and not a punishment by stoning. Therefore, if we suppose that agency in ẓihār were valid and the husband wished to resume marital relations, it would be the husband who must offer the expiation. Since the expiation pertains to the principal himself, agency in this matter is not valid.

His statement, “and liʿān”: agency is likewise not valid in this matter. It is derived from mutual imprecation, which consists of oaths reinforced by testimonies and arises between a husband and his wife when he accuses her of adultery—may Allah protect us. Thus, if he says that his wife has committed adultery, there are three possible cases:

First: if the wife admits it, he is absolved of the punishment, and the punishment becomes due upon the wife.

Second: if she denies it and he produces evidence, he is absolved of the punishment, and the prescribed punishment becomes due upon the wife.

Third: if she denies it and he cannot find evidence, then liʿān is carried out. The husband testifies four times by Allah that he is indeed telling the truth, and on the fifth time he says: “May Allah’s curse be upon me if I am lying.” If she responds by undertaking liʿān against him, it has its legal consequence; but if she does not respond with liʿān, does the prescribed punishment become established against her or not?

Some scholars hold that if the husband undertakes liʿān and the wife then refuses, the prescribed punishment becomes due upon her.

Others hold that if the husband undertakes liʿān and the wife refuses, she is imprisoned until she either confesses, undertakes liʿān, or dies.

The first view is correct and is the one that must be adopted, because it is equivalent to producing evidence. Allah Most High says:

“And it will avert the punishment from her if she testifies four times by Allah that he is indeed lying.” [al-Nur]

Here, “the punishment” means the prescribed punishment,