another ḥadd. Likewise, whoever steals repeatedly or drinks wine repeatedly is subject to only one ḥadd. If, however, he combines two of these grave offenses—for instance, stealing and fornication, stealing and drinking wine, or fornication and drinking wine—then two ḥadd penalties are due, though Mālik’s transmitted opinions on this point differ. Should someone both slander another with qadhf and drink wine, only one ḥadd is inflicted. The ḥadd for qadhf is not cancelled by qiṣāṣ. When one and the same person becomes liable for the ḥadd of fornication, the ḥadd for wine, and the ḥadd for qadhf, the ḥadd for fornication stands in place of them all.

If a man accuses his wife of adultery with a specific man without formally accusing that man himself, no ḥadd is carried out on the man’s behalf unless he demands it. Whoever confesses to having committed fornication with a named woman is flogged with the ḥadd for qadhf in her favor; if he persists in his confession, the ḥadd for fornication is then enforced upon him.

Mālik expressed two positions regarding whether the slandered person may pardon his slanderer once the case has reached the ruler: at one time he ruled that such a pardon is invalid unless the victim seeks thereby to protect himself, and at another he allowed it under all circumstances. He never diverged, however, in permitting a pardon before the case is referred to the ruler. Likewise, he consistently maintained that a father may pardon his son and a son may pardon his father, whether before or after litigation.

Anyone who harms a Muslim with his tongue—uttering words that disgrace him with the intent to injure—must be given a punishment that is firm and deterrent. For someone of this sort, the crown of his head may be struck with a whip, or his back or head beaten with a staff, in proportion to the speaker’s insolence and the standing of the one insulted.