandering Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), for it casts reproach upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (Kashshaf al-Qina' 6/214-215, 218).
Ibn Taymiyya says: as for one who insults the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Qadi Abu Ya'la said: whoever slanders Aisha with that from which Allah declared her innocent is a disbeliever without disagreement; consensus on this ruling has been reported by more than one, and several imams declared it explicitly. It is reported from Malik: whoever insults Abu Bakr is flogged, and whoever insults Aisha is killed. He was told: why? He said: whoever accused her has contradicted the Quran, for Allah the Most High said: "Allah admonishes you never to return to the like of it, if you are believers" (Surah an-Nur 17). Abu Bakr ibn Ziyad al-Naysaburi reports: I heard al-Qasim ibn Muhammad say to Ismail ibn Ishaq: al-Ma'mun was brought, at al-Raqqa, two men who had insulted, one Fatima and the other Aisha; he ordered the killing of the one who insulted Fatima and left the other. Ismail said: their ruling is none other than that both be killed, for the one who insulted Aisha rejected the Quran. Such was the course of the people of fiqh and knowledge, of the household and others (as-Sarim al-Maslul 3/1050, 1054).
Ibn Kathir says: in the year 241, the caliph al-Mutawakkil ordered the flogging of a man of the notables of Baghdad called 'Isa ibn Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn 'Asim; he was flogged most severely, said to be 1000 lashes, until he died: seventeen men had testified before the qadi of the East side, Abu Hassan al-Ziyadi, that he insulted Abu Bakr, Umar and Aisha.
The whole chapter aims at protecting the honor of others: careless speech about people's honor is treated more strictly than many an act, and the only path open to the husband who asserts without proof remains li'an, before the judge, with all its consequences.