the prescribed punishment for slander. The later jurists of Qayrawan disagreed over whether a woman who refuses to undertake mutual imprecation after her husband has done so may subsequently reconsider and undertake it. Some allowed her to do so, arguing that her refusal cannot carry greater weight than her confession to adultery: if she confessed and then retracted her confession, her retraction would be accepted. Others did not allow this because her husband’s right was involved.

The first view is sounder. Consider whether this disagreement also applies to a husband who refuses to undertake mutual imprecation and subsequently wishes to do so. Some have said that it does, but the correct view is that it does not. The distinction between the man and the woman here is that the woman’s refusal is equivalent to her confessing to adultery, and she may retract such a confession. The man’s refusal, however, is equivalent to his confessing to slander, and he may not retract that confession.

The Iraqi jurists maintained that a woman who refuses to undertake mutual imprecation is imprisoned rather than subjected to the prescribed punishment. Likewise, in their view, a husband who refuses is imprisoned rather than subjected to the prescribed punishment. They disregarded the words of Allah, Almighty and Majestic:

“She shall be spared punishment” [al-Nūr: 8].

Someone sought to justify their position by interpreting “punishment” as imprisonment, citing the words of Allah, Almighty and Majestic:

“Except that he be imprisoned or suffer a painful punishment” [Yūsuf: 25].

But he did not understand the passage he cited as evidence, for the punishment Allah Most High mentions in this verse is something other than imprisonment, and its nature is unspecified. She merely said such-and-such. They adjudicate claims on the basis of a refusal to swear, without requiring an oath from the claimant, treating that refusal as equivalent to a confession. Yet, although the husband undertaking mutual imprecation has already sworn oaths affirming his allegation, they do not rule against the woman on the basis of her refusal, even though Allah has revealed what He has revealed concerning her in the Quran. Thus, in adopting this position, they abandoned both the scriptural text and analogy altogether. They maintained, however, that prescribed punishments cannot be established by analogy.

Section

As for the Sunnah, its basis is established in the authentic reports that the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—conducted mutual imprecation between Uwaymir al-Ajlānī and his wife, and also between Hilāl ibn Umayyah al-Wāqiʿī and his wife. As for consensus, Muslims do not disagree that mutual imprecation between spouses is part of our revealed law and that legal consequences attach to it, notwithstanding their disagreements over certain particulars.