Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Qadhf: false accusation of misconduct > The falling of the qadhf hadd
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
Once the hadd of qadhf is established through confession or testimony, it is executed only upon the demand of the slandered person. Its qualification, a right of Allah or a right of the creature, decides everything: does it fall through pardon, is it inherited, can a price be taken for dropping it? And the accused person's confirmation of the accusation makes it fall without dispute.
Qadhf carries two faces: a face of the right of Allah, for it was instituted as a deterrent penalty, and that is what earns it the name of hadd; and a face of the right of the slandered person, for it was instituted to repel disgrace from him. The jurists differed on which face prevails.
The Hanafis, and the Hanbalis in a narration, hold that the right of Allah prevails in it: if the accuser claims the penalty and then pardons, his pardon is void; the number is fixed there, without addition or subtraction; it is cut off by enslavement, like the hadd of zina; it is therefore not pardoned and is not inherited (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 7/57; al-Tajrid of al-Quduri 10/5182; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 5/327; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 5/355, 356; Haashiya Ibn Abidin 4/52; al-Mubdi' 9/84; al-Insaf 10/200).
The Malikis in the famous view, the Shafi'is, and the Hanbalis in the school, hold that the right of the creature prevails in it: the penalty is executed only upon his demand and he may waive it; its origin is the qisas; the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, said: "Your bloods, your wealths and your honours are sacred among you" (an authentic hadith, mentioned previously): he attached honour to us as he attached blood and wealth, so what answers it is owed to the accused person as blood and wealth are. It is a right over the body which, once established by confession, does not fall through retraction, like the qisas; there is no disagreement that it is executed only through the person's demand: it is therefore his right, like the qisas; he may pardon it once the case reaches the judge, it is inherited from the accused person, and it belongs to all the heirs (al-Bayan wa-l-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 al-Nuha 6/207).
Ibn Rushd the grandfather said: there is no disagreement that qadhf is a right of the accused person; the disagreement bears on the existence of a right of Allah in the penalty, according to the three views we mentioned. Abd al-Wahhab said in al-Ma'una: two views were reported from Malik on the hadd of qadhf, a right of Allah or a right of creatures; the benefit of this is that, if it is a right of Allah, pardon is not lawful after it reaches the imam, and if it is a right of creatures, pardon is lawful. The sound view is that it belongs to the creatures, the proof being that it is inherited from the accused person, the rights of Allah not being inherited, and that it is acquired only through the person's demand. This view involves examination, and the sound one is what we retained (al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil 16/290, 291).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: this penalty is the right of the slandered person, it is executed only through his demand, by the jurists' agreement. Al-Damiri said likewise: it is executed only through his demand, by agreement (Majmu' al-Fatawa 28/382; al-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/142). The jurists then differed: if the slandered person demands the execution of the penalty and then pardons, does the penalty fall?
The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis, and this is reported also from Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis and from Ibn Taymiyya on the authority of the majority of jurists, hold that the penalty falls through the slandered person's pardon. Indicator: the hadith of Abu Damdam:
Is one of you unable to be like Abu Damdam? Every morning he would say: I have given my honour as charity.
weak hadith: narrated by Ibn al-Sunni in Amal al-yawm wa-l-layla (62)
The charity of honour is made only by pardoning what is owed to its holder; it is a right executed only upon demand: it therefore falls through pardon, like the qisas, differing in this from the other hudud, whose execution does not depend on a demand. And the strongest view is that it is a right of the servant: it therefore falls through his pardon (al-Najm al-Wahhaj 9/142; Mughni al-Muhtaj 5/455; al-Mughni 9/77; Manar al-Sabil 3/316).
The Hanafis hold instead that the hadd of qadhf does not fall through the pardon of the slandered person who demanded it, whether she received a price or not: the right of Allah prevails. The hudud are deterrents (zawajir), instituted as a right of Allah; what belongs to the servant's right is originally permissible; penalties instituted under the name of qisas signal equality and compensation, those instituted under the name of hadd signal deterrence; in the servants' rights, parity is considered, as in the word of the Most High:
Whoever aggresses against you, aggress against him in the manner he aggressed against you.
Surah al-Baqara 194
and there is no parity, in form or in meaning, between attributing zina and eighty lashes; the hadd was moreover instituted to erase the trace of zina, and the publicity of obscenity belongs to the right of Allah (Fatawa al-Sughdi 2/640; al-Mabsut 9/109; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 7/57; al-Hidaya 2/113; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 5/327; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira 5/356).
As for Malik, two views were reported from him: pardon "is not lawful, unless the person intends to cover himself", and "it is lawful in every case"; his view does not differ on the lawfulness of pardon before the case reaches the ruler, nor on the lawfulness of a father's pardon for his son and a son's for his father before and after litigation (al-Kafi of Ibn Qudama 557; al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil 16/290).
Ibn Rushd said: on the falling of the penalty through the accused person's pardon, Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri and al-Awza'i hold that the pardon is not validated, that is, the penalty does not fall; al-Shafi'i holds that it is validated and the penalty falls, whether the case reached the imam or not; a group holds that if it reached the imam, pardon is no longer lawful, and otherwise it is; Malik said once the view of al-Shafi'i, and another time that pardon is lawful as long as the case has not reached the imam, and that once it has, it is no longer lawful, unless the slandered person intends by it to cover himself: the famous view from him. The cause of their disagreement: is the penalty a right of Allah, a right of creatures, or of both? One who makes it a right of Allah does not permit pardon, as in zina; one who makes it a right of creatures permits it; one who makes them concur, giving precedence to the imam's right once the case has reached him, distinguishes the raised case from the unraised one, by analogy with the report reaching the ruler in theft. The basis of the holders of the creatures' right, the most apparent view, is that the accused person, if he confirms his accuser in what he accused him of, sees the hadd fall from him (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 2/331).
