And if he interprets it as other than the accusation of adultery, it is accepted. And if he accuses the people of a town or a group from whom adultery is not usually conceivable, he is given a discretionary punishment.

The Shaykh : The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And if he interprets it as other than the accusation of adultery, it is accepted". The pronoun in "if he interprets it" refers to the euphemism. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that it is accepted without an oath, because if he were to be given the choice between an oath and the penalty for refusing to swear, he would not be judged by the refusal. So if he says, "I did not mean adultery; I meant by 'qahbah' an old woman or one with a lot of phlegm," or if he says, "I meant by 'khabithah' one who is bad in her work or defective, or something similar," or if he says, "I meant by 'I exposed your wife' that I made her secret public or revealed her secret, or that I gave her horns, or that I bowed her head, meaning a physical bowing so that I turned her downward," or if he said, "I gave her horns," meaning I gave her horns of hair or something similar to horns, in this case it is accepted. And if it is accepted, then the hadd for the accusation of adultery is not carried out against him, but he is given a discretionary punishment for his ill treatment of the person addressed. This is undoubtedly ill treatment and transgression, but it is not an explicit accusation of adultery nor an intended euphemism, so he is given a discretionary punishment. Then the author said: "And if he accuses the people of a town or a group from whom adultery is not usually conceivable, he is given a discretionary punishment". A man stands at the gate of the village and says, "You are all adulterers, O people of this town." Yes, is the hadd applied? Let us see. Is this a disgrace for him or for them? The predominant view is that it is a disgrace for him, because people do not conceive that they would accuse the people of the village of what he has accused them of. So he has not defiled their honor, and they do not care about it. In fact, if he did this, they would consider him insane and say, "Take him to the asylum." Likewise, if he accuses a group from whom adultery is not usually conceivable. Here, the author qualified it by saying: "from whom adultery is not usually conceivable". For example, if he accuses a hundred men, saying, "You, O assembly, are all adulterers," this does not bring them disgrace, so the hadd for the accusation of adultery is not applied, but he is given a discretionary punishment. However, if adultery or sodomy is usually conceivable from them, then the hadd for the accusation of adultery is applied, because the disgrace attaches to them. Now, what is your opinion if the people of the town are few, such as only three men and their wives, because they had moved away from them, and he accused them? The hadd is applied. Why? Because it is conceivable in this case. So the intended meaning of the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) by "the people of the town" is the people of the town who are numerous, such that the accusation does not bring them disgrace.