or a woman. This is the view of Ata, al-Hasan, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Malik, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir said: He is subject to the hadd punishment, because of the generality of the verse, and because it is a hadd, so the kinship of birth does not prevent its obligation, like adultery. Our argument is that it is a punishment that becomes obligatory as a right for a human, so it does not become obligatory for a child against a parent, like retaliation (qisas). Or we say: it is a right that is not fulfilled except by demanding its fulfillment, so it resembles retaliation. Also, because the hadd is warded off by doubts, it does not become obligatory for a son against his father, like retaliation. Furthermore, fatherhood is a characteristic that causes the falling of retaliation, so it prevents the hadd, like slavery and disbelief, and this qualifies the generality of the verse. What they mentioned is invalidated by theft, for a father is not subject to amputation for stealing the property of his son. The difference between qadhf and zina is that the hadd of zina is purely a right of Allah Almighty; there is no right of a human in it. The hadd of qadhf is a right of a human, so it is not established for a son against his father, like retaliation. Moreover, if he committed zina with his son's slave girl, no hadd would be obligatory upon him. If this is established, then if he slandered the mother of his son, and she is a stranger to him, and she died before its fulfillment, his son would not have the right to demand the hadd, because that which prevented its establishment initially causes it to fall when it arises, like retaliation. If she had another son from someone else, he would have the right to fulfill it if she died after demanding it, because the hadd is something that one of the heirs can fulfill in its entirety, unlike retaliation. As for slandering other relatives, it necessitates the hadd upon the slanderer according to all of them.

1568- Issue: He said: (If he says to him: "O Lut-ite" (liuti), he is asked what he intended. If he says: "I meant that you are from the people of Lot," then there is nothing against him. If he says: "I meant that you perform the act of the people of Lot," then he is like one who slandered with zina.)

There are two sections in this issue:

The first: Whoever slanders a man with the act of the people of Lot, whether as the active participant or the passive one, then the hadd of qadhf is upon him. This is the view of al-Hasan, al-Shafi'i, al-Nakh'i, al-Zuhri, Malik, Abu Yusuf,