as an accusation of adultery. This is the position of Mālik and his companions, contrary to al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Hanīfah, and their companions, who hold that insinuation incurs only disciplinary punishment, not the prescribed punishment. Al-Shāfiʿī’s companions make an exception if the speaker says, “I intended it as an accusation of adultery”; in that case, the prescribed punishment is imposed.
The correct position is that of Mālik—may Allah have mercy on him—for we are bound by meanings, not merely by words. Words may convey an apparent meaning contrary to what is intended. Once the speaker’s meaning and intention are understood, the ruling follows that meaning, not the wording. Allah, Almighty and Majestic, says:
“So worship whatever you wish besides Him.” [al-Zumar: 15]
The wording is outwardly a command, but its intended and understood meaning is a prohibition, the opposite of a command. Thus, what the listener understands from the words takes the place of an explicit statement. This occurs frequently in the Quran and in the Arabic language. Allah, Almighty and Majestic, also says:
“They said, ‘O Shuʿayb, does your prayer command you that we should abandon what our forefathers worshipped, or refrain from doing as we please with our wealth? Indeed, you are surely the forbearing, the rightly guided!’” [Hūd: 87]
They meant, “Indeed, you are surely the fool, the dimwit!” The words outwardly express praise, but what is understood from them is insult and mockery, making them more forceful than an explicit insult. Likewise, an insinuation may be more forceful than an explicit accusation of adultery. For example, two men may exchange insults, and one says to the other, “You son of a woman who does it! You son of a woman who practices it! You son of a chaste woman who has never committed adultery or had anything to do with indecency!” Does anyone doubt or dispute that this is more forceful and more severe than saying, “You son of an adulteress”?
Section
Al-Shāfiʿī argued that insinuating an accusation of adultery does not incur the prescribed punishment, citing the words of Allah, Almighty and Majestic—whose words are true:
“There is no blame upon you for indirectly proposing marriage to women.” [al-Baqarah: 235]
They said: Allah prohibited exchanging promises of marriage during the waiting period, yet permitted indirect allusions to it. This is an unsound argument: it would require him to permit insinuating an accusation of adultery, since Allah permitted indirect allusions to marriage in circumstances in which it is prohibited. This is the argument of someone who has not understood the verse’s meaning. Allah only prohibited exchanging promises. An exchange of promises is a reciprocal act involving two parties; it therefore requires both parties together, or the man and their guardian. This resembles a marriage contract,