the prescribed punishment is carried out upon him. There are two views on this. Mālik, most of his companions, and Abū Hanīfa and his companions held that his testimony remains admissible until the prescribed punishment is carried out upon him. Al-Shāfiʿī said that his testimony is inadmissible both before and after the punishment. He said: “His condition is worse before the punishment than after it, for prescribed punishments expiate the sins of those subjected to them. How, then, can his testimony be accepted when he is in the worse of his two conditions?” This is also the position of Ibn al-Mājishūn and Asbagh. The correct position is that of Mālik, for Allah Most High says:

“And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses—lash them with eighty lashes, and never accept their testimony.” [al-Nūr: 4]

Allah only forbade accepting their testimony if they fail to produce four witnesses, and the accuser may produce witnesses until the punishment is carried out upon him. This makes clear that his testimony becomes inadmissible only when the punishment is carried out upon him. Until then, his sinfulness has not been established, since he may produce the witnesses, the accused may pardon him, or the accused may admit to the adultery alleged against him. All of this is clear and presents no difficulty.

The scholars disagreed over accepting the testimony of someone who has accused another of adultery if he repents. Some held that it is admissible; this is the position of Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and their companions. Others held that it is inadmissible; this is the position of Abū Hanīfa and his companions. They argued that, because Allah Most High says, “And never accept their testimony” [al-Nūr: 4], the exception applies only to the declaration of their sinfulness, not to the acceptance of their testimony. This is incorrect, because the reason his testimony was rejected was that he was deemed sinful. Once that judgment is lifted, his testimony must be accepted. The word “never” in the verse means “unless he repents,” just as saying, “A disbeliever’s testimony is never accepted” means “unless he embraces Islam.” This is the strongest argument that can be advanced in support of Mālik, may Allah have mercy on him. It has also been said that Mālik considered the accuser’s testimony admissible if he repented because, in his view, an exception following a series of clauses joined by “and” applies to all of them, rather than only to the last-mentioned clause. This, too, is a sound explanation.

There are two views concerning what constitutes the repentance of someone who has accused another of adultery, such that his testimony becomes admissible. The first is that he must declare his own accusation false, acknowledge that he uttered a slander, and repent to Allah for it.