Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/499)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

As for the first scenario in the first category—where she makes this allegation against an upright man whose character is inconsistent with such conduct, without clinging to him—there is no disagreement that the man owes nothing and that she is subject to the prescribed punishment for accusing him of unlawful intercourse, as well as the prescribed punishment for unlawful intercourse if she proves to be pregnant.

If she does not prove to be pregnant, whether she must receive the prescribed punishment for unlawful intercourse is derived from the disagreement concerning someone who admits having intercourse with another man’s slave woman but claims to have bought her from him, or admits having intercourse with a woman but claims to have married her. According to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position, she receives the prescribed punishment unless she retracts her statement. According to Ashhab’s position, she does not receive it; this is also Ibn Habīb’s explicit position in al-Wādiha. The same applies in this scenario when the man’s character is unknown, if her character is likewise unknown or she is not a woman of chaste repute.

If, however, she is a woman of chaste repute and his character is unknown, two positions may be derived concerning whether she must receive the prescribed punishment for accusing him. According to the position that she is not punished for accusing him, he must swear an oath in response to her allegation. If he refuses to swear, she swears instead and is entitled to her dower from him.

As for the second scenario in the first category—where she makes this allegation against an upright man whose character is inconsistent with such conduct, and comes clinging to him and holding him fast, having exposed herself to public disgrace—the prescribed punishment for unlawful intercourse is waived in her case, even if she proves to be pregnant, because of the public disgrace to which she has exposed herself. There is disagreement, however, over whether she receives the prescribed punishment for accusing him. Ibn al-Qāsim held that she does, while Ibn Habīb reported in al-Wādiha that she does not. According to the position that she is punished for accusing him, she has no right to demand an oath from him.

According to the position that she is not punished for accusing him, he must swear an oath denying her allegation. If he refuses to swear, she swears instead and becomes entitled to her dower from him. This applies if she is a woman who is concerned about exposing herself to public disgrace.

فأما الوجه الأول من القسم الأول وهو أن تدعي ذلك على رجل صالح لا يليق به ذلك وهي غير متعلقة به فهذا لا اختلاف أنه لا شيء على الرجل وأنها تحد له حد القذف وحد الزنا إن ظهر بها حمل. وأما إن لم يظهر بها حمل، فيتخرج وجوب حد الزنا عليها على الاختلاف فيمن أقر بوطء أمة رجل وادعى أنه اشتراها منه أو بوطء امرأة وادعى أنه تزوجها فتحد على مذهب ابن القاسم، إلا أن ترجع عن قولها ولا تحد على مذهب أشهب وهو نص قول ابن حبيب في الواضحة، وكذلك المجهول الحال في هذا الوجه إذا كانت هي مجهولة الحال أو لم تكن من أهل الصون. وأما إن كانت من أهل الصون - وكان هو مجهول الحال، فيتخرج وجوب حد القذف عليها له على قولين، ويحلف بدعواها على القول بأنها لا تحد له؛ فإن نكل عن اليمين حلفت هي وكان لها صداقها عليه. وأما الوجه الثاني من القسم الأول وهو أن تدعي ذلك على رجل صالح لا يليق به ذلك وتأتي متعلقة به متشبثة قد بلغت فضيحة نفسها، فهذا الوجه يسقط عنها فيه حد الزنا - وإن ظهر بها حمل لما بلغت من فضيحة نفسها؛ واختلف هل تحد له حد القذف أم لا: فذهب ابن القاسم إلى أنها تحد له حد القذف وحكى ابن حبيب في الواضحة أنها لا تحد له حد القذف ولا يمين لها عليه على القول بأنها تحد له. وأما على القول بأنها لا تحد له فيحلف على تكذيب دعواها، فإن نكل عن اليمين حلفت واستحق عليه صداقها؛ وهذا إذا كانت ممن تبالي بفضيحة نفسها.