So they go to that person, who rules that the prescribed punishment for slander is due: the slanderer is to be flogged eighty lashes if the person slandered is chaste; otherwise, he is to receive a discretionary punishment. His ruling is then enforceable, and the arbitrator himself carries it out, whether in the home of the person slandered or in the home of the slanderer. He cannot, however, carry it out publicly, because that would lead to manipulation and disorder.

His statement, “and mutual imprecation”: its reality is that a man accuses his wife of adultery—may Allah protect us—and says, “She has committed adultery.” This has several possible scenarios:

First: she admits it.

Second: she denies it, and he produces witnesses.

Third: she denies it, and he does not produce witnesses.

Fourth: she remains silent, neither admitting nor denying it.

In the first case, if she admits it, we administer the prescribed punishment for adultery.

In the second case, if she denies it but witnesses are brought, the prescribed punishment is administered to her.

In the third case, if she denies it and he does not bring witnesses, we say to him: either you engage in mutual imprecation, or you are to be given the prescribed punishment for slander—eighty lashes.

In the fourth case, if she remains silent, then according to the stronger view, we administer the prescribed punishment to her, due to Allah’s saying: “But the punishment shall be averted from her if she bears witness by Allah four times …” [al-Nur 24:8]. Another view holds that she is to be imprisoned until she admits, engages in mutual imprecation, or he produces evidence.

In any case, in the third scenario, if a man accuses his wife of adultery