his law. If it were permissible for him (45), it would be permissible for others. He only referred to the Torah to make them aware that the ruling of the Torah is in agreement with what he judges for them, and that they are abandoning their law and contradicting their own ruling. Furthermore, this is an argument for us, for if the ruling of Allah regarding the obligation of stoning is established in their right, it is incumbent upon him to judge them by it, and thus the existence of Ihsan (the state of being a protected spouse) is established among them, for it has no meaning other than the obligation of stoning for those who commit adultery among them after the conditions of Ihsan are met (46). If they deny the establishment of the ruling in their right, why did the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) judge by it? It is not valid to use analogy (Qiyas) based on the Ihsan of Qadhf (false accusation), because a condition for that is chastity (Iffah), which is not a condition here.

Section: If a person in the state of Ihsan apostatizes, his Ihsan is not invalidated. If he accepts Islam after that, he is considered a Muhsan (one in the state of Ihsan). Abu Hanifah, may Allah be pleased with him, said: It is invalidated, because according to him, Islam is a condition for Ihsan. We have already clarified that it is not a condition. Moreover, this is included in the general meaning of his saying, peace be upon him: "...or adultery after Ihsan" (47). And because it is adultery after Ihsan, his punishment is stoning, just like one who did not apostatize. As for if a Dhimmi breaks the covenant and flees to the land of war (Dar al-Harb) after his Ihsan, then he is captured and enslaved, and subsequently emancipated (48), it is possible that his Ihsan is not invalidated, because he committed adultery after his Ihsan, so he resembles one who apostatized. It is also possible that it is invalidated, because it was invalidated by his becoming a slave, so it cannot return except by a new cause, unlike the one who apostatized.

Section: If he commits adultery while he has a wife by whom he has a child, and he says: "I did not have intercourse with her," he is not stoned. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifah said: He is stoned, because the child cannot be produced except from intercourse. Therefore, he has ruled in favor of intercourse out of necessity of the ruling regarding the child. Our argument is that a child is attributed to someone based on the possibility of intercourse, while Ihsan is not established except by the reality of intercourse. Therefore, it does not follow from the establishment of that which is sufficient by possibility, the existence of that for which is considered