Muwatta Imam Malik (Riwayat Yahya)

It is narrated from Abu Zanad that Umar bin Abdul Aziz inflicted eighty (80) lashes of the hadd of qadhf on a slave. So I asked Abdullah bin Amir, and he said: I have seen Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), and the caliphs after them, that none of them inflicted more than forty lashes on a slave in the hadd of qadhf.

It is narrated from Hazrat Zuraiq bin Hakeem that a man named Misbah called his son for some work, but he delayed. When he came, Misbah said, "O adulterer!" Zuraiq said: The boy complained to me. When I was about to administer the hadd punishment to his father, the boy said, "If you flog my father, I will confess to adultery." I was astonished to hear this, and it became difficult for me to decide this case, so I wrote to Umar bin Abdul Aziz, who was the governor of Madinah at that time (on behalf of Salman bin Abdul Malik). Umar bin Abdul Aziz replied in writing that the boy's pardon should be accepted (i.e., if the son has pardoned his father from the hadd, the pardon is valid). Zuraiq said: I also wrote to Umar bin Abdul Aziz that if a person accuses another of adultery, or accuses his parents, and the parents have died or one of them has died, then what should be done? Umar bin Abdul Aziz replied in writing that if the person accused of adultery pardons, the pardon is valid, but if he accuses the parents of adultery, then pardoning is not valid if the parents have died or one of them has died; rather, the hadd should be administered to him according to the Book of Allah. However, if the son pardons in order to conceal the condition of his parents, then the pardon is valid.

Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: That is, if he fears that if he does not forgive the one who accuses, then the adultery of the parents will be proven by witnesses, and for this reason he forgives, then the forgiveness is valid.

Hazrat Urwah bin Zubair said that if a person accuses many people of adultery with the same statement (for example, he calls out to those people: O adulterers! or says: You are adulterers), then only one hadd (punishment) will be imposed on him. (That is, only eighty lashes).

Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said that if those people separate, even then only one hadd punishment will be applied.

It is narrated from Hazrat Amrah bint Abdur Rahman that two men exchanged insults during the time of Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). One said to the other: "By Allah! My father was not an adulterer, nor was my mother an adulteress." Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) consulted about this matter. One person said: "What is wrong in this? He has mentioned the virtues of his father and mother." And the people said: "Was this the only virtue of his father and mother? In our view, he should be given the hadd punishment for qadhf." Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) gave him the hadd punishment for qadhf: (80) lashes.

Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: In our view, there is no hadd except in cases of qadhf (false accusation of adultery), or nafiy (denial, meaning to deny lineage, for example, to say, "You are not your father's son"), or in ta'reez (that is, to insult someone through insinuation or indirect reference, as has just been mentioned). In all these cases, the full hadd will be obligatory, but it is necessary that it becomes known that the intention behind the ta'reez was nafiy or qadhf.

Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: In our view, the ruling is that when someone denies another from his own father, the prescribed punishment (hadd) will be obligatory, even if his mother is a slave woman.