a free person: half the lashing. Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm lashed a slave who accused a free person eighty [times]. Qabisa and Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz also held this opinion. Perhaps they relied upon the generality of the verse. The correct [view] is the first one, due to the consensus transmitted from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and because it is a hadd that can be divided; therefore, the slave is subject to half of that of the free person, just like the hadd for zina (adultery). This qualifies the generality of the verse. Abu Bakr ibn Amr ibn Hazm was criticized for lashing the slave eighty [times]. Abdullah ibn Amir ibn Rabi'a said: "We never saw anyone before him lash a slave eighty [times]." Said said: "Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad narrated to us, from his father, who said: 'I was present with Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz when he lashed a slave eighty [times]. Those who were present among the people and others among the jurists disapproved of that.' Abdullah ibn Amir ibn Rabi'a then said to me: 'By Allah, I saw Umar ibn al-Khattab, and I never saw anyone lash a slave for a slander more than forty [times].'" When it is established that it is forty, it is [to be administered] with a whip lighter than the one with which a free person is lashed, because when it [the punishment] was lightened in its amount, it was lightened in its whip, just as with the hadd punishments themselves; whenever they are reduced, their lash is lighter. Thus, the lashing for drinking [wine] is lighter than that for qadhf (slander), and for qadhf, it is lighter than for zina. It is possible that the slave is equal to the free person in the whip, because he is [subject to] half, and halving is not achieved except with equality in the whip.

Section: If he accuses his child, even if [the lineage] descends, the hadd is not obligatory upon him, whether the accuser is a man or a woman.