The hudud were carried out on Hassan, Himmah, and Mus'ab, namely the hadd for false accusation of fornication, and they did not know the hadd for the accuser before that. How did that happen, and why was the hadd not carried out on Abdullah ibn Abi ibn Salul?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : As is well known, the hudud were carried out on Hassan, Himmah, and Mus'ab, namely the hadd for false accusation of fornication, and they did not know what the hadd for the accuser was before that. How did that happen? Why was the hadd not carried out on Abdullah ibn Abi ibn Salul?
First, where does the questioner get the idea that they did not know what the hadd for the accuser was before? Is he speaking based on guesswork, or does he have knowledge of this? As for me, to the extent of my knowledge, what is the evidence that they did not know this before?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
Another questioner: ... these Companions
The Shaykh : I understood, but does this context negate the possibility that it was known to the Companions before? That is, one could say that they learned the hadd on this occasion, but does that negate that it was known before? That does not seem to be the case to me. And even if we assume that is the case, it is not a general rule in Islam that one who does not know the ruling on a sin he commits is not deserving of punishment for it. This is not a rule, so this question does not arise!
The questioner : ... we can take an indication from ... which is that they committed the act of false accusation and knew that the hadd for false accusation requires that there be four men ...
The Shaykh : This is like the one who says, "If they had known the hadd for zina was such and such, they would not have committed zina!" That is what is said! Why was the hadd not carried out on Abdullah ibn Abi ibn Salul? Was he openly making the accusation, or was he playing behind the walls?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is a difference between one who is openly and publicly making his false accusation and lie, and one who is the cause, where a man incites another to kill, so the killer is punished and the original instigator escapes, because he did not directly commit the killing. It can be said regarding Ibn Abi Salul that the open, explicit false accusation and lie did not appear from him.
First, where does the questioner get the idea that they did not know what the hadd for the accuser was before? Is he speaking based on guesswork, or does he have knowledge of this? As for me, to the extent of my knowledge, what is the evidence that they did not know this before?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct.
Another questioner: ... these Companions
The Shaykh : I understood, but does this context negate the possibility that it was known to the Companions before? That is, one could say that they learned the hadd on this occasion, but does that negate that it was known before? That does not seem to be the case to me. And even if we assume that is the case, it is not a general rule in Islam that one who does not know the ruling on a sin he commits is not deserving of punishment for it. This is not a rule, so this question does not arise!
The questioner : ... we can take an indication from ... which is that they committed the act of false accusation and knew that the hadd for false accusation requires that there be four men ...
The Shaykh : This is like the one who says, "If they had known the hadd for zina was such and such, they would not have committed zina!" That is what is said! Why was the hadd not carried out on Abdullah ibn Abi ibn Salul? Was he openly making the accusation, or was he playing behind the walls?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : There is a difference between one who is openly and publicly making his false accusation and lie, and one who is the cause, where a man incites another to kill, so the killer is punished and the original instigator escapes, because he did not directly commit the killing. It can be said regarding Ibn Abi Salul that the open, explicit false accusation and lie did not appear from him.