it is carried out for him, and likewise for all of them. This is the position of 'Urwa, because if they join together to demand it, its fulfillment occurs for all of them. But if one of them demands it individually, its fulfillment is for him alone, so the right of the others does not lapse without their fulfillment or their pardon.

Section: If he slanders a group with separate statements, there is a hadd for each one. This is the position of 'Ata', al-Sha'bi, Qatada, Ibn Abi Layla, Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi'i. Hammad and Malik said: Only one hadd is necessary, because it is a crime that necessitates a hadd, and if it is repeated, one hadd is sufficient, just as if he stole from a group, committed adultery with several women, or drank several types of intoxicants. Our argument is that these are rights of human beings, so they do not overlap, like debts and qisas (retaliation). This is different from the cases they used for analogy, as those are rights of Allah Almighty.

Section: If he says to a man: "O son of the two adulterers," he is a slanderer of both with a single statement. If both are deceased, the right is established for their child, and only one hadd is necessary, according to a single view. If he says: "O adulterer, son of an adulterer," this is slander of both with two statements. If his father is alive, each of them has a hadd. If he is deceased, the apparent view in the school is that no hadd is necessitated by slandering him. If he says: "O adulterer, son of an adulteress," and his mother is alive, each has a hadd; if she is dead, both slanders are against him. If he says: "You committed adultery with so-and-so," it is slander against both with one statement. The same applies if he says: "O you who had intercourse with his mother," and the three narrations are extrapolated for this. And Allah knows best.

Section: If he slanders a man several times without being subjected to a hadd, it is one hadd, by a single narration, regardless of whether he slandered him regarding one act of adultery or several acts. If he slanders him and is subjected to a hadd, then he repeats the slander, you must consider: if he slanders him regarding the same act of adultery for which he was already punished, the hadd is not repeated upon him, according to the opinion of the generality of scholars. It is narrated from Ibn al-Qasim that he necessitated a second hadd, but this contradicts the consensus of the Companions, for when Abu Bakra was subjected to a hadd...