a woman forbidden to him, and someone else answered him, and he has intercourse with her thinking she is the one he called, he is subject to the legal punishment, whether the one he called was someone he had a doubt (shubha) regarding, such as a jointly owned slave woman, or not; because he is not excused in this, so it resembles the case where he kills a man thinking him to be his son or his slave, then it turns out to be a stranger.

Section: There is no legal punishment for one who did not know the prohibition of adultery. Umar, Uthman, and Ali said: There is no legal punishment except upon one who knew of it. (23) This is the view of the general body of scholars. If the adulterer claims ignorance of the prohibition, and it is plausible that he might be ignorant of it, such as one who has recently embraced Islam or one who grew up in the desert, it is accepted from him; because it is possible that he is truthful. If he is of those for whom this is not hidden, such as a Muslim raised among Muslims and among the people of knowledge, it is not accepted; because the prohibition of adultery is not hidden from one such as him, so his lie is known. If he claims ignorance of the invalidity of a void marriage, his statement is accepted; because Umar accepted the statement of one claiming ignorance of the prohibition of marriage during the waiting period (idda), and because such a matter is often unknown and hidden from those who are not among the people of knowledge.

Section: If he has intercourse with someone else's slave woman, he is an adulterer, whether it was with her owner's permission or without his permission; because this is something that cannot be made lawful by offering it or permitting it, and he is subject to the legal punishment except in two cases. The first is a father if he has intercourse with the slave woman of his son; he is not subject to legal punishment according to the view of the majority of scholars, including Malik, the people of Medina, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i, and the jurists of the school of opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Abu Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir said: He is subject to the legal punishment, unless consensus prevents it; because it is intercourse in something not owned by him, so it resembles having intercourse with the slave woman of one's father. Our argument is that it is intercourse for which a doubt (shubha) has been established, so a legal punishment is not mandatory for it, just like the intercourse with a jointly owned slave woman. The proof of the establishment of the doubt is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "You and your wealth belong to your father." (24) He attributed the wealth of his son to him and made it for him, so if we do not establish the reality of ownership, then at the very least we should make it a doubt that wards off the legal punishment which is warded off by doubts. Furthermore, the opinion of those who held that the legal punishment is negated in the time of Malik, al-Awza'i, and those who agreed with them was widespread, and no dissenter was known to them, so that constituted consensus. There is no legal punishment upon the slave woman; because