The jurists differed on the hadd of qadhf: is it lawful to take a counterpart for dropping it and pardoning it, or not? The Hanafis, the Malikis in their sound view, the Shafi'is in the sounder of the two views, and the Hanbalis in the school, hold that taking a price for dropping the hadd of qadhf and pardoning it is not lawful, and the wealth received must be returned. Sahnun and Ashhab among the Malikis, the Shafi'is in one view, and the Hanbalis in one possibility, hold that a sulh over the hadd of qadhf for wealth is validated and the wealth is established.
The Hanafis: al-Samarqandi said in Tuhfat al-Fuqaha: one who concludes with the accused person a sulh for wealth on condition that she pardon and not sue him: the sulh is void. Likewise the witness who has himself paid not to testify, or the one against whom one wants to testify of a zina, a theft or a qadhf and who settles for wealth: the sulh is void, his testimony is rejected in that incident and in others until his repentance, and the wealth is taken back from him in all of this. Ibn Abidin reports from al-Izah: once the hadd is established, dropping is not lawful, nor is pardon; a pardon before litigation, a disavowal or a sulh for wealth are therefore void, the price of the sulh is returned, and he may demand the hadd after that; the commentator stated in the chapter of the hadd of qadhf: "no withdrawal after confession, no price for dropping, no sulh, no pardon". Al-Kasani said: the hadd of qadhf, once established by evidence, bears no pardon, disavowal or sulh; and the li'an bears no more pardon, disavowal or sulh, for it stands as the hadd of qadhf for the husband and the hadd of zina for her; if she pardons before litigation or concludes a sulh for wealth, it is not validated, the price is returned, and she may demand the li'an afterwards. The Fatawa Qadikhan: one who accuses a muhsan and then concludes with him a sulh over his wealth on condition that he pardon: the sulh is not lawful and the price is not owed; if it takes place before the case is raised to the judge, the hadd falls; after it is raised, it does not fall; and the pardon is void, before the raising as after; the same applies to a sulh concluded over a man who committed zina with a man's wife (Tuhfat al-Fuqaha 3/256; Haashiya Ibn Abidin 8/221; Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 7/56; 3/238, 239; Fatawa Qadikhan 3/50; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 4/122; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/514).
The Malikis differed: Tahdhib al-Mudawwana says: one who concludes a sulh with his slanderer for a share or wealth: not lawful, the wealth returned, no pre-emption over it, whether the imam is informed or not. Al-'Adawi said: the slanderer's pardon against wealth taken by the accused person is not lawful, for it is a price for honour, and it is returned, with no pre-emption if it bears on a share. Ibn Farhun reports the disagreement: al-Mudawwana forbids it and Sahnun permits it; Ashhab said: the hudud where pardon is not lawful, like theft and zina, admit no sulh, and those where pardon is lawful admit it; and the hadd of qadhf admits pardon per them (Tahdhib al-Mudawwana 2/305; Haashiya al-'Adawi on Sharh Mukhtasar al-Kharshi 8/90; Tabsirat al-Hukkam 2/55).
The Shafi'is: Ibn al-Rif'a said: one who pardons the hadd of qadhf for wealth: is the wealth established? Two views, the establishment being attributed to Abu Ishaq. Nihayat al-Muhtaj says: the hadd of qadhf falls through his pardon, even for wealth, but the wealth is not established. Ibn al-Mulaqqin reports from al-Hannati, in his fatawa, a benefit: the heir of the accused person who pardons the penalty for wealth: the hadd falls per the more apparent of the two views, and the wealth is not owed per the more apparent (Kifayat al-Nabih 17/274; Nihayat al-Muhtaj 7/504; 'Ajalat al-Muhtaj 4/1632).
The Hanbalis: Ibn Qudama said: one who concludes with the thief, the zani or the drinker a sulh for wealth on condition of not bringing him before the ruler: the sulh is not valid and the price is not lawful; and if he concludes a sulh over the hadd of qadhf, the sulh is not valid: if it is a right of Allah, he cannot take its price, it is not his right, like the hadd of zina and theft; and if it is a right for him, the price is not lawful either, for this right is not pecuniary, which is why it is not exchanged for a counterpart, unlike the qisas; and it was instituted to preserve honour, which is not compensated in money. Ibn Muflih mentions a possibility of lawfulness of the price, and reports the story of the vizier Ibn Hubayra: a Maliki jurist opposed the vizier and the assembled scholars, who agreed on a view while he persisted; the vizier rebuked him then asked him to speak like the others, the assembly melted into tears, the jurist kept saying that he was the most worthy of apologizing, the vizier demanded the qisas, and Yusuf al-Dimashqi, the Shafi'i who headed the teaching of the Nizamiyya, said: "if he refuses the qisas, then the fidya"; the vizier decreed that one hundred dinars be given to acquit the jurist's liability and one hundred to acquit his own, a story reported by Ibn al-Jawzi in his history; Ibn Muflih concludes: the price of the sulh may be taken for a human right, like the hadd of qadhf and that of insult (al-Mughni 4/321; al-Furu' 6/119).
In practice: the penalty of qadhf is executed only upon the slandered person's demand; per the majority of schools, it falls through his pardon (the Hanafis bar it after the case reaches the judge, and the famous Maliki view reserves pardon then for the case where the person seeks to cover himself), and the accused person's confirmation makes it fall by agreement; taking a price for dropping the penalty is forbidden per the main current of the four schools, a few isolated voices admitting it without the wealth being established among the Shafi'is; in doubt, dropping the penalty without counterpart remains the safest course.