Another narration is reported from Ahmad, stating that the Imam has the authority to exact retaliation on his behalf. This is the school of Abu Hanifa, because it is one of the two types of retaliation, so it is permissible for the Imam to exact it for the foundling, just as with retaliation in the case of a homicide. Our argument is that it is a retaliation whose exaction is not mandatory, so it is deferred until he speaks, just as if he were an adult who is absent. It differs from retaliation in the case of a homicide, for retaliation in that case does not belong to him but to his heir, and the Imam is the one responsible for it.

Section: If the foundling, after reaching puberty, defames a chaste person, he is to be punished with eighty lashes, because he is a free person. If a defamer defames him and he is chaste, the punishment is upon the defamer, because he is ruled to be free. If the defamer claims that he is a slave and the foundling confirms this, the punishment is dropped due to the admission of the one entitled to it regarding the dropping of the punishment; however, a discretionary punishment (ta'zir) is required for defaming one who is not chaste. If the foundling denies it and says, "I am free," his word is accepted, because he is ruled to be free, and his statement conforms to the apparent state; it is for this reason that we imposed the punishment for a free person upon him if he were the defamer, and we established the right of retaliation for him even if the perpetrator is a free person. It is possible that the word of the defamer is to be accepted, because it is possible that what he said is true, in that he could be the son of a slave woman, which constitutes a doubt (shubha), and punishment is warded off by doubts. This differs from retaliation for him if the perpetrator claims he is a slave, because retaliation is not a fixed punishment (hadd) but rather a right owed to a human being, which is why reconciliation and accepting a substitute for it are permissible, unlike the punishment for defamation. It may be inferred from this that if the foundling is the defamer and claims he is a slave so that the punishment of a slave might be imposed upon him, it is accepted from him for that reason. The first view is more correct, because anyone who is ruled to be free does not have the punishment against his defamer dropped due to the possibility of his servile status, as evidenced by one of unknown lineage. If the punishment were to be dropped for this possibility, it would be dropped even if the defamer did not claim his servile status, because the possibility exists even if he does not claim it.