and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and Abu Thawr. Ata, Qatadah, and Abu Hanifah said: There is no hadd upon him, because he slandered with something that does not necessitate the hadd according to them. According to us, it is something that necessitates the hadd, as we have explained previously. Likewise, if he slandered a woman, claiming that she was penetrated in her anus, or slandered a man claiming that he penetrated a woman in her anus, there is a hadd upon him according to us, whereas according to Abu Hanifah, there is no hadd upon him. The basis of the disagreement here is upon the disagreement regarding the obligation of the hadd of zina for one who performs that act, and the discussion on that has already preceded. As for if he slandered him with having sexual relations with an animal, that is based upon the obligation of the hadd for the one who does it; so whoever deems the hadd obligatory upon the one who does it, deems the hadd of qadhf obligatory upon the one who slanders with it, and whoever does not, then no. Everything for which the hadd is not obligatory by its performance, the hadd is not obligatory upon the one who slanders with it, just as if he slandered a person with physical contact without [penetration of] the private part, or with intercourse by mistake, or slandered a woman with lesbianism, or with being forced into intercourse, the hadd would not be obligatory upon the slanderer, because he slandered him with that which does not necessitate the hadd, so it resembles if he slandered him with touching or looking. Likewise, if he said: "O disbeliever, O profligate (fasiq), O thief, O hypocrite, O immoral one (fajir), O malicious one, O one-eyed one, O one with a severed limb, O blind one, O son of the chronically ill blind and lame one," there is no hadd in all of that, because it is slander with that which does not necessitate the hadd, so it did not necessitate the hadd, just as if he said: "O liar, O slanderer." We do not know of any disagreement among the people of knowledge regarding this. However, he is to be disciplined (ta'zir) for insulting people and harming them, so it resembles what if he slandered someone whose slander does not necessitate the hadd.

The second section: That if he says, "I meant that you are from the people of Lot," there is a difference of report from Ahmad. A group reported from him that the hadd is obligatory upon him by his saying, "O Lut-ite," and his explanation that turns the slander into something else is not accepted. This is the choice of Abu Bakr, and al-Zuhri and Malik said something similar. The second report is that there is no hadd upon him, which was transmitted by al-Marrudhi, and al-Hasan and al-Nakh'i said something similar. Al-Hasan said: If he says, "I intended that his religion is the religion of Lot," then there is no hadd upon him. And if he says, "I meant that he performs the act of the people of Lot,"