but instead permitted her to take from his wealth whatever would suffice for herself and her child. (1)

If someone were to ask: What is the evidence that expiation is obligatory upon her? Is not the basic principle that one is free of liability?

The answer is that the evidence is the basic principle that men and women are equal in legal rulings unless there is proof to the contrary. Thus, if a man falsely accuses another man of fornication, he is to be flogged eighty lashes if he does not produce witnesses, even though the verse speaks of women: “As for those who accuse chaste women, then fail to produce four witnesses, flog them with eighty lashes.” [al-Nur: 4]

The woman is not mentioned in the hadith, so it concerns a particular case and cannot be used as evidence either that expiation is not obligatory upon the woman or that it is obligatory upon her. However, analogy entails that she be treated like him. If the act is the same, and it entails the prescribed punishment for fornication in the case of the woman—and the prescribed punishment is an expiation for the fornicator—then it must likewise entail expiation here, just as it is obligatory upon the husband. This is the stronger of the scholarly views. Some scholars say that no expiation is due from her because she was not mentioned in the hadith. Others say that, if she was coerced, her expiation is due from the husband because he was the one who coerced her. But the correct view is that if she was coerced, nothing is due from her.

If someone were to ask: The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that, if the man was the one excused because of ignorance or forgetfulness, expiation is not waived from him?

We reply: Yes, that is the apparent meaning of his statement, “or if the woman was excused.” This implies that if the man himself was excused, expiation would not be waived from him. This is the well-known position of the madhhab.