his confession or lied. Indeed, these evident indications yield a degree of knowledge that many testimonies and confessions do not.

The prescribed punishment for illicit sexual intercourse is scarcely ever imposed on the basis of witness testimony, and I know of no instance in which it has been imposed on that basis (1). Prescribed punishments (2) are imposed either on the basis of a confession or of pregnancy. Testimony may, however, warrant a punishment short of the prescribed punishment, as when a man and woman are seen unclothed beneath the same covering or in a similar situation (3). Since it was well known among the Companions that the prescribed punishment was imposed on the basis of pregnancy, a woman who gave birth in less than six months would be subjected to it.

Giving birth at six months is extremely rare, and rare occurrences may not come to mind. Umar therefore judged the matter according to what was customary and commonly known among women, just as in the case of the maximum term of pregnancy. It is commonly known that a woman gives birth after nine months, although a few women have been found to give birth after two years, rare cases have been reported after four years, and cases have also been reported after seven years. If a woman gives birth this long after her husband has irrevocably divorced her, is the child’s lineage to be attributed to him? There is a well-known disagreement over this, and it is one of the matters open to independent juristic reasoning. Many scholars set the maximum term of pregnancy according to such rare cases: some set it at two years, others at four (4), and others at seven.

Others say:

“This is a rare occurrence that should not be taken into account. If a man irrevocably divorces a woman and she subsequently gives birth outside the customary period, while it is evident that the child is by another man, the child need not be attributed to him.”