According to the other scholars, the mutual imprecation is evidence of his truthfulness. If one who makes an accusation fails to establish proof of his truthfulness, he is not detained; rather, he is subjected to the fixed punishment, just as one who accuses an unrelated woman is subjected to the fixed punishment if he fails to produce evidence.

According to Abu Hanifah, the legal consequence of the mutual imprecation is separation and the disavowal of lineage; neither of these takes effect except through the mutual imprecation of both spouses and the judge’s ruling.

For many scholars, including al-Shafi‘i, separation through mutual imprecation is a dissolution of the marriage. This separation is permanent: even if the husband declares himself to have lied, his retraction is accepted with regard to what is due against him, but not with regard to what is due in his favor. Thus, the fixed punishment becomes binding upon him, and the child’s lineage is attributed to him 36/a; yet the permanent prohibition of remarriage is not lifted.

According to Abu Hanifah, separation through mutual imprecation is a divorce. Thus, if the husband declares himself to have lied, he may remarry her. If he utters only some of the words of the mutual imprecation, no legal ruling attaches to it. According to Abu Hanifah, however, if he utters most of its wording, it takes the place of the whole in bringing about its legal consequences.

Everyone whose oath is valid may undertake the mutual imprecation, whether free or enslaved, Muslim or a dhimmi. This was the view of Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib, Sulayman ibn Yasar, and al-Hasan; and it was also held by Rabi‘ah, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Shafi‘i, and most scholars. Al-Zuhri, al-Awza‘i, and the proponents of legal reasoning said: Mutual imprecation takes place only between two free Muslims who have not previously been subjected to the fixed punishment for slander. If either or both spouses are enslaved, dhimmis, or have previously been punished for slander, then no mutual imprecation takes place between them.

The apparent meaning of the Quran supports those who hold that mutual imprecation may take place between them, for Allah the Exalted says: “And those who accuse their wives,” without distinguishing between the free person, the slave, the person previously punished for slander, and others—as He says: “Those who pronounce zihar upon their wives” (al-Mujadilah, 2). In the ruling on zihar, the free person and the slave are treated alike. Mutual imprecation is valid only before the judge or his deputy.

The mutual imprecation is made more solemn in four ways: through the number of its statements, the place, the time, and its being conducted in the presence of a group of people. The prescribed wording may not be omitted. As for the place, it should be conducted in the most honored location: if it is in Mecca, then between the Corner and the Station; if in Medina, then at the pulpit; and in other lands, then in the congregational mosque at the pulpit. As for the time, it should be after the afternoon prayer. The minimum number of people in attendance is four, and making it more solemn through their presence is recommended. Thus, if the judge conducts the mutual imprecation between them alone, it is [valid] (1). There are two views as to whether making it more solemn through the place and time is obligatory or recommended.

“Were it not for Allah’s bounty upon you and His mercy, and that Allah is Ever-Accepting of repentance, All-Wise (10).”

His saying, “Were it not for Allah’s bounty upon you and His mercy, and that Allah is Ever-Accepting of repentance, All-Wise,” has an omitted apodosis; that is, He would have hastened the punishment upon you. Yet He concealed your wrongdoing and averted the fixed punishment from you through the mutual imprecation. Allah is Ever-Accepting of repentance: He turns in mercy to whoever turns back from sins; and He is All-Wise in the fixed punishments He has prescribed.