rejects the testimony of an accuser after repentance may say: “I reject the testimony of someone who has received the prescribed punishment for accusing another of illicit intercourse, whereas these people were not punished.” Those holding the former view offer several responses.

First, it is reported in the Sunan collections that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, inflicted the prescribed punishment on those people. Second, this condition is not recognized by the apparent meaning of the Quran, nor do they themselves maintain it, as established in its proper place.

Third, those who made the prescribed punishment a condition did so on the following grounds: “An accuser may be telling the truth or lying. The accused person’s failure to demand the prescribed punishment may therefore be because the accuser is telling the truth. But when the punishment is demanded and the accuser fails to produce four witnesses, his falsehood becomes evident.”

It is well known that the falsehood of those who accused ‘Ā’ishah became more evident than that of anyone else. For Allah Himself declared her innocence through His words, which He sent down from above the seven heavens and which are recited. If their testimony is accepted after their repentance, then the testimony of others who made such accusations against someone other than her is all the more deserving of acceptance.

The incident in which ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb adjudicated among the Emigrants and the Helpers concerning al-Mughīrah also provides evidence for both rulings. Three men testified that he had committed illicit intercourse, while the fourth refrained from testifying, so ‘Umar flogged those three and rejected their testimony. This supports both rulings, just as the incident involving ‘Ā’ishah established that their testimony was accepted after repentance and flogging; for two of the three repented, so ‘Umar accepted