And falsely accusing a non-mahram of zina entails a discretionary punishment, and it is a right belonging to the one accused.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The author said "And falsely accusing a non-mahram of zina entails a discretionary punishment". This is the third category of the punishment for the one who falsely accuses.
If one falsely accuses a non-mahram, he is subjected to a discretionary punishment. Discretionary punishment means disciplining, and it has no fixed amount. The scholarly disagreement regarding whether it exceeds ten lashes or not, and the clarification of the correct position in that, will come, if Allah wills. The author said "And it is a right belonging to the one accused". That is, the hadd for false accusation is a right belonging to the one accused, not a right belonging to Allah. Based on this, it is dropped if he forgives. If he forgives after being falsely accused of zina and says, "I forgive you, may Allah forgive you," then it is dropped, because it is his right. Just as if he had dirhams owed to him and he forgave them, they would be dropped from him. It is not enforced without his request. That means, as long as the one accused is silent, we do not say anything to the one who falsely accused, even if it reaches the Imam, the hadd is not established against him. Why? Because it is a right belonging to the one accused. And if it is a right belonging to the one accused, we do not intervene until the owner of the right comes and demands it. Is that clear? Good. Also, it follows from this that if the one accused is the father of the one who falsely accused, the hadd is not established against him, based on the fact that a son has no right against his father except what Allah the Exalted has obligated for him in terms of financial maintenance.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The son falsely accused his father. The reverse? The father falsely accused his son. Yes, correct. If the father falsely accused his son, the hadd is not established against him because it is a right belonging to the son, and a son has no right against his father. Good. And does it follow from this disagreement that it is halved or remains full? Some based it on this and said that it is built upon this disagreement: if it is a right belonging to the one accused, then a slave is subjected to the full hadd, and if it is a right belonging to Allah, then a slave is subjected to half the hadd, like zina. So, what follows from this are four things: First, it is dropped by his forgiveness. Second, it is not established until he demands it. Third, it is not established for a son against his father. Fourth, it is halved because it is a right belonging to the one accused. And the one accused says, "Whoever falsely accused me, I demand my right of eighty lashes." These are four matters that branch out from this.
If we say it is a right belonging to Allah, the rulings are reversed. The rulings are reversed, and the hadd is established against him without a request, and it is not dropped by forgiveness if it reaches the Imam, like the hadd for theft. And it is obligatory for a son against his father because it is a right belonging to Allah. And the fourth is that it is halved like zina because it is a right belonging to Allah. But the strange thing is that this fourth branch is established even according to the opinion that it is a right belonging to the one accused, as is the current madhhab. The madhhab is that it is a right belonging to the one accused, and yet it is halved. And in this, there is some contradiction, because if you make it a right belonging to the one accused, there is no difference between the one who falsely accused being a free person or a slave. And what do people know? So the scholars differed on this issue with two opinions. Abu Hanifa and those who followed him say that it is a right belonging to Allah the Exalted and Majestic. And a group of others say that it is a right belonging to the one accused, and this follows from it, except that the halving, even among those who say it is a right belonging to the one accused, they see that it is halved.
The questioner : Which is the stronger position?
The Shaykh : The stronger opinion is that it is a right belonging to the one accused. What appears to me is that it is a right belonging to the one accused. But the issue of halving is the problem, and although it is the opinion of the majority of the scholars of knowledge, the apparent meaning of the verse is general.
If one falsely accuses a non-mahram, he is subjected to a discretionary punishment. Discretionary punishment means disciplining, and it has no fixed amount. The scholarly disagreement regarding whether it exceeds ten lashes or not, and the clarification of the correct position in that, will come, if Allah wills. The author said "And it is a right belonging to the one accused". That is, the hadd for false accusation is a right belonging to the one accused, not a right belonging to Allah. Based on this, it is dropped if he forgives. If he forgives after being falsely accused of zina and says, "I forgive you, may Allah forgive you," then it is dropped, because it is his right. Just as if he had dirhams owed to him and he forgave them, they would be dropped from him. It is not enforced without his request. That means, as long as the one accused is silent, we do not say anything to the one who falsely accused, even if it reaches the Imam, the hadd is not established against him. Why? Because it is a right belonging to the one accused. And if it is a right belonging to the one accused, we do not intervene until the owner of the right comes and demands it. Is that clear? Good. Also, it follows from this that if the one accused is the father of the one who falsely accused, the hadd is not established against him, based on the fact that a son has no right against his father except what Allah the Exalted has obligated for him in terms of financial maintenance.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The son falsely accused his father. The reverse? The father falsely accused his son. Yes, correct. If the father falsely accused his son, the hadd is not established against him because it is a right belonging to the son, and a son has no right against his father. Good. And does it follow from this disagreement that it is halved or remains full? Some based it on this and said that it is built upon this disagreement: if it is a right belonging to the one accused, then a slave is subjected to the full hadd, and if it is a right belonging to Allah, then a slave is subjected to half the hadd, like zina. So, what follows from this are four things: First, it is dropped by his forgiveness. Second, it is not established until he demands it. Third, it is not established for a son against his father. Fourth, it is halved because it is a right belonging to the one accused. And the one accused says, "Whoever falsely accused me, I demand my right of eighty lashes." These are four matters that branch out from this.
If we say it is a right belonging to Allah, the rulings are reversed. The rulings are reversed, and the hadd is established against him without a request, and it is not dropped by forgiveness if it reaches the Imam, like the hadd for theft. And it is obligatory for a son against his father because it is a right belonging to Allah. And the fourth is that it is halved like zina because it is a right belonging to Allah. But the strange thing is that this fourth branch is established even according to the opinion that it is a right belonging to the one accused, as is the current madhhab. The madhhab is that it is a right belonging to the one accused, and yet it is halved. And in this, there is some contradiction, because if you make it a right belonging to the one accused, there is no difference between the one who falsely accused being a free person or a slave. And what do people know? So the scholars differed on this issue with two opinions. Abu Hanifa and those who followed him say that it is a right belonging to Allah the Exalted and Majestic. And a group of others say that it is a right belonging to the one accused, and this follows from it, except that the halving, even among those who say it is a right belonging to the one accused, they see that it is halved.
The questioner : Which is the stronger position?
The Shaykh : The stronger opinion is that it is a right belonging to the one accused. What appears to me is that it is a right belonging to the one accused. But the issue of halving is the problem, and although it is the opinion of the majority of the scholars of knowledge, the apparent meaning of the verse is general.