as in their mutual swearing, like those who differ regarding an oath. The apparent meaning of al-Khiraqi’s statement is that it suffices for the husband to say: "And this child is not my child," and for the woman to say: "And this child is his child." The Qadi said: It is stipulated that he says: "This child is from zina, and he is not from me." This is the school of al-Shafi’i, because he may intend by his saying "he is not from me" to mean in creation and character. It is not sufficient to limit it to his saying "from zina," because he might believe that intercourse in a corrupt marriage is zina, so we confirmed it by mentioning both. Our position is that he has negated the child in the li’an, so it is sufficient, just as if he had mentioned both wordings. What they have mentioned regarding confirmation is an imposition without evidence. The possibility is not negated by adding one of the two wordings to the other, for if he believes that it is from corrupt intercourse and believes that this is zina, it is valid for him to say both wordings together, and he might intend that he does not resemble me in creation and character, or that he is from corrupt intercourse. If he does not mention the child in the li’an, he is not negated from him. If he wishes to negate him, he must repeat the li’an and mention the negation of the child in it.
Section: If he accuses his wife of zina with a specific man, he has accused them both. If he performs li’an with her, the hadd (punishment) for both of them is dropped from him, regardless of whether he mentioned the man in his li’an or did not mention him. If he does not perform li’an, each one of them has the right to demand [the punishment], and whichever of them demands it, the hadd is applied for his sake, and whoever does not demand it, the hadd is not applied for his sake, just as if he accused a man of zina with a specific woman. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and Malik, except that his hadd is not dropped by his li’an with her. Some of our companions said: The accusation is for the wife alone, and no right to demand or the hadd attaches to anyone else, because Hilal ibn Umayya accused his wife with Sharik ibn Sahma, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not apply the hadd for him, nor did he punish him for it.
(4) Omitted from: (A). (5) In (A) and (B), there is an addition: "he is". (6) In the original: "he believed". (7) In (A): "the two wordings". (8) In the original and (A): "and that he". (9) In (B): "he performed li’an with them both". After it, there is an addition: "from him". (10) In (B): "by his li’an with them both".
