Notes on the hadd for false accusation of adultery.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Now, there are some notes here. First, the author said: “If a person of legal age falsely accuses a chaste person”. We mentioned the term “chaste” (muhṣan) earlier. What did we say? Is it a general term that includes both males and females, or not? Good.
The apparent meaning is that this includes a son falsely accusing his father, in which case he is flogged eighty lashes. If a son falsely accuses his father and says, “You are a fornicator” — may Allah protect us from that — is he flogged with the hadd for false accusation or not? Yes, he is flogged. This is even more heinous. A son falsely accusing his father is extremely heinous. The author’s statement also includes a father falsely accusing his son. If a father falsely accuses his son and says to him, “You are a sodomite, you are a fornicator, you are one who commits such abominations,” is the father flogged or not? The author’s statement indicates he is flogged because he used the general term, saying: “a chaste person”. This is contrary to the madhhab (school of jurisprudence). The madhhab holds that if a father falsely accuses his son, he is not flogged for it, just as if he killed him, he would not be subject to retaliation. It has been established for us that there is scholarly disagreement on the issue of whether a father is killed for killing his son.
The correct view is that the hadd is obligatory for a father falsely accusing his son, whether we say it is a right belonging to Allah or a right belonging to the person. If we say it is a right belonging to Allah, the matter is clear, because a father has no authority over his son in this regard. If we say it is a right belonging to the person, we say that if the son does not agree to waive his right, he has the right to demand it, just as he has the right to demand his father provide for his maintenance. So it is the same. When he has dishonored his son and humiliated him before people, should he be held accountable or not? His statement includes this. It has also been said that one who falsely accuses a Prophet is only subject to the hadd, but this view is weak. The correct view is that one who falsely accuses a Prophet commits disbelief and is killed for disbelief. If he repents, he is killed for the hadd, not for disbelief. The difference between the two types of execution is that if we kill him for disbelief, we do not wash him, shroud him, pray over him, or bury him with the Muslims. If we kill him for the hadd, the matter is the opposite. The apparent meaning is also that if one falsely accuses the mother of a Prophet — may Allah protect us from that — for example, if one says that Maryam, may Allah protect us from that, is a fornicatress, is he killed or not? He is killed. He must be killed, because even if we assume it is not in the category of false accusation, it is in the category of denying the Qur’an, because Allah said of Maryam:[At-Tahrim 66:12] But the discussion here concerns the mother of a Prophet other than Maryam. The correct view is that one who falsely accuses the mother of a Prophet is killed for disbelief, due to the great heinousness of that, as it implies that the Prophets — may Allah protect them from that — are the children of fornicatresses. Good. The apparent meaning of his statement is also that if one falsely accuses the wife of a Prophet, he is flogged eighty lashes, because she falls under the general term: “a chaste person”. Look at the general terms. But there is also disagreement on this, except regarding Aisha. Whoever accuses her of what Allah has cleared her of is a disbeliever, because he is denying the Qur’an. But if he accuses her of something else, or accuses one of the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or any Prophet, the correct view is that he commits disbelief and is killed. The Shaykh al-Islam said: “Because in this there is a degree of insult and humiliation of the Prophet that is not to be taken lightly, and it is greater than the prohibition of marrying his wives after him”. If Allah has forbidden us from marrying the wives of the Messenger after him out of respect for him and to protect his bed, how — may Allah protect us from that — can it be defiled in this way? Is falsely accusing the wives of the Prophets anything but mockery of the Prophets and ridicule of them? For this reason, the correct view is that it does not fall under the author’s statement.
The questioner : ...؟
The Shaykh : With these general terms, do you mean? The apparent meaning is that they are not intended by the author. The apparent meaning is that these general terms are not intended.
The apparent meaning is that this includes a son falsely accusing his father, in which case he is flogged eighty lashes. If a son falsely accuses his father and says, “You are a fornicator” — may Allah protect us from that — is he flogged with the hadd for false accusation or not? Yes, he is flogged. This is even more heinous. A son falsely accusing his father is extremely heinous. The author’s statement also includes a father falsely accusing his son. If a father falsely accuses his son and says to him, “You are a sodomite, you are a fornicator, you are one who commits such abominations,” is the father flogged or not? The author’s statement indicates he is flogged because he used the general term, saying: “a chaste person”. This is contrary to the madhhab (school of jurisprudence). The madhhab holds that if a father falsely accuses his son, he is not flogged for it, just as if he killed him, he would not be subject to retaliation. It has been established for us that there is scholarly disagreement on the issue of whether a father is killed for killing his son.
The correct view is that the hadd is obligatory for a father falsely accusing his son, whether we say it is a right belonging to Allah or a right belonging to the person. If we say it is a right belonging to Allah, the matter is clear, because a father has no authority over his son in this regard. If we say it is a right belonging to the person, we say that if the son does not agree to waive his right, he has the right to demand it, just as he has the right to demand his father provide for his maintenance. So it is the same. When he has dishonored his son and humiliated him before people, should he be held accountable or not? His statement includes this. It has also been said that one who falsely accuses a Prophet is only subject to the hadd, but this view is weak. The correct view is that one who falsely accuses a Prophet commits disbelief and is killed for disbelief. If he repents, he is killed for the hadd, not for disbelief. The difference between the two types of execution is that if we kill him for disbelief, we do not wash him, shroud him, pray over him, or bury him with the Muslims. If we kill him for the hadd, the matter is the opposite. The apparent meaning is also that if one falsely accuses the mother of a Prophet — may Allah protect us from that — for example, if one says that Maryam, may Allah protect us from that, is a fornicatress, is he killed or not? He is killed. He must be killed, because even if we assume it is not in the category of false accusation, it is in the category of denying the Qur’an, because Allah said of Maryam:
who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel
والتي أحصنت فرجها فنفخنا فيه من روحناThe questioner : ...؟
The Shaykh : With these general terms, do you mean? The apparent meaning is that they are not intended by the author. The apparent meaning is that these general terms are not intended.