and says, “I saw her committing adultery,” he may engage in mutual imprecation. This was stated by ‘Abd al-Malik and, in my view, explains the position of those who do not permit mutual imprecation on the basis of insinuation.

Section

Mutual imprecation was originally instituted only to disown a child. Thus, in our school, a man may engage in mutual imprecation merely by denying paternity of a pregnancy, without accusing his wife of adultery. Some of al-Shāfi‘ī’s followers disagree, but their position is implausible, since she may have been forced. He may engage in mutual imprecation with her while she is pregnant. It has also been said that he may not do so until she gives birth. This was reported from Mālik and is the position of Ibn al-Mājishūn and the school of Abū Hanīfa. It is refuted by the report:

“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ conducted mutual imprecation between al-‘Ajlānī and his wife and said, ‘If she bears a child with such-and-such features, I can only conclude that he has spoken truthfully about her; but if she bears a child with such-and-such features, I can only conclude that he has lied about her.’”

There is consensus that a man who claims to have witnessed adultery may engage in mutual imprecation out of fear that a child will be attributed to him, provided that she is not visibly pregnant. As for someone who accuses his wife of adultery without claiming to have witnessed it or disowning a pregnancy, the soundest position is that he receives the prescribed punishment and may not engage in mutual imprecation. Those who require mutual imprecation in this case regard its rationale as averting the prescribed punishment from him. Their position also accords with the apparent meaning of the Quranic words, “And those who accuse their wives” [al-Nūr: 6], which mention neither disowning a pregnancy nor witnessing adultery. Yet this argument is not conclusive, because rulings depend on the intended meanings of expressions, not merely their apparent wording.

Section

If he engages in mutual imprecation on the grounds of having witnessed adultery and claims to have ascertained through menstruation that she was not pregnant after their last intercourse, the attribution of paternity is removed by consensus. If, however, he does not claim to have ascertained this, there are three positions as to whether that mutual imprecation removes the attribution of paternity. The first is that mutual imprecation removes it in all circumstances, even if the child is born less than six months later. This is one of Mālik’s two positions in al-Mudawwana. The second is that it never removes the attribution of paternity, even if the child is born more than six months later; the child remains attributed to him. This is the position of ‘Abd al-Malik and Ashhab. The third distinguishes between a child born less than five months later and one born more than five months later. This is Mālik’s second position in al-Mudawwana.

Accordingly, there are three positions on the question as a whole, and two positions concerning each of its two cases: two if she gives birth less than six months later, and two if she gives birth more than six months later. This follows the interpretation of those who understand his statement in al-Mudawwana that he held him bound by paternity