Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and the person falsely accused says: “My honor has been defiled, whether the accuser is free or a slave.”

In my view, the correct position is the second: he is to be given eighty lashes, whether he is free or a slave. The evidence is the general wording of Allah’s saying:

“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses—lash them with eighty lashes.” [al-Nur: 4]

Moreover, there is no reason for halving the punishment in the case of a slave when the ruling relates to someone else. This differs from fornication; thus, the analogy is invalid.

“A person partially emancipated is treated in proportion to his freedom; accusing one who is not legally deemed chaste entails discretionary discipline; and it is a right belonging to the person falsely accused …”

His statement, “A person partially emancipated is treated in proportion to his freedom,” means that if a person is partly free and partly enslaved, he is to be lashed in proportion to the forty lashes. Thus, if half of him is free, then—according to the author’s view—he is given forty lashes as a free person and twenty as a slave, making sixty in total. The difference between the two prescribed punishments is added in proportion to his degree of freedom.

But how can a person be half free and half enslaved? This can occur when a slave is jointly owned by several partners and one of them emancipates his share, while the other partners are poor, as is the emancipating partner. In that case, whatever portion has been emancipated becomes free.

His statement, “Accusing one who is not legally deemed chaste entails discretionary discipline,” refers to the third category of punishment for the false accuser. If he falsely accuses someone who is not legally deemed chaste, he is subject to discretionary discipline. Discretionary discipline means correction, and it has no fixed measure. Later, Allah willing, the disagreement will be discussed as to whether it may exceed ten lashes or not, and which view is correct.

His statement, “And it is a right belonging to the person falsely accused”: “it,” meaning the prescribed punishment for false accusation, “is a right

والمقذوف يقول: إن عرضي تدنس، سواء كان القاذف حراً أو عبداً. فالصحيح عندي القول الثاني أنه يجلد ثمانين جلدة، سواء كان حراً أو عبداً، والدليل عموم قوله تعالى: ﴿وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاءَ فَاجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَانِينَ جَلْدَةً﴾ [النور: ٤]. ولأنه لا معنى لتنصيف العقوبة على العبد، والحكم يتعلق بغيره، بخلاف الزنا، فالقياس إذاً لا يصح. وَالْمُعْتَقُ بَعْضُهُ بِحِسَابِهِ، وَقَذْفُ غَيْرِ الْمُحْصَنِ يُوجِبُ التَّعْزِيرَ، وَهُوَ حَقٌّ لِلْمَقْذُوفِ، ..... قوله: «وَالمُعْتَقُ بَعْضُهُ بِحِسَابِهِ» أي: إذا وُجد إنسان بعضه حر وبعضه رقيق، فإنه يجلد بحسابه من الأربعين، فإذا كان نصفه حراً جُلِدَ ـ على رأي المؤلف ـ أربعين على أنه حر، وعشرين على أنه رقيق، يعني ستين، فيزيد ما بين الحدَّين بنسبة حرِّيَّتِهِ. لكن كيف يتصور أن يكون الإنسان نصفه حراً ونصفه رقيقاً؟ يتصور إذا كان عبدٌ بين شركاء، فَأعَتَقَ أحدُهم نصيبه، وكان الشركاء الآخرون فقراء، وكذلك المعتِق فقيراً، ففي هذه الحال يعتق منه ما عتق. قوله: «وَقَذْفُ غَيْرِ المُحْصَنِ يُوجِبُ التَّعْزِيرَ» هذا هو القسم الثالث من عقوبة القاذف، فإذا قذف غير محصن فإن يعزر، والتعزير بمعنى التأديب، وليس له قدر معين، وسيأتي ـ إن شاء الله ـ الخلاف هل يزاد على عشر جلدات، أو لا يزاد؟ وما هو الصحيح من ذلك؟ قوله: «وَهُوَ حَقٌّ لِلْمَقْذُوفِ» «وهو» ـ أي حد القذف ـ «حق

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies