be established by her refusal (nukul), for the hadd is not established by refusal, as it is averted by ambiguities (shubuhat); therefore, it is not established through it. This is because refusal may be due to the intensity of her bashfulness, or a speech impediment, or something else. Thus, it is not permissible to establish the hadd, for which the number of witnesses required in its evidence is double that required in other hadd punishments, and for which it is required that they describe the nature of the act and specify its terminology—all as an exaggeration in negating ambiguities and as a means to dismiss it—by a refusal that is in itself an ambiguity. It is not used to pass judgment in any hadd punishment, nor in penalties, nor in anything other than property rights. Moreover, al-Shafi'i does not hold that judgment can be passed by refusal in anything; how, then, could he pass judgment by it in the most significant of matters, the most distant in terms of establishment, and the fastest in terms of being averted? Furthermore, if she were to confess verbally and then retract, the hadd would not be mandatory upon her; thus, it is all the more appropriate that it should not be mandatory merely by her refusal to take an oath regarding her innocence. Neither is it permissible to pass judgment by both combined, for that which is not judged by an individual oath alone cannot be judged by an oath combined with a refusal, like all other rights. Also, the ambiguity present in each of the two does not vanish by adding one to the other, for the possibility of her refusal—due to the excess of her modesty and her inability to speak the li'an in a gathering of people—is not removed by the husband's li'an. Punishment (al-'adhab) could be imprisonment or otherwise, so it is not specific to the hadd; and even if it is possible that it is the intended meaning, the hadd is not established by mere possibility. What we have mentioned is supported by the statement of 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him: "The hadd is upon one who commits zina while being married (ihsan) if there is evidence, or if there is pregnancy, or confession." He mentioned the requirements for the hadd and did not mention li'an. There is a difference of opinion regarding what is done with her; it has been narrated that she is imprisoned until she performs the li'an or confesses four times. Ahmad said: "If the woman refuses to perform the li'an after the man has performed his li'an, I would force her to do it, but I fear passing a judgment of stoning against her; for if she had confessed verbally and then retracted, I would not stone her, so how could I do so if she refuses the li'an!" The lineage is not nullified except by both of them performing the li'an, because the marital bed (firash) remains established until she performs the li'an, and the child belongs to the marital bed. The Qadi said: "This narration is more correct." This is the view of those who agree with us that there is no hadd upon her; this is due to the saying of Allah the Almighty: {And it shall avert the punishment from her if she bears witness four times}. This indicates that if she does not bear witness, the punishment is not averted from her. The second narration is that she is released; this is the view of Abu Bakr, because the hadd is not mandatory upon her, so she must be released, just as if the evidence were incomplete. As for the marriage, it is not dissolved, and the lineage is not disavowed as long as the li'an between them is not complete, according to the consensus of the scholars, except for al-Shafi'i, for he ruled for separation and the disavowal of the child by the mere li'an of the husband. We have already mentioned that.