with His saying, the Exalted: "Except for those who repent" (8). An exception from a negation is an affirmation, so its implied meaning is: "Except for those who repent, then accept their testimony, and they are not sinners." If he says (9): "The exception only returns to the sentence immediately preceding it, as evidenced by the fact that it does not return to the lashing." We say: Rather, it also returns to it, because these clauses are conjoined to one another by the "wa" (and), which is for aggregation, making all the clauses like a single sentence. Thus, the exception returns to all of them, except where an impediment prevents it. This is why when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Let no man lead another in prayer (10) in his house, nor sit on his seat of honor without his permission" (11), [the exception returned to both clauses. And because an exception differs from what precedes it, it returned to the clauses conjoined] (12) one to another with the "wa," similar to a condition. For if one says: "His wife is divorced, and his slave (13) is free, if he does not stand up," the condition returns to both of them. So it is with the exception. Moreover, the return of the exception to the rejection of testimony is more appropriate, because the rejection of testimony is the commanded action, so it is the ruling, while the declaration of being a sinner (tafsiq) came as a report and a justification for the rejection of testimony. Thus, returning the exception to the intended ruling is more appropriate than returning it to the justification. Their hadith is weak; it is narrated by al-Hajjaj ibn Artah, who is weak. Ibn Abd al-Barr said: None of those in whose narration there is an authority (hujja) have raised it (as marfu'). It has been narrated through other than his path, and this addition is not mentioned in it, which indicates that it is his mistake. Evidence for his error is the acceptance of the testimony of anyone who has been punished with a hadd for other than slander after his repentance. Then, even if its authenticity were to be assumed, the intent behind it is one who has not repented, based on the evidence that: every person punished with a hadd is a penitent except for this one. As for the second point, our proof regarding it is the verse, for He has ordained three things upon the slandering of chaste women: the requirement of lashing, the rejection of testimony, and being a sinner. Therefore, the rejection of testimony must be established by the occurrence of the slandering which he was unable to substantiate, just like the lashing. And because the slandering is the disobedience and the sin by which he deserves punishment, and by it the disobedience requiring the rejection of testimony is established, whereas the hadd is an expiation and purification, so it is not permissible to condition the rejection of testimony upon it, rather the lashing is