due to the doubt regarding it. The second situation: if he is devoid of mental capacity due to madness (18), his accusation has no legal consequence; because the Pen is also lifted from him. If his wife produces a child, his lineage is attributed to him because it is possible, and there is no way to negate it while he is devoid of mental capacity. When he regains his sanity, he has the right to negate the child at that time or acknowledge his paternity. If he claims that he was mentally incapacitated at the time he made the accusation, and she denies that, and one of them has evidence for what they stated, their claim is established. If neither of them has evidence, and there is no known state where his mental incapacity was established, then the statement is hers along with her oath; because the original state and the outward appearance is sound health and integrity. If a state of madness was known for him, and no state of lucidity was known, then the statement is his along with his oath. If a state of madness and a state of lucidity were both known for him, there are two opinions regarding it. One of them is that the statement is hers. The Judge (al-Qadi) said: This is the analogy of the statement of our companions regarding the wrapped body, if someone struck it and then cut it, then claimed it was dead, while the guardian said: It was alive. The second opinion is that the statement is his; because the original state is the acquittal of his liability from the hadd punishment, so it is not incumbent due to doubt, and because the hadd is dropped by ambiguity. This does not resemble the wrapped body; for it was known that the wrapped body was alive, and nothing to the contrary was known, so its parallel in our issue would be if a state of lucidity was known for him and nothing to the contrary was known. In our issue, a state of madness has preceded for him, so it is possible that it has continued until the time of his accusation.

As for if the wife is not legally competent, and the husband accuses her, we look: if she is a child with whom intercourse does not take place, there is no hadd punishment upon her accuser; because it is a statement whose falsehood is certain, and the innocence of her honor from it is clear, so no hadd punishment is incumbent upon it, just as if he said: The people of the world are fornicators. However, he is given a discretionary punishment (ta'zir) for the insult, not for the accusation, and no demand is needed for ta'zir; because it is legislated for his discipline, and the Imam has the authority to implement it if he sees fit. If she is someone with whom intercourse can take place, like a nine-year-old girl, then the hadd punishment is upon him, but neither her guardian nor she has the right to demand it until she reaches puberty. Once she reaches puberty and demands it, she has the right to the hadd punishment, and he has the right to drop it by Li'an. He does not have the right to perform Li'an with her before puberty; because Li'an is intended for dropping the hadd or negating a child, and there is no hadd upon him before she reaches puberty, nor is there a child for him to negate. If she produces a child, her puberty is ruled upon; because pregnancy is one of the signs of puberty, and because it does not happen except from her seminal fluid, which necessitates its discharge, and this is one of the causes of her puberty